Religion in the News Media

[Dos Equis]

I'm pretty sure that was directed @ the Pharisees who tried to make a big deal out of how "holy" they were.  It's good advice today also in that regard.

I'm definitely not an expert when it comes to kids since I only have two furry ones each w/4 legs

Your post reminded me of how clueless I am when it comes to children.  Once when my friend's child was about 2 years old, she was trying to feed it pieces of a hot dog.  He kept turning his head away and shaking his head no.  He wouldn't eat.  At one point he slapped her hand away and she dropped a piece of hot dog and it fell on the floor where it was promptly gobbled up by the dog.  The kid started screaming bloody murder and crying because the dog ate his piece of hot dog.  My friend sneakily grabbed another piece and showed it to the kid saying, "Here it is, it's OK, Here it is!"

I said, "What is the problem?  Don't lie, the kid didn't want it anyway what's he so upset about?"

She just shook her head and said, "You don't know anything about kids."  She's right.

Stella I have four kids and still don't know squat.     You don't have to be a parent to understand kids.  It helps, but it isn't necessary. 

[Colossus_500]

This is why God made children so resiliant - parents like me who don't know everything there is to know about kids.  lol   

[Colossus_500]

This is a follow-up article to that article I posted last week about the artist who had her paintings removed in Denver.  I'm so glad there are organizations like the ADF and ACLJ.

City of Delta agrees to put back on public display paintings containing Scripture verses
City officials revoke earlier decision to remove paintings because of quote from Psalms

DELTA, Colo. — City of Delta officials have rescinded their earlier decision to remove two paintings from public display because the paintings contained Scripture verses.  The city made its decision in the wake of a lawsuit filed by attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund on behalf of the artist in defense of her First Amendment rights.

“Christian artists should be given the same opportunity as everyone else to display their work in public,” said ADF Legal Counsel Brett Harvey.  “The city recognized that to continue their ban on this artist’s paintings would mean continued violation of her constitutional rights.  ADF applauds city officials for doing the right thing now by allowing the paintings to be displayed.”

Award-winning artist Sharon Marolf’s painting named “Big Black Umbrella” (www.telladf.org/UserDocs/MarolfPainting.jpg) depicts her granddaughter holding an umbrella.  At the bottom of the painting is a quotation form Psalm 127:3, which says, “Children are a heritage from the Lord:  A reward from Him.”  The second painting, titled “Circle/Squares,” displays Scripture passages that reference circles and squares.

Marolf contacted ADF for help when city officials, acting on a complaint by an offended observer, removed two of her paintings from the hallway of the Bill Heddles Recreation Center.  On behalf of the artist, ADF attorneys filed a lawsuit Tuesday in the U.S. District court for the District of Colorado in the case, Marolf v. City of Delta (www.telladf.org/UserDocs/MarolfComplaint.pdf).

Within days, city officials took a closer look at the law protecting artistic expression and invited Marolf to re-display her artwork at the city’s recreation center.  The city has also agreed to create a policy, with input from ADF attorneys, regarding the public posting of artwork to make sure that artists’ rights are protected in the future.

“The city has shown a desire to abide by the law and respect the rights of this Christian artist, and this benefits everyone,” said Harvey.  “This is another example of a city living in fear because of widespread disinformation about the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.  Sadly, a city will sometimes unwittingly violate someone’s constitutional rights in the very effort to avoid violating the Constitution.  ADF will work together with the city to create a policy that is fair and to resolve the remaining issues surrounding this particular case.”

ADF is a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation

[Colossus_500]

June 6, 2006

Antagonist of Christians in the Military Steps It Up


Mikey Weinstein creates a foundation to oppose sharing faith.

Attorney Mikey Weinstein -- best known for challenging the free speech of Christian cadets at the U.S. Air Force Academy -- has created a new group called the Military Religious Freedom Foundation to fight what he calls "coercive indoctrination by evangelical Christians."

