Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Colossus_500 on May 31, 2006, 06:09:24 AM
-
Can we make this a sticky thread?
Artist’s painting removed from public display because of quote from Psalms, ADF attorneys file suit
Artist’s painting of granddaughter ejected from city of Delta’s recreation center because of Scripture verse
Tuesday, May 30, 2006, 11:26 AM (MST)
DELTA, Colo. — Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund filed a federal civil rights lawsuit today against the city of Delta for removing two paintings from a public art display. One of the paintings features the artist’s granddaughter and a quote from Psalms to express the artist’s views about the value of the child. The other painting, titled “Circle/Squares,” displays Scripture passages that reference circles and squares.
(http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/UserDocs/MarolfPainting.jpg)
Artist Sharon Marolf’s painting ‘Big Black Umbrella,’ censored by the city of Delta
“It is absolutely absurd to say that a piece of art cannot be displayed in a public forum because the artwork contains a Scripture verse. So much for art as the free expression of ideas,” said ADF Legal Counsel Brett Harvey. “Many of the greatest works in the history of art have had religious themes. The city does not have the legal right to censor the creative content of a painting simply because it has a religious viewpoint or because city officials think someone could be offended by it.”
Award-winning artist Sharon Marolf’s painting named “Big Black Umbrella” depicts her granddaughter holding an umbrella. At the bottom of the painting is a quotation from Psalm 127:3: “Children are a heritage from the Lord: A reward from Him.” Parts of the verse also appear in the background of the painting.
Delta city officials removed the painting and another one by Marolf from the hallway of the Bill Heddles Recreation Center after they received a complaint by someone offended by the Bible verses. The city frequently opens the recreation center’s hallways and rooms for the posting of artwork by local citizens.
Many pieces of art containing Christian and other religious symbols and references have been displayed previously in the recreation center and have not been removed by city officials. Ironically, in 2001, city officials did not remove Marolf’s painting of a different granddaughter on display in the recreation center even though the painting contained the same verse from Psalms. The Delta Fine Arts association, a private group of local artists, awarded the painting “Best of Show” that year.
The complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado in the case, Marolf v. City of Delta, can be read at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/MarolfComplaint.pdf (http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/MarolfComplaint.pdf). ADF attorneys filed suit when city officials refused to allow Marolf to redisplay her paintings despite having received a letter from ADF attorneys explaining the violation to her constitutional rights.
-
thats bullshit..
i for one fight for tradation...
so if something has hints of religion in it it cannot be considered art?? thats bullshit..
-
thats bullshit..
i for one fight for tradation...
so if something has hints of religion in it it cannot be considered art?? thats bullshit..
My thoughts exactly. And people say Christianity isn't under attack. I don't buy it.
-
My thoughts exactly. And people say Christianity isn't under attack. I don't buy it.
well it kinda sorta is..i remember when i moved here X-mas time ws X-mas time..and i kinda enjoyed that yanno..i like that tradation even though i dont believe in the religion behind..now x-mas time is "a happy x-mas, quanza,hankuak' time :-\
wtf is quanza anyways? sounds like exotic candy
-
I don't buy that Christianity is under any kind of successful attack. It's a huge, powerful, influential, multi-billion dollar industry. But I do think removing the artwork is absurd.
-
well it kinda sorta is..i remember when i moved here X-mas time ws X-mas time..and i kinda enjoyed that yanno..i like that tradation even though i dont believe in the religion behind..now x-mas time is "a happy x-mas, quanza,hankuak' time :-\
wtf is quanza anyways? sounds like exotic candy
Kwaanza is the African celebration of Christmas. But it only comes about in America because of the mentality of Pluralism - that all religions are of the same source, i.e., muslims, hindu, buddhist, etc. they're all the equivalent of Christianity. All religions lead to heaven. That's where all this comes from.
-
I don't buy that Christianity is under any kind of successful attack. It's a huge, powerful, influential, multi-billion dollar industry. But I do think removing the artwork is absurd.
True, the attack is unsuccessful, but would you agree that it is under attack?
