Billboards like these are popping up all over the U.S., representing the campaign of the American Humanist Association.

The American Humanist Association (AHA) has unveiled a new series of billboards that replace the word “God” in the national motto, inscribed on the surface of a U.S. quarter, with the word “Good,” according to their official web site. The revised phrase now reads “In Good We Trust.” The first billboards, which also feature the AHA’s official web address, went up last week in Moscow, Idaho.

Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the AHA, said, “The billboard nicely sums up the two main messages of the American Humanist Association. First, that you don’t have to believe in God to be good—in fact, humanists and other nontheists see being good as one of the most important responsibilities in our one and only life.”

He also added, “Second, that church and state should remain separate for the benefit of us all.”

In Speckhardt’s opinion, the motto “In God We Trust” violates the First Amendment. Last month, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit maintained that references to God on national currency and in the Pledge of Allegiance are completely constitutional.

Prominent atheist and attorney Michael A. Newdow, who argued that the references to God be removed, was defeated by the court’s 3-0 vote.

The American Center for Law and Justice could not have been more thrilled with the outcome, saying, “We’re delighted to see the appeals court reach [this] conclusion with both the National Motto and the Pledge.”

The ACLJ also added, “The fact is that it always has been our position that while the First Amendment affords atheists complete freedom to disbelieve, it does not compel the federal judiciary to redact religious references in every area of public life in order to suit atheistic sensibilities.”

Historically, the motto “In God We Trust” was “placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War,” according to the U.S Department of the Treasury. After receiving a letter from one Rev. M.R. Watkinson, which pleaded for a national “recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins,” Former Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase wrote his own letter to a Mr. James Pollock.

Pollock, you see, was the Director of the Mint at Philadelphia. In the letter, dated November 20, 1861, Secretary Chase asked him to prepare a national motto and said:

“Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins. You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing in the fewest and tersest words possible this national recognition.”

Congress approved the motto “In God We Trust” with the passing of several acts and in 1864, the phrase appeared for the first time on the two-cent coin.

Current American Humanist Association president David Niose disagrees with the beginnings of the national motto and has his own ideas about what phrase would better represent America.

“The adoption of the ‘In God We Trust’ motto came at the height of the Cold War and McCarthyism in the 1950s, and it is unfortunate that we still cling to such religious rhetoric today,” he says. “E pluribus unum, the Latin phrase for ‘out of many, one,’ would be a much more appropriate motto. It reflects the true character of American society and government.”

The AHA currently has four other billboards in the Moscow area, which read “Don’t Believe in God? You Are Not Alone,” “Want a Better World? Prayer Not Required,” “Millions are Good Without God” and “No God? No Problem!”

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

In November 2009, city officials in Gilbert, Arizona sent a “cease and desist” order to a pastor and his wife holding small group Bible studies in their home.

After seeing neighborhood signs for the Bible study, a city official reported the event to authorities.

According to a Gilbert city law, assemblies of religious groups and private schools are not allowed in private homes.

Reasons such as the city’s Land Development Code, zoning, building and parking codes are being cited.

The Bible study group, led by Pastor Joe Sutherland from Oasis of Truth Church, consists of seven people. The Church holds Sunday services at a school.

This month, attorneys from the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) filed an appeal on behalf of the church group.

According to World Net Daily, spokespeople from ADF said Gilbert’s law does not prevent Cub Scouts meetings, large group football parties or business events from being held on a regular basis in private homes.

KTAR.com news radio in Phoenix carried a statement from Senior ADF legal counsel Douglas Napier. Napier said that the group was not cited for any violation of ordinances. There were no neighborhood complaints and no traffic violations.

Litigation Counsel Daniel Blomberg writes in an ADF Press Release: “Christian church groups shouldn’t be singled out for discrimination and banned from meeting in their own homes.”

Attorneys from ADF will appeal by using the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment Free Exercise and Freedom of Speech clause, alongside Arizona’s own Free Exercise of Religion Act. They will argue that the town’s zoning code doesn’t authorize banning in-home church gatherings while other groups are approved.

Both World Net Daily and KTAR report that in responses from the city, the town council does find the ordinance troubling and has scheduled it for review at a council meeting.

Updates:
The Oasis of Truth Church Web site now states that the City of Gilbert’s Mayor and City Manager recently attended a Sunday service, apologized and hope to revise the code  soon.

However, the newest World Net Daily report said the city continues to hand out warnings even though changes are in the works.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

On Jan. 21, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution’s First Amendment freedom of speech does not prohibit corporations from spending money to promote certain candidates close to election cycles.

