God Save America

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed a motion to intervene with the Federal District Court in New Hampshire today in its continuing efforts to protect the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Representing the Knights of Columbus and three New Hampshire families, The Becket Fund asked for permission to intervene and for the court to dismiss a case brought by Michael Newdow, a Sacramento physician-attorney who finds the words offensive.

“The Constitution doesn’t ban the word God from public discourse, in California or New Hampshire, in the Pledge or anywhere else” said Kevin “Seamus” Hasson, founder and president of the Becket Fund. “Every time we pledge allegiance to one nation under God, we are reminding the government that it must respect everyone’s rights – even Michael Newdow’s – because those rights are not given to us by the government, but by a source higher than the government.”

Dr. Newdow, who has a similar case pending before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, claims that the words “under God” violate the Establishment Clause of First Amendment of the Constitution. He won at the lower court, but the Becket Fund, representing the Knights of Columbus and eleven California school children, have appealed and are awaiting a decision.

In addition to lawsuits in New Hampshire and California, Dr. Newdow is also in the midst of a legal challenge to remove “In God We Trust” from U.S. currency. In 2004, Dr. Newdow sued to have all prayers, invocations and religious language removed from the U.S. Presidential inauguration ceremony. That suit was quickly dismissed.

Dr. Newdow’s latest complaint describes the voluntary recitation of the Pledge as “child neglect (if not child abuse).”

“Dr. Newdow’s theory that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance constitutes child abuse is his most outlandish yet.  If the courts adopted his reasoning, teachers would be in danger of going to jail. The court should reject this and the rest of his unfounded theories about the Pledge,” said Hasson

The Supreme Court has repeatedly used the Pledge as the standard for what is a permissible reference to God in a patriotic exercise.

To arrange an interview with a Becket Fund legal expert, contact Tom Carter , tcarter@becketfund.org  at 202-349-7205 or 202-538-2044

Washington, D.C. - Family Research Council (FRC) President Tony Perkins released the following statement in response to a ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts which found that the Massachusetts legislature violated the state constitution by refusing a vote on a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman:

"The court is hypocritical in this decision. Three years ago, the court created this conflict by imposing same-sex marriage. It's time the people were given a voice now that both the court and the legislature has trampled upon 5000 years of human history and the nation's oldest state constitution.

"In Massachusetts, we have lawmakers who are so under the sway of the homosexual activists that they refuse to carry out their duty under the state constitution. It is not going too far to conclude that the citizens of Massachusetts no longer live in a democracy; rather they live in an oligarchy where their elected representatives flaunt the constitution at will.

"There is only one day left in the legislature's session this year. No legislator in Massachusetts can pretend that they are not constitutionally obligated to vote on this provision - the court's decision made that clear."

Either the Supreme Court is ignorant of Islam or there is a double standard when it comes to religious indoctrination when it is taught in public schools.

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday by evangelical Christian students and their parents who said a Contra Costa County school district engaged in unconstitutional religious indoctrination when it taught students about Islam by having them recite language from prayers.

The court, without comment, left intact a ruling by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco last November in favor of the Byron Union School District in eastern Contra Costa.

The suit challenged the content of a seventh-grade history course at Excelsior Middle School in Byron in the fall of 2001. The teacher, using an instructional guide, told students they would adopt roles as Muslims for three weeks to help them learn what Muslims believe.

She encouraged them to use Muslim names, recited prayers in class, had them memorize and recite a passage from the Quran and made them give up something for a day, such as television or candy, to simulate fasting during the month of Ramadan. The final exam asked students for a critique of elements of Muslim culture. (SFGate.com)

A post in Dhimmi Watch did ask the right questions that the Supreme Court had failed to ask:

What prayers are said? Is the Profession of Faith one of those things that is said? Do little boys and girls say the Shehada, and are then told "now you have done what everyone has to do to become a Muslim"? And if so, is this done under the beaming eye of the teacher? And do the children return home, full of stories about "I recited this prayer and if I want, I can be a Muslim" or "I did just what Muslims do, mom, and it's really neat" or "I really like those prayers, they're just kinda like our prayers so I think the teacher is right, all religions are just the same" or [fill in the seemingly innocent, in reality quite dangerous nonsense]? Those helpless little heads are a captive audience of their teachers, whether those teachers are of the terminally naive variety or the sinister sort. Who suggested this lesson plan? Who's been pushing it?