Weinstein, an academy graduate and former military lawyer, told Family News in Focus that as the lawsuit against the academy progresses, he has plans to continue battling what he calls a radicalized, fundamentalist version of Christianity.

"My foundation" he said, "will fight anyone attempting to have my government tell me who are the children of the greater God and who are the children of the lesser god."

Weinstein said he hopes the foundation will "bring the country back to respecting everyone's religious freedom."

Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel for with Liberty Legal Institute, said it's not really about "freedom" at all.

"The problem with these groups is that they like to pretend they are for religious freedom," he said, "and, actually, the position is to be restrictive of people's religion."

One of Weinstein's beefs is Christian groups that have officers and enlisted taking part. One such group, Officers' Christian Fellowship (OCF), meets in homes off base and works to equip officers to effectively minister to the troops.

Bruce Fister, executive director of (OCF), took issue with the way his group is being portrayed.

"We're not beating people over the head with our beliefs," he said, "but we do feel like it's important to explain the hope that we have when somebody asks."

Fister said most bases and academies have groups for a variety of faiths and information from the OCF website encourages group members to respect them all.

[Colossus_500]

We didn't hear this in the news yesterday, only that the Marriage Amendment was turned down.   But if you look closely, 12 of 12 states who have decided to take action on their level have a minimum of 70% majority vote in favor of defining marriage as between a man and woman.  In Alabama, it was over 80%:

Gay marriage amendment easily OK'd

By Jay Reeves
Associated Press Writer

MONTGOMERY — Voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in Alabama on Tuesday, granting what conservative supporters called additional protection for traditional families in a state where homosexual unions already are illegal.

With 17 percent of 3,240 precincts reporting, "yes" votes to approve the measure were leading "no" votes 160,309-41,155, or 80 percent to 20 percent.

Voters locally mirrored the rest of the state in voting overwhelmingly for Amendment 1. Morgan County voted for the amendment 19,222 to 4,196, or 82.1 percent to 17.9 percent. Limestone County voters supported it 11,479 to 1,804, or 86.4 percent to 13.6 percent. Lawrence County voted in favor 8,582 to 1,371, or 86.2 percent to 13.8 percent.

Returns showed the amendment passing by wide margins in both rural and urban areas, north and south.

Joseph Rembert Jr. said he didn't go to the polls solely because of the amendment, but he was glad it was on the ballot.

"I'm all man, so I ain't got nothing to do with that," said Rembert, 32, of Montgomery. "I go by what the Bible says — man and woman."

But Gwen Carmack of Mobile said it's not the business of government to decide who can get married and who can't.

"I just prefer the state not do that. It's an individual choice," said Carmack, 56, a project manager in health care software.

Supporters of the amendment were confident of easy passage, with a chief legislative sponsor, Sen. Hinton Mitchem, predicting approval by as many as 75 percent of voters.

Opponents included gay-rights groups and the American Civil Liberties Union. With little money to fight the amendment, they relied mainly on word-of-mouth and conversations with neighbors to build what opposition they could.

Backers were concerned that the wording on the ballot could be confusing, since people had to vote "yes" to changing the Constitution. Mitchem feared that people would see the amendment and automatically vote "no" indicating they don't like gay marriage.

To help alleviate any possible confusion among churchgoers, the Christian Coalition of Alabama printed more than 1 million copies of a church bulletin insert explaining that a "yes" vote "protects traditional marriage" and that a "no" vote "does not protect traditional marriage."

Critics of the amendment said it was unnecessary since Alabama already has a law prohibiting same-sex marriage. They also raised questions about whether the amendment could lead to court rulings against common-law marriages among heterosexuals since it defines marriage as a "solemnized" union.

Supporters said there was nothing in the amendment that would outlaw common-law marriage.

Nineteen states have approved similar measures, and the vote came a day after the U.S. Senate began debate on a proposed federal amendment to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

[Colossus_500]

USAF Evangelism Becomes Fight Over Freedom
by Meghan A. O'Connell and Michael P. McLaughlin
Jun 12, 2006

 
WASHINGTON, June 7, 2006 (UPI) -- One man's campaign to uphold the barrier between church and state is, through another lens, a battle for the freedoms of speech.