The Court was narrowly split with a five to four decision. Citizens United v. FCC has been called a free speech victory by some but a defeat by others.

At the state level, the ruling overturns limits on corporate election spending in dozens of states.

In the federal arena, it negates about sixty years’ worth of previous laws limiting corporate campaign money, especially the most recent Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Act).

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) prohibits corporations and organizations from sponsoring advertisement for a particular candidate within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.

It’s been debated since its inception whether this Act, prohibiting “issue advocacy ads” or “election communications broadcasts,” is unconstitutional, in that it stifles the free speech of collective groups around elections when it is most important to keep citizens informed.

Although not specifically stated in BCRA, the wording also limited paid election free speech from unions, general marketplace organizations, religious and grassroots organizations, even those with non-profit 501 (c) 3 status.

Concern about losing this type of freedom of speech came from members of Congress and organizations running the spectrum from conservative pro-life groups to liberal green environmental groups.

Organizations like Concerned Women for America (CWA) see the latest Supreme Court decision as an overall victory for religious free speech.

In a media release , CWA’s CEO Penny Nance wrote:
“The Court correctly concluded that judges should stop playing semantics with our Constitution and read the text as it is written. The government should not be limiting political speech because someone is rich or poor, or because they disagree with a particular point of view. Americans are the real winners today.”

Nance also noted that, as a matter of record, many senators had voted for McCain-Feingold with full knowledge that it might be unconstitutional.

However, according to a Washington Post report, President Obama has called the Supreme Court ruling a defeat for the American people, saying that removing these limitations will allow “a green light to a new stampede of special interest money.”

Writing for the Court’s 183-page decision, Justice Kennedy stated, “We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers.”

For the dissenting judges, Justice Stevens called it a radical change in the law ignoring the opinion on such issues of most previous Supreme Court justices.

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act also pulled the reins in on “soft money” campaign financing by political committees which was increasingly not subject to federal limits; and prohibited state and local money not only for races, but simple discussion of issues within election time frames.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

How will this new law affect the future of gay rights & Christian free speech?

In a bold political move and statement, President Barack Obama officially signed into the law on Wednesday the first Hate Crimes Bill which will grant specific protection to the gay, lesbian, transgendered and homosexual demographics, according to several national news media outlets. The Matthew Shepherd and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, as it had been titled while still in the Senate, was a small piece of a large $680 billion defense spending agenda. For more on this, see my piece: U.S. Senate Passes LGBT Hate Crimes Bill 68-29.

Since its origins within the U.S. Senate, countless conservative Christian groups, churches, organizations and pastors have voiced their concerns over the bill’s likelihood to subsequently stifle their free speech rights to oppose homosexuality.

Dr. Gerald B. Kieschnick, president of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod—told the Christian Post, “Although we don’t know the full ramifications of this bill as of yet, my staff and I will be watching closely for any possible infringement on the rights of our members and pastors to speak out against the sin of homosexuality based on the Word of God.”

During his official remarks at the reception ceremony, President Obama spoke of hate crime’s abilities to “break spirits” and “instill fear”, in addition to the physical harm associated with such violent acts. Obama also noted, “No one in America should ever be afraid to walk down the street holding the hands of the person they love,” according to FOX News Contributing Editor Anne Marie Riha of the Fox News’ White House View.

To the thunderous applause of Shepherd’s and Byrd’s family members and countless Associated Press members and TV camera crews, Obama stated that the signing of the law was “the culmination of a struggle that has lasted more than a decade” and “another step forward” in creating a more perfect union.

In his recent annual address to the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest advocate for the equal rights of gays, Obama noted that there are still changes to be made: “Despite the progress we’ve made, there are still laws to change and hearts to open. This fight continues now and I’m here with the simple message: I’m here with you in that fight,” according to CNN.

Although U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has previously attempted to assure conservatives and Christian/religious pastors and speakers that the bill will in no way infringe upon free speech rights, the vast majority are still wary of its future ramifications.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Penn State University is all abuzz with complaints…or should we say six complaints out of thousands of students…about a new school T-shirt design that resembles a cross.

There is no cross. The T-shirt, which is intended to advertise the football team’s annual “White Out” game, does not bear a cross. A few students who are offended by any hint of the Bible choose to see a cross in the t-bar shaped design. And because of one student letter, the Anti-Defamation League’s Philadelphia office is now involved. Readers can see a photo of the imaginary cross T-shirt here at a FOX News story.

This makes PSU the latest school with a broo-ha-ha over the imagined “separation of church and state” (see the Underground’s previous article about cheerleaders’ posters in Georgia).