So  why are they not teaching anything about Christianity or from the bible and give equal attention to the other "religions?"

Battle Rages Over 'Under God' in Pledge of Allegiance
Becket Fund Files Reply Brief as Next Stage in Pledge Battle Begins

WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 /Christian Newswire/ — With children across the country returning to school this month, the legal battle continues to rage over how long they will be able to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance and honor their flag—a 50-year tradition of patriotic expression.

After the Supreme Court stopped the first round of his crusade to have the Pledge declared unconstitutional because it contains the words “under God”, avowed atheist Michael Newdow filed a new lawsuit in Sacramento federal court. And last November, U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence Karlton agreed with him, ruling that teachers in a Sacramento-area public school district could no longer lead schoolchildren in saying the Pledge of Allegiance every morning.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a public interest law firm that represents the Knights of Columbus as well as students and parents in California who want to keep saying the Pledge, will file a reply brief today in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The appeal is Newdow v. Carey, No. 05-17257.

“For more than 50 years the Pledge has included two words that sum up the most basic element of our nation’s political philosophy: we are a free people because our rights come from a source that is higher than the State, and to which the State is ultimately accountable. In short, we are one nation ‘under God,’” said Kevin (Seamus) Hasson, president and founder of The Becket Fund.

"Saying under God in the pledge is like Jefferson saying ‘endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,’ in the Declaration of Independence. And reciting the Declaration of Independence cannot violate the constitution," Hasson said.

The Knights of Columbus first added the words to the Pledge in 1951 and petitioned Congress and President Dwight Eisenhower to add “under God” to the official version of the Pledge. The new version was formally adopted in 1954 and schoolchildren and civic-minded citizens have been reciting it that way ever since.

The Ninth Circuit, which held the Pledge unconstitutional in 2002, is expected to hear arguments sometime in early 2007. After that the case is expected to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Contact:
Jennifer Sheran, cell 404-642-7845, jsheran@becketfund.org;
Tony Tortorici, cell 404-520-8853, ttortorici@becketfund.org

By Abdullah Al Araby
www.IslamReview.com

Islam is more than a religion; It is a comprehensive way of life. The Quran (believed by Muslims to be God's word), and the Hadith (Mohammed's sayings as recorded by Al Bukhari), prescribe numerous regulations governing every aspect of the social, political, economical, as well as religious life. The belief that "Islam is a religion and a state" is an integral part of the Islamic religion.

Let's examine what Islam would do if it ruled America. What would happen to the values and institutions that we hold dear?

First: Liberty

The United States was built on the Bill of Rights, established by the founding fathers who came here to escape religious oppression. The Constitution gives citizens the right to express themselves as they please, to criticize the president if they believe he is wrong, to worship in the way they want and to act in any way they see appropriate as long as they don't violate the rights of others.

What would happen to this freedom in an Islamic state? Would the citizens be granted the right to choose the religion they want, or would they be forced into Islam according to the Quranic verse: "If any one desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him, and in the hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost." (Surah 3:85). How about the right of a Muslim to change his own religion? Would he be given this right or would he be punished according to the apostasy rule which states that such a person should be punished by death? Mohammed said "Whoever changes his religion, kill him." Al Bukhari Vol. 9:57

Do Muslim activists want us to have the same rights granted to the citizens of an Islamic country such as Saudi Arabia, where women are not allowed to drive an automobile and no one can worship openly according to any religion other than Islam? Do they want us to be ruled by a ruler such as Khomeini, who issued an order to murder a writer, Salman Rushdie, just because he dared to criticize Islam ? Even in a moderate Islamic state such as Egypt, Christians have to obtain a presidential decree to be able to build a church. They face discrimination in all aspects of their lives, including education, employment and promotions.