-
Kwaanza is the African celebration of Christmas. But it only comes about in America because of the mentality of Pluralism - that all religions are of the same source, i.e., muslims, hindu, buddhist, etc. they're all the equivalent of Christianity. All religions lead to heaven. That's where all this comes from.
the whole "when in rome" is lost to em eh?
-
True, the attack is unsuccessful, but would you agree that it is under attack?
In some respects. There is an assault on traditional marriage and the traditional family, which are rooted in Christianity. There is a lot of ignorance when it comes to religious expression in the public sector (as evidenced by the artwork story). But I don't believe Christians are some persecuted minority. You are free to worship or not worship. Join any church you want, or none at all. The government doesn't interfere with church organizations or services. Heck, churches don't even pay taxes. There are tons of Christian secondary and post secondary schools. You can't get elected president or to most high political offices if you're not at least a believer in God. So, I see the "attack" as sort of the mosquito and Christianity as the guy in the hammock with the fly swatter. :)
-
True, the attack is unsuccessful, but would you agree that it is under attack?
I don't agree with censoring of any sort with in reason. So this thing about stopping art with religious text or tones is absurd.
I don't think it's an attack i think this "percieved attack" is political correctness gone too far.
The same dumb Bull Shit from the people who think kids who play soccer shouldn't keep score.
-
In some respects. There is an assault on traditional marriage and the traditional family, which are rooted in Christianity. There is a lot of ignorance when it comes to religious expression in the public sector (as evidenced by the artwork story). But I don't believe Christians are some persecuted minority. You are free to worship or not worship. Join any church you want, or none at all. The government doesn't interfere with church organizations or services. Heck, churches don't even pay taxes. There are tons of Christian secondary and post secondary schools. You can't get elected president or to most high political offices if you're not at least a believer in God. So, I see the "attack" as sort of the mosquito and Christianity as the guy in the hammock with the fly swatter. :)
good points Beach.
Becarefull not to get drawn in the "attacks on Christianity" platform. It's not real as far as i can see.
-
In some respects. There is an assault on traditional marriage and the traditional family, which are rooted in Christianity. There is a lot of ignorance when it comes to religious expression in the public sector (as evidenced by the artwork story). But I don't believe Christians are some persecuted minority. You are free to worship or not worship. Join any church you want, or none at all. The government doesn't interfere with church organizations or services. Heck, churches don't even pay taxes. There are tons of Christian secondary and post secondary schools. You can't get elected president or to most high political offices if you're not at least a believer in God. So, I see the "attack" as sort of the mosquito and Christianity as the guy in the hammock with the fly swatter. :)
i LOVE the analogy! ;)
-
I don't agree with censoring of any sort with in reason. So this thing about stopping art with religious text or tones is absurd.
I don't think it's an attack i think this "percieved attack" is political correctness gone too far.
The same dumb Bull Shit from the people who think kids who play soccer shouldn't keep score.
YES!!! OzmO, this is probably the best way to describe what's happening. Political correctness has gotten totally out of hand. Well said. I was laughing at the soccer deal. I coach soccer for my kid's team. I tell 'em if the other team mopped up the floor with us. Competition is healthy.
-
YES!!! OzmO, this is probably the best way to describe what's happening. Political correctness has gotten totally out of hand. Well said. I was laughing at the soccer deal. I coach soccer for my kid's team. I tell 'em if the other team mopped up the floor with us. Competition is healthy.
Yeah, that soccer thing has always amazed me. It's through failure we learn to win. Or learn to whine...lol
some of my best memories were playing pop warner football as a kid. One year we won the Clark A.B. championship... greatest feeling ever; being that we were under dogs. the next year, with a different team we were favored to win and lost. Devestating. But the experiences built character.... at least until i was 17 and started drinking like a fish and smoking like a chimney :P
-
started smoking like a chimney :P
And we AIN'T talking ciggy's!