Many other Penn State students have voiced their opinion to the school newspaper, The Daily Collegian, stating they are “OK” with the design; and 30,000 T-shirts have been sold so far. The design was intended to resemble the blue stripe on the football helmets.

According to the FOX story, the school bookstore has no plans to remove the T-shirts from its shelves. That is, probably until the school gets slapped with a lawsuit by the ADL or the ACLU on behalf of the six students who feel they are being “defamed.”

“There must be a separation,” one student who didn’t buy the T-shirt told FOX. The FOX reporter might have done well to ask her to point out the phrase “separation of church and state” in the First Amendment. It isn’t there.

On the other hand, an Eastern Asian studies student told the school paper the whole thing is ridiculous, and that if you look hard enough, you can see crosses in many other designs around the school.

Frankly, this reporter/editorialist thinks it would be wonderful if people started at least seeing God, if not Jesus, in more places. We can’t keep catering to the few who are “offended” by taking away the rights of the thousands who are not. Unless, of course, it really is the end times and unbelievers must be left to their own defenses against spiritual darkness.

“Blessed are you when people insult you, peresecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven…“  Matthew 5:11-12a (NIV)

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

How will Future of Equal Rights Affect Christians & Ministry?

Will Washington's new LGBT bill limit the free speech of pastors to speak against homosexuality?

Yesterday, Thursday, October 22, 2009, the United States Senate passed a bill that has been the subject of political debate and controversy for nearly a decade. Since the early days of the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., there has been a civil rights push to institute a federal law against all sexual and gender-related hate crimes.

According to both CNN and FOX national political news networks, with a vote of 68-29, the Senate passed a bill which would “make it a federal crime to assault an individual because of his or her sexual orientation or gender.”The new law essentially serves to offer gay, lesbian and transgendered men and women federal protection against hate crimes based on their sexual orientation.

The bill, which President Obama vowed to sign once it reached his desk, was a smaller component of a $680 billion defense authorization bill, according to several national news media. Former President George W. Bush once noted that he would veto a similar proposition if it ever reached his office.

The movement towards such a bill was spurred by the brutal deaths of Matthew Shepherd and James Byrd Jr. Shepherd, a teen from Wyoming, was brutally beaten to death in October 1998 for his sexual orientation. Byrd, an African American man, was dragged to death in Texas of that same year.

The passing of the bill has raised countless concerns among more conservative Republicans, the majority of whom opposed the legislation during its tenure in the Senate. Dozens of religious groups and Christian organizations have also voiced their anxieties, citing their concerns that such a bill will likely infringe on their rights to speak openly and freely against homosexuality.

Under current federal laws, gay, lesbian and transgendered individuals already receive the same adequate protections afforded all other U.S. citizens.

Many church leaders are worried the bill will be used to stifle pastors who preach homosexuality as sin from their pulpits, as this would be deemed “inciting violence.” Opposition to the bill has maintained that it is the First Amendment right of a pastor or religious leader to speak openly from the pulpit on issues related to sexual orientation. Separation of church and state must remain at the forefront of the legislation, lest church pastors be federally prosecuted for their sermons.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has attempted to convince those opposed that the new bill and laws will only be used to prosecute individuals who commit violent acts of aggression based on sexual/gender prejudice. Holder says the bill will not interfere with the religious belief systems or free speech rights of any American.

Recently, while addressing members of the national Human Rights Campaign organization, President Obama called for a “repeal of the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy, which bans gays from openly serving in the military” according to The Christian Post. Currently, the Human Rights Campaign is the largest group in the nation publicly promoting and advocating the rights of the LGBT community.

Jon Solmonese, president of the HRC, called the new legislation “our nation’s first major piece of civil rights legislation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people” according to the Huffington Post. He also noted, “Too many in our community have been devastated by hate violence.”

The question for Christians nationwide has become “How will this new legislation affect the way pastors, religious leaders and conservative men and women voice their opposition to homosexual lifestyles? Or will they be able to at all?”

During his address to the HRC, Obama also stated his desire to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines legal marriage as marriage between one man and one woman.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Most American Christians have probably heard of the Mojave Desert Memorial Cross controversy; a monument caught in the cross-fires of the First Amendment religious free speech battle.

On October 6, the U.S. Supreme Court finally heard the Mojave Desert Cross case, and will decide in a few months, once and for all, if the cross violates the First Amendment’s “separation of church and state” clause.

The fact that this “separation” clause is an invisible phrase invented by a court interpretation that may itself violate the First Amendment is very ironic. But we must put that aside for a moment.

