Renee Griffith was forbidden to speak as a 2008 high school valedictorian because she was going to mention God and Jesus.

Griffith was asked, along with other students at Butte High School in Montana, to speak about what had gotten her through high school.

Renee Griffith was forbidden to speak as a 2008 high school valedictorian because she was going to mention God and Jesus. This year, a judge ruled that the school had not volated her freedom of speech.

The students were required to turn in their speeches for approval prior to graduation.

School officials asked Griffith to replace the words “Christ,” “His joy,” and “from God with a passionate love for him” with just words like “my faith” and “a love of mankind.”

She refused to make the changes, and was not allowed to give her speech.

According to One News Now,  Griffith’s attorney, William O’Connor, explained:

“Some people wanted to thank the football coach or the track coach or their uncle or a particular teacher, and they were permitted to do that.

“The only thing [the school] would not permit, by their own admission, was…her to attribute any achievements to her belief in God.”

When it first occurred, Griffith filed a complaint with Montana’s Human Rights Bureau. Her complaint was dismissed.

In April 2009, she filed a complaint in the Montana Thirteenth Judicial District Court (Renee Griffith v. Butte School District No. 1).

However, at the end of February 2010, a judge ruled that her free speech rights had not been violated.

The Billings Gazette in Montana reported Judge Gregory Todd’s written statement:

The Court did not feel the district’s actions were unlawfully discriminatory toward Griffith’s personal religious beliefs…the School District’s policy is to prohibit any religious references during graduation speeches in order to maintain “neutrality toward religion,” as required by the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

But according to the U. S. Department of Education’s release, “Religious Expression in Public Schools,” there is no such requirement. A student may deliver a faith-based speech when speaking on their own without encouragement or sponsorship of faculty.

Here is the “official neutrality” statement within this document (emphasis added):

“Teachers and school administrators, when acting in those capacities, are representatives of the state and are prohibited by the establishment clause from soliciting or encouraging religious activity, and from participating in such activity with students. Teachers and administrators also are prohibited from discouraging activity because of its religious content, and from soliciting or encouraging anti-religious activity.”

The next bullet in the document, “Student Assignments,” states:
“Students may express their beliefs about religion in the form of homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free of discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions.”

Griffith’s lawsuit names six violations of her state and federal constitutional rights.

The District Court’s opinion will be appealed to the Montana State Supreme Court.

Educate your local School Board, superintendent of education, principals and teachers with this document on Religious Expression in Public Schools, which has been circulated to schools several times since President Clinton was in office.

See the Underground’s previous reports on school freedom of religious speech issues:

As schools abandon Christmas…

No crosses allowed at Penn State U

Cheerleaders’ religious speech stifled

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!

• 

In mid-January, the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) lost another case against 10 Commandment monuments on public display.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found in favor of the defendant in ACLU v. Grayson County, Kentucky.

This public display of the Ten Commandments among other documents in a Leitchfield, Ky. courthouse was the subject of one of the ACLU’s  many lawsuits against Bible-based items in public venues.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit governs Kentucky, Ohio, Tenn.  and Michigan. The Court, in this case, ruled that the presence of the Ten Commandments did not violate separation of church and state.

In 2002, a federal judge ruled against the display but the county did not give up the fight, as the display is identical to those in previous cases where the ACLU was ruled down.

The ACLU hasn’t prevailed in a Court of Appeals case against the Ten Commandments since 2005. Between 2005 and 2009, the ACLU has lost their lawsuits against Ten Commandment displays in the Sixth, Eighth and Ninth Courts of Appeals.

Attorney Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel represented Grayson County. In an open Press Release, Staver said, “The Ten Commandments are part of the fabric of our country and helped shape the law. It defies common sense to remove a recognized symbol of law from a court of law.”

“I am sure the ACLU will not ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review this case. The ACLU has been running from the Supreme Court since 2005 and has taken loss after loss on the Ten Commandments.”

Liberty Counsel’s “Defend the Ten” Web site explains: “Public acknowledgment of religion is not establishment of religion.”

The Leitchfield display is identical to others in two 2005 ACLU lawsuits, where the Ten Commandments also won the right to stay on display amid other historic documents of the United States such as the Declaration of Independence and the Mayflower Compact.

At U.S. Supreme Court level, the Court does sometimes rule against the Ten Commandments when the display seems purely of ‘religious intent,’ but often finds in favor of the Ten Commandments as part of America’s foundation when amid other documents.

For example, the Supreme Court reviewed a lower court’s decision in the case of ACLU v. McCreary County, Kentucky. Whereas the lower court ruled for the ACLU, the Supreme Court found the following:

-The Constitution Does Not Prohibit the Inclusion of the Ten Commandments in Historical Displays on Government Property (p. 17).
-The complaints were facially inadequate because no plaintiff specifically claimed to have visited either courthouse, let alone to have actually seen the displays (p. 15).
-Plaintiffs here have failed to allege a “concrete” or “actual” injury (p. 14).
-The Ten Commandments appeared inconspicuously among a series of other historical documents… Defendants offered a legitimate secular purpose for the displays (pg 12).

The Supreme Court found similarly in the Texas case of Van Orden v. Perry. They upheld a Ten Commandments monument surrounded by other historical documents; although this was just a preliminary injunction to prevent removal of the monument.

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!

• 

Today, Sonia Sotomayor made history as the first Latina to be publicly vetted by the Senate Judiciary Committee for a spot on the bench of America’s highest court.

Committee Chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, praised Sotomayor as a trailblazer, likening her to Thurgood Marshall, the first African-American justice and Sandra Day O’Connor, the first female justice.

Some on the committee, however, failed to share Leahy’s enthusiasm.

Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona voiced his objections to Sotomayor’s perceived lack of impartiality.

“From what she has said, she appears to believe that her role is not constrained to objectively decide who wins based on the weight of the law, but who, in her opinion, should win.”

Some Christian groups share Kyl’s reticence concerning Sotomayor.

“She has also shown a disturbing propensity for allowing her personal beliefs to impact her legal decisions,” said Troy Newman, a spokesman for Operation Rescue, an anti-abortion organization.

“Judge Sotomayor has shown disregard for the lives of [the unborn] with her personal support for abortion.”

“For this reason, Operation Rescue opposes the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor, and will encourage the new pro-life majority of the American people to immediately contact their senators to voice their opposition to this nominee as well.”

Others Christian groups, though, are hopeful about Sotomayor and what she can bring to the table.

The Christian Defense Coalition, which was scheduled to hold a prayer vigil Sunday in front of the steps of the United States Supreme Court, believes that Sotomayor could be an agent for change in the on-going debate on abortion.

“Through prayer, Judge Sotomayor could bring the vote that brings down Roe. V. Wade,” said Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, the director of the organization.

Though the group does not condone Sotomayor’s past actions as a federal judge, they said they “will be praying that if she is confirmed, God “will direct her heart to embrace justice” and America’s “founding principles.”

–Tiffany Orr, the Underground managing editor

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Since President Obama announced that he selected  Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring justice David Souter, conservative pundits have been working overtime to dig up dirt on her. Rush Limbaugh and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich called Sotomayor a racist, causing the ire of the White House.

–Maurice Williams, The Underground staff writer

Be Sociable, Share!

•