-
Yeah, that soccer thing has always amazed me. It's through failure we learn to win. Or learn to whine...lol
some of my best memories were playing pop warner football as a kid. One year we won the Clark A.B. championship... greatest feeling ever; being that we were under dogs. the next year, with a different team we were favored to win and lost. Devestating. But the experiences built character.... at least until i was 17 and started drinking like a fish and smoking like a chimney :P
Pop Warner was probably my greastest influence into taking my football career into college. I loved it! My first year of tackle football, my team won league championship and we were invited to play in a Pop Warner bowl game at Wake Forest University. Seeing 30,000 people when you're only 8 years old is awe-inspiring. There were teams from all up and down the east coast, from Florida to Mass. We were rooting for teams from all over, and they were rooting for us. Fond memories!
-
what are your thoughts on this article?
Prayer protest at graduation: Fighting over God and country
Inside the First Amendment
By Charles C. Haynes
First Amendment Center senior scholar
05.28.06
When more than 200 students stood up to recite the Lord’s Prayer at their high school graduation last week in Russell Springs, Ky., they were rewarded with a standing ovation from the overflowing crowd of family and friends.
A prayer demonstration wasn’t on the program. But students had decided earlier in the day to organize a protest after a federal judge ordered school officials not to allow a scheduled prayer at the ceremony. The court ruling was in response to a lawsuit filed by a student challenging the school’s practice of annual graduation prayer delivered by the student chaplain.
Applause for the students continues to reverberate this week across the conservative Christian blogosphere. On the surface, the story has all the elements of a culture-war rallying cry: Courageous students stand up to “activist judge” in defense of “religious freedom and free speech.”
But take a closer look. What exactly were those students standing up for in Russell Springs? The right of the majority to impose a Christian prayer on the minority? And why did most of the audience cheer them on? To congratulate the kids for using prayer to score political points against a federal judge? To humiliate the student who brought the lawsuit?
Whatever the motives, most of the audience was clearly angry and frustrated by having its prayer taken away. For years, Russell County High School seniors have elected a “class chaplain” — currently Megan Chapman — who gives the prayer at graduation. This year a student (who tried to remain anonymous, but was reportedly booed at rehearsal) filed suit to stop the practice. After all, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly declared school-sponsored prayers unconstitutional, even when delivered by a student.
When the seniors heard about the lawsuit, they attempted to cure the First Amendment problem by re-electing Chapman to give a “message,” ostensibly leaving it to her what the message would be. But the judge wasn’t impressed by the last-minute switch, perhaps seeing it as a fig leaf for keeping the prayer. The court canceled the prayer, setting the stage for the student protest.
It’s important to note (for all those school districts contemplating solutions involving “student-initiated” prayer) that the fix proposed by the Russell County seniors might have worked — but only if they had done it earlier, if they hadn’t tried to turn the chaplain into a messenger overnight, and hadn’t set it up to be a prayer. That’s because guidelines issued by the U.S. Department of Education in 2003 suggest that student speakers may be allowed to give religious or secular messages as long as the student speaker is selected on the basis of “genuinely neutral” criteria and retains “primary control” over the content of the presentation.
Not everyone agrees the DOE guidance accurately interprets current law. But even under those guidelines, neither Russell County school officials nor the senior class can create a process to ensure that a student graduation speaker offers a prayer.
If proponents of graduation prayer in Russell Springs were willing to look at other options, there are legal and fair ways for religious people to acknowledge God during graduation festivities: A moment of silence gives everyone an opportunity to pray (or not) without having to participate in someone else’s prayer. A community-organized baccalaureate that is voluntarily attended allows people to worship and pray in any way they choose and as much as they like. Both solutions accommodate the majority while protecting the minority.
For some people, however, it’s all or nothing. They see graduation prayer as a symbolic act that proclaims who we are as a nation. In other words, the conflict isn’t really about “free speech” or even a 60-second prayer; it’s about who gets to define what kind of country we are.
What would happen if a Baptist family in Russell Springs were suddenly transported to, say, a school district in Dearborn, Mich., with a large population of Muslim Americans? How would they feel about an Islamic prayer at their child’s graduation? Or how about 200 Muslim students standing to recite the Quran during the ceremony?
Here’s the American reality: We’re all a religious minority somewhere in this country. How we treat people where we’re in the majority helps determine how we’ll be treated where we’re in the minority.