Second: Democracy

Our present system in the USA gives the citizens the right to rule themselves, to write the laws that will govern their lives, to decide the amount of taxes to be collected from them and how it will be spent.

One important principle in this great system is the separation of church and state. Islam, however, is built on an opposing concept, for "Islam is a religion and a state." According to Islam, the Quran is the principal source of legislation: "We have sent down to thee the book in truth, that you might judge men as guided by God." (Surah 4:105). If the Quran is the law, what are some of the rules and regulations that will be imposed? Here are just a few examples:

Prisons in Muslim countries are known to be centers of torture rather than rehabilitation.

Click to read more …

Two versions of the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 continue to languish in Congress. The purpose of the act is to exercise powers granted to Congress by Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution by limiting the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and all jurisdictions of inferior federal courts to hear and decide certain cases. The act deprives federal courts of jurisdiction to adjudicate cases involving “any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State or local government, or against an officer or agent [thereof] … concerning … [the] acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty or government.” 

It also provides that “in interpreting … the Constitution … a [federal] court may not rely upon … [foreign law] … or international organization or agency other than English constitutional and common law.”

Too many times our federal courts have used foreign law as precedent when making their decisions.

Finally, it provides that if a federal judge engages in any activity which exceeds these limitations of jurisdiction or the respective court on which he sits, “it shall be deemed to constitute the commission of  (1) an offense for which the judge may be removed upon impeachment and conviction, and (2) a breach of the standard of good behavior required by Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution.”

H.R. 1070 was introduced in the House of Representatives and referred to the Judiciary Committee. It has 25 cosponsors: Aderholt, Bachus, Bartlett (S.C.), Bishop (Utah), Cannon, Cantor, Davis (Va.), Everett, Foxx, Goode, Hall, Lewis (Ky.), Herger, Jones (N.C.), McCotter, McIntyre, Pence, Pitts, Price (Ga.), Ryun (Kan.), Rogers (Ala.), Souder, Wamp, Weldon (Fla.) and Wilson (S.C.). No action on the bill has been taken by the House since it was referred to committee.

Click to read more …

by Sharon Huges

Invasion of privacy is a subject that, well, makes me upset. How about you? There are certain inalienable rights that are clearly self-evident, and one of those is the right to privacy. Another one is the right of personal property, of which your finances, computer, and mail, including emails, are a part. When manufacturers build something into a product that violates our privacy without telling us, or internet hackers and pirates invade our computer to read our emails or steal our credit card information…it makes me mad! This is a major violation of privacy as all thievery is. If banks want to put all our personal information on a Smart Card they should communicate this clearly and get our permission before they do it. That's what integrity and valuing a person's privacy would do. GM should tell potential buyers everything about the OnStar system, including that it has a passive listening device which can allow their conversations to be heard…but then, how many cars with OnStar would sell if customers understood someone would or could be listening?

I hope everyone made that important call a few months ago to remove your name from telemarketers' lists. The constant phone calls at dinner time and throughout the day are the least of concern. Did you know that after a telemarketer wears you down enough to buy what he is selling, he can directly charge your account without having to get your signature or credit card number. How? Before he called you he conveniently "preacquired" your account number from your bank which, of course, gets some of the profit, to "make it simple" for you. Can this be a problem? Well, let me give you just one example…

In 1999 the Attorney General of Minnesota discovered that in one year's time a certain bank had to cancel 173,543 membership plans, policies, and other purchases which were charged to the accounts of their customers who did not authorize them…such as an 80 year old retired janitor who was charged for a home insurance plan, although he lived in a nursing home; an auto club membership, although he had no car; and a dental plan, even though he had…no teeth! I am not anti-technology! To the contrary. However, when our privacy is violated it is not only a form of invasion, but control. That is not only outrageous! It's absolutely criminal.

