Military Insignia No Longer Allowed on Bibles

The publishing arm of the Southern Baptist Convention recently stated that U.S. military insignia is no longer allowed on the Soldier's Bible, Sailor's Bible, Marine's Bible and Airman's Bible. Permission to use the military emblems on the Bibles was granted by the Department of Defense in 2003, but it was withdrawn last year after the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) threatened to sue the government for what they say amounted to governmental endorsement of a specific religion.  Now, a generic symbol is printed on the Bibles.

Once again, it seems that the concept of “separation of church and state” has been misconstrued and used to scare our government into more political-correctness.  

Col. Ron Crews, executive director of The Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, made the following statement:

“From General George Washington until today, military personnel have taken counsel, received comfort, and been encouraged by biblical texts.  These Bibles cost the Department of Defense nothing, and their presence is legally legitimate; therefore, no reason exists for the DoD to retreat in the face of the small anti-religious group that demanded removal of the Bibles.”

Senate Votes on Pro-Abortion Appointment

On June 11, the Senate voted to end the filibuster concerning the appointment of David Hurwitz, whom President Obama has recommended to fill a vacancy at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, CA. Much controversy surrounds this appointment.  Why?  In 2002, Hurwitz wrote a law review article in which he says he helped create the legal framework for the Roe v. Wade decision – which legalized abortion – and says he still admires it.  Over 50 million abortions have been performed in our nation since the decision of that divisive case.

Is it right for someone with such strong opinions of a very controversial and still legally-battled issue to be deciding the legality surrounding that matter?  The biggest concern for opponents to his appointment is that he will let his personal feelings and history on the matter influence his judicial decisions.The President of the Judicial Action Group, Phillip L. Jauregui, sent a letter urging Republican Senators not to support this nomination.  He said:"Senators who consider themselves ‘pro-life’ simply cannot, in good conscience, vote for Andrew Hurwitz. It is rare for a nominee to have taken a position on abortion, and perhaps unprecedented for a nominee to have participated in the creation of the “rationale” of Roe v. Wade that usurped legislative authority by purporting to write “abortion” into the text of the constitution.  A judge like Hurwitz who played such a clear role in one of the most significant exercises of judicial activism in our nation’s history must not be confirmed."  (emphasis added)

Despite these impassioned pleas, the Senate voted to end the discussion and confirm Mr. Hurwitz to the Ninth Circuit, with a vote of 60-31.ACTION POINT

Please pray for future cases that go before the Ninth Circuit.  We have been before this Court many times and know how difficult it already is to receive a conservative judgment.  With this additional appointment to the Court, our work may be even harder.

"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.”  

National Day of Prayer ~ Thursday, May 3

On Thursday, May 3, people across the country will join together in prayer to lift up the well being of our nation, our leaders, our armed forces, and our future.

Since the establishment of the United States, our nation has succeeded because of the faith and prayers of its founding fathers, leaders, and people.  In 1775, when we were on the brink of birth as a nation, the Continental Congress asked the colonies to pray for wisdom in creating this new country.  Ever since that time, prayer has been an integral part of our foundation and progress:

  • In 1863, President Abraham Lincoln called for a day of “humiliation, fasting, and prayer.”
  • In 1952, President Harry Truman made the National Day of Prayer official, signing its annual observance into law.
  • In 1988, President Ronald Reagan designated that the first Thursday of every May would be the formal nationwide observance of the National Day of Prayer.

As the years progress and we see more and more of our inherent religious liberties seemingly slipping away from us, it is encouraging to know that our nation still gathers one day a year to ask for help and guidance from beyond ourselves – by the power and grace that can only come from God.  It is a day to recall the faith that drove the founding fathers to develop our country upon strong principles and to continue asking for God’s help in the development and perseverance of our nation.

Several organizations will be holding events next Thursday, and we encourage you to take part in them if you can.  You can find an event near you on the National Day of Prayer website:http://nationaldayofprayer.org/about/find-an-event/.

Also, consider taking a moment during the day to spend in prayer with your family.  Lift up our nation and our leaders, asking for God’s guidance and provision for the future of America.

How Will Obamacare Fare?

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court heard three days of oral arguments regarding the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as Obamacare.  So, what did they discuss…and what comes next?The question at the heart of this hearing was: Does the government have the power to force every American to buy health insurance?  This is also known as the individual mandate issue.  Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is a conservative but has historically been known to swing his vote to the more liberal end, appeared concerned about the individual mandate, saying that it carries a “heavy burden of justification” under the Constitution.

The hearing also considered the question of how much of the law should remain if the Court decides against the individual mandate.  Essentially, the Court may decide to strike down the whole Obamacare law, or they could strike down only one part of it – the individual mandate.  On this issue, Justice Anthony Kennedy stated:

“We would be exercising the judicial power if one act was — one provision was stricken and the others remained to impose a risk on insurance companies that Congress had never intended.”

Justice Scalia summed his opinion up tightly: “My approach would say if you take the heart out of the statute, the statute’s gone.” [emphasis added]

Another question that arose during these hearings surrounded the idea of the Medicaid expansion included in the law, which would give states more federal Medicaid funding if they agree to enroll more of the poor.  If the states refuse, they have to pull out of the program altogether, which is really not an option, many states say – the Medicaid program has grown so large that it would be impossible to run it without any federal funding.  This begs the question: Does this violate limits already set by the Supreme Court, which state that the federal government cannot impose conditions “so coercive as to pass the point at which pressure turns into compulsion”?

Though both sides of this health care reform argument have tried to surmise the outcome of the hearings, Justice Antonin Scalia voiced his concern about the ruling, remarking, “I find it hard to think that this is clear.  Whatever else it is, it’s easy to think that it’s not clear.”

The Solicitor General defending Obamacare, Donald Verrilli Jr., appealed to the Court to essentially leave the decision to Congress and the people of America:

“The Congress struggled with the issue of how to deal with this profound problem of 40 million people without health care for many years, and it made a judgment. Maybe they were right, maybe they weren’t, but this is something about which the people of the United States can deliberate and they can vote, and if they think it needs to be changed, they can change it.”

Also, this week President Obama issued something sounding an awful lot like a warning against striking down the health care law, saying:

“I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.  And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint -- that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.  Well, this is a good example.  And I’m pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step.”

Although the decision is most likely already made, we will not hear the high court’s conclusion for about another three months, as they write up their decision on the constitutionality of Obamacare.

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.

Two Christians Prosecuted for Reading the Bible in Public

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE  Two Christians Prosecuted for Reading the Bible in Public

Murrieta, CA.  Yesterday, 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.

Contact:  Lori Sanada  (951) 304-7583 weekdays, (951) 500-7854 weekends and evenings

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.