Michael L. "Mikey" Weinstein, a lawyer and White House counsel during the Reagan administration, explained Monday what he perceives as a pervasive "fundamentalist one-world view" that has spawned religious intolerance in the United States Air Force.

"Members of the military swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States," Weinstein told United Press International. "They do not put their hand on the Constitution and swear an oath to support and defend the New Testament."

Weinstein, an Air Force Academy alumnus and founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, began protesting two years ago when his children - cadets at the Academy - complained of being subjected to taunts and evangelizing because they are Jewish

Following complaints, the Pentagon launched an investigation and issued a report in June 2005 concluding that the Air Force Academy exercised religious intolerance and inappropriate proselytizing on several occasions, but was not overtly discriminatory.

The report cited professors promoting religion from lecterns, fliers set at the more than 4,000 place settings in the dining hall promoting "The Passion of the Christ," a "Team Jesus" banner in a locker room, and harassment of cadets who did not attend voluntary prayer meetings.

The Air Force revised its guidelines concerning the exercise of religion in February. Under the new protocol, superior officers have the right to free expression, public prayer is discouraged as part of routine official functions and chaplains should implement programs for people of all faiths, but are not required to participate in religious activates inconsistent with their beliefs

Weinstein filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Air Force in October 2005, alleging that it had violated the right to religious freedom by "adopting a formal and informal policy of evangelizing, proselytizing and otherwise actively challenging the religion of its members."

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for New Mexico, and is awaiting a ruling.
 

[Colossus_500]

I'm SO glad Newdow lost this case.  But I know he's not giving up.

Federal Judge Throws Out Lawsuit Against “In God We Trust”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City: Sacramento, CA

A federal judge in Sacramento decided Monday afternoon to dismiss an atheist’s lawsuit against the national motto, “In God We Trust.” In so doing, the judge sided with motions filed by the Pacific Justice Institute and the U.S. Department of Justice.

The lawsuit was filed in late 2005 by atheist Michael Newdow, who has also been fighting for the last several years to have recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance declared unconstitutional. In the present case, Newdow v. Congress, he argued that having to use money inscribed with the national motto, “In God We Trust,” offended him and was unconstitutional. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, Pacific Justice Institute intervened as a co-defendant alongside the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Earlier this spring, lawyers for the DOJ and PJI filed motions to dismiss the case. PJI attorneys had been preparing for a hearing scheduled later this week to argue the motions, but in a surprise move, Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr. held that the outcome was obvious without the need for further arguments.

Quoting a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals case from 1970, the court noted, “t is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency ‘In God We Trust’ has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of a patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise.” Mr. Newdow has already promised to appeal this ruling to the Ninth Circuit in hopes that they will chart a new course and overturn their 1970 decision.

Brad Dacus, President of Pacific Justice Institute, commented, “We are of course very pleased that Judge Damrell ruled in our favor and dismissed this assault on our national motto. At the same time, Michael Newdow isn’t going to give up easily, and neither can we. For the sake of our posterity and the preservation of our unique history as a nation, we are committed to defending the national motto as long as it takes. This fight is just too important.”
 

[OzmO]

Michael Newdow, is a dumb ass.  It offends him?  He needs to build a bridge and get a over it.  There soo many more imporatnat things to put our energies into then to placate some dippy doo like this.

Yeah! for the Judge.

[Dos Equis]

I agree.  That guy needs to get a life.  I thought it was funny that he filed the pledge suit on behalf of his daughter and his daughter thought the pledge was fine.  Plus she didn't even live with him! 

[Colossus_500]

Yeah, I agree. But you know this guy is not going to give up.  What puzzles me the most is how he's able to single-handedly bring about such cases like this.  How is our judicial system allowing him to reach the appellate or supreme court level with his cases?