Sharon is the President of The Center for Changing Worldviews, and hosts Changing Worldviews TALK Radio which is heard on KDIA AM1640 San Francisco/Vallejo; KGDP AM660 Santa Maria, CA and WITA AM1490 Knoxville, TN, as well as online daily at Oneplace.com. Her column appears on several online news sites including CaliforniaRepublic.org, ChronWatch.com, MichNews.com, NewsBull, NewsWithViews.com, RenewAmerica.us and others. For further information go to http://www.changingworldviews.com/ or comment at http://changingworldviews.blogspot.com/
Contact sharon@changingworldviews.com

Orlando, FL - Early last week, Liberty Counsel filed suit against Osceola County, Florida, on behalf of a church called Men of Destiny Ministries ("Church") to protect the ministry from being shut down by the county and to stop the fines being levied each day the ministry continues to operate.

The Church's primary ministry provides healing and regeneration to men who have chemical additions to drugs and alcohol. The goal of the Church's "Regeneration Program" is to disciple men by introducing them to Jesus Christ and to help them gain freedom from addiction and become productive members of society.

The ministry in question involves fourteen men who live in a 6,300 sq. ft. home. The men work during the day and have Christian meetings in the evening, Monday through Thursday. During these evening meetings, Pastor George Shafter leads the men in prayer, teaches them about Jesus Christ, and instructs them on overcoming drug dependency. The meetings also serve to support the men and provide accountability.

On April 10, 2006, the Board of County Commissioners voted to shut down the ministry. The men can continue to live in the home, but the Christian-based drug regeneration program and teaching must stop. In other words, these men can play cards, discuss the events of the day, debate politics or watch football, but Pastor Shafter cannot lead them in prayer, nor may he encourage and support them to overcome their chemical addictions.

Mathew D. Staver, President and General Counsel of Liberty Counsel, stated, "It makes no sense to say men can live in a home and play cards, talk about the events of the day or debate politics, but cannot pray, talk about Jesus or encourage one another to remain drug-free. Osceola County has violated numerous constitutional and federally protected rights. We should encourage this church and these men who want to live productive lives in the community, rather than penalizing them with unconscionable fines."

Cities have legal right to recognize, participate in May 4 event

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. — Cities wishing to honor America’s Christian history on the National Day of Prayer have been advised by the Alliance Defense Fund that they have the legal right to officially observe the day.  ADF attorneys are available for comment to the media and will consider representing any municipality threatened for recognizing the May 4 event, which gained federal recognition more than 50 years ago.

“Four generations of U.S. Presidents have recognized the importance of a National Day of Prayer,” said ADF Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb.  “Millions of Americans will join in prayer on May 4, and not one of them should be concerned about any misguided legal backlash.”

ADF has mailed an informational letter to nearly 1,200 of America’s largest cities, advising officials of their legal right to recognize and participate in the National Day of Prayer and offering free legal representation in the event of a lawsuit (www.telladf.org/UserDocs/NDPLetter.pdf).  A separate letter was sent to National Day of Prayer state regional directors informing them that ADF attorneys are prepared to assist them in any legal challenges as well.

A national day of prayer was unofficially established more than 200 years ago by President George Washington, who in 1789 issued a proclamation setting aside Feb. 19 as a time of public thanksgiving and prayer. President Abraham Lincoln followed suit with his own resolution in 1863.  President Harry S. Truman established a national day of prayer via a joint resolution with Congress in 1952. Thirty-six years later, President Ronald Reagan amended and signed a law permanently designating the first Thursday in May as the National Day of Prayer.

Click to read more …

(Washington, DC) – The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), specializing in constitutional law, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in federal court in Sacramento, California on behalf of 47 members of Congress in support of the federal government’s request to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of our national motto, “In God We Trust.”

“We believe the court should dismiss this lawsuit which has no basis in fact and represents another flawed attempt to use the legal system to remove a legitimate reference to the religious heritage of our nation,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ.  “The nation’s history is replete with examples of acknowledgment of religious belief in the public sector.  And the Supreme Court has repeatedly referenced the national motto as a legitimate expression of our religious heritage.  It’s clear that the national motto is not only permissible, but constitutional as well and we’re hopeful that the federal district court will dismiss this frivolous lawsuit.”

Click to read more …