Here’s some background to the Mojave Desert Memorial Cross case:
In 1934, an eight-foot cross was erected in California’s Mojave Desert as a memorial to the soldiers who fought in World War I.

It sits in the middle of the desert, where cars may drive by quickly, and one would have to look right at it to notice it. The problem is, it’s on government property and permission wasn’t sought for its erection.

In 1994, the National Park Service acquired the land with the Mojave cross. This increased the profile of the cross. Within a few years, a Buddhist organization wanted to put up a shrine near the cross, and was refused. A lawsuit was filed with the help of the ACLU. This quickly transformed from being a case of discrimination to questioning the legality of the cross’s existence on the property.

In and out of courtrooms for nearly a decade, the Mojave cross was deemed illegal by a federal court, but a judge decided to just keep it covered; first with cloth, then with plywood.

In 2001, Congress, now Republican-led after President George W. Bush was elected, refused the federal dollars it would have cost to remove the cross. An attempt was made in California court to transfer the plot of land on which the cross sits to private ownership, in exchange for other land, but it was turned down on the basis that the “separation” issue would not be solved by that action.

In June 2009, Liberty Counsel filed a brief in support of the cross. Those interested can see the law firm’s efforts so far in the Mojave case (legally, Salazar v. Buono) here. So, the case for removal of the Mojave Desert cross, covered with a wooden box to this day, finally reached the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, October 6, 2009.

The Supreme Court has been handling Christian monuments on a case-by-case basis, giving some the thumbs up for historical value, and others a thumbs down for encroaching on the “separation” clause.

Countless polls by religious and non-religious organizations show the majority of Americans don’t mind religious symbols like crosses, menorahs and Christmas trees in public places. It remains to be seen if an activist Supreme Court will see it the majority’s way.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Santa Rosa County, Florida – Two school employees were arrested for saying a Christian prayer in public at a luncheon – not in the school, not during school duty.  They are now up on criminal charges. How did this happen?

Last year, the ACLU brought a lawsuit against the Santa Rosa County School District, claiming that some of the administrators and teachers were “endorsing” religion. The ACLU submitted a Consent Order to the School District. This Consent Order bans all school employees from engaging in public prayer or other religious activities - even outside of school hours and off-property…a completely illegal order according to the real First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

But instead of engaging in battle with the ACLU, the School District chose to accept the ACLU’s Order. And without any legal argument, the Pensacola Federal District Court allowed the Consent Order which unconstitutionally infringes on the rights of both school employees and their students.

That wasn’t enough for the ACLU. They began going against individual employees.

Pace High School Principal Frank Lay and Athletic Director Robert Freeman prayed at a luncheon which included former booster club members and others who had helped with a school project. The ACLU complained that Lay and Freeman offered a prayer to bless the meal (served to consenting adults at the appreciation luncheon). Based solely on the ACLU’s allegations, U.S. District Judge Casey Rodgers initiated criminal contempt proceedings against Lay and Freeman to the United States Attorney’s office for prosecution. Unbelievably, the U.S. Attorney accepted the assignment and is proceeding with prosecution. 

If convicted, Lay and Freeman are subject to fines and possible imprisonment. Attorneys from Liberty Counsel are acting on behalf of Freeman and Lay. On the Liberty Counsel website, Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: “It is a sad day in America when school officials are criminally prosecuted for a prayer over a meal…” “…It is outrageous and an offense to the First Amendment to punish a school official for a simple prayer.”

In a related Liberty Counsel case…
Michelle Winkler, a clerical assistant at the same School District, attended an off-campus event, after school hours and sponsored by private funding, to honor non-teaching employees of the schools. She asked her husband, not a school employee, to read a prayer she wrote for the honorees. The ACLU brought a civil contempt case against Winkler (do they have spies everywhere?). However, in this case Judge Rodgers ruled against the ACLU, concluding that for Winkler’s husband to pray at a voluntary gathering outside of school did not violate ACLU’s Consent Order.

Can Christians help in cases like this? Anyone concerned with the preservation of the First Amendment can voice their opinion in this case, but especially calling all residents of Santa Rosa County, FL., where the ACLU’s Consent Order should never have been accepted in the first place. Go to Liberty Counsel’s Press Release and read toward the bottom to see how they are asking for help.

Liberty Counsel Press Releases:
Principal and Athletic Director Face Criminal Charges for Prayer at Luncheon, 8/10/09, http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14100&PRID=840;
Michelle Winkler is Cleared of Civil Contempt Charge in Santa Rosa County Prayer Case, 8/24/09 http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14100&PRID=844.

Be Sociable, Share!

•