It would appear that for most students and parents in Russell Springs, silent prayer is not enough. A baccalaureate with sermons and prayers is not enough. Even the fact that Megan Chapman expressed her religious views in her graduation speech (which she did) is not enough. Apparently, only by giving the majority the “right” to impose prayer (their prayer) on everyone else will these students and parents be satisfied.
Fortunately, there is no such right. The First Amendment protects us from the tyranny of the majority — at least as long as we have judges with the courage to stand up for religious freedom.
Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center, 1101 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. E-mail: chaynes@freedomforum.org (http://chaynes@freedomforum.org).
-
Wouldn't energy, time and money be better spent helping poor people, hungry people, and people down on their luck instead of squableing over this stupid shit? If they were saying prayers before leave it be, so what? It's voluntary to join the prayer.
-
Wouldn't energy, time and money be better spent helping poor people, hungry people, and people down on their luck instead of squableing over this stupid shit? If they were saying prayers before leave it be, so what? It's voluntary to join the prayer.
It is amazing, isn't it?
-
It's not really voluntary for the students who don't believe in God or share the same faith as the majority. Kids in school are a captive audience. Nothing prevents the kids who want to pray from organizing clubs, praying on their own, going to church, and so on, but they shouldn't be allowed to force this kind of stuff on other students. This is actually anti-Christian, because Christianity is all about choice.
I am a firm believer in church-state separation. If parents want organized prayers in school, they should do what my wife and I have done: send their kids to a parochial school.
-
It's not really voluntary for the students who don't believe in God or share the same faith as the majority. Kids in school are a captive audience. Nothing prevents the kids who want to pray from organizing clubs, praying on their own, going to church, and so on, but they shouldn't be allowed to force this kind of stuff on other students. This is actually anti-Christian, because Christianity is all about choice.
I am a firm believer in church-state separation. If parents want organized prayers in school, they should do what my wife and I have done: send their kids to a parochial school.
Fundamentally i agree with you Beach. I just think there is bigger fish to fry right now.
-
Fundamentally i agree with you Beach. I just think there is bigger fish to fry right now.
I hear you. On the other hand, we can help poor people AND protect the First Amendment rights of kids.
-
If the kid who complained was so bothered by the impending "prayer" that the kid knew was tradition at every grad. ceremony, the kid could have skipped commencement proceedings.
And if the kid felt so strongly about everything, why did the kid "try to remain anonymous?"
The writer of the article is worried about people "imposing" their beliefs on others, well this kid actually did the same thing.
And let's take the writer's assumption of how a Christian would react if a Muslim prayer was given because the majority were Muslim. If I was there, I'd sit there respectfully and maybe pray to my God while they prayed to theirs. We can still have respect for others even if we don't agree w/their beliefs. I guess I don't see what the big deal is.
Actually the big deal may be that Christianity is so offensive to others because it exposes us all a hopeless (in ourselves) sinners. A lot of people don't want to believe that about themselves.
-
Kids are a captive audience. They can't simply come and go when they want in a school environment. There is also a great deal of peer pressure and ostracism that results when a kid is "different." Kids can be cruel. Plus they shouldn't have to choose between very important commencement exercises and participation in a majority-rule Christian prayer. Most importantly, if the kid is Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, etc., they have the right to not have the government let the majority impose a Christian prayer.
And doesn't the Bible say to pray in your closet? I think this whole government sponsored prayer issue is inconsistent with the Bible and true Christianity.
You can't really compare kids to adults. Much easier for an adult to either leave or sit in silence. A few weeks ago someone invited a Buddhist priest to give a blessing in my office. Many in the office participated, including me, and I'm a Christian. I wasn't offended at all. Found it very interesting. But I'm not a kid and I could have walked away at any time.
-
And doesn't the Bible say to pray in your closet?
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.
You can't really compare kids to adults. Much easier for an adult to either leave or sit in silence. A few weeks ago someone invited a Buddhist priest to give a blessing in my office. Many in the office participated, including me, and I'm a Christian. I wasn't offended at all. Found it very interesting. But I'm not a kid and I could have walked away at any time.
I'm definitely not an expert when it comes to kids since I only have two furry ones each w/4 legs :D
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. :-\
-
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 :D
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.
-
This is why God made children so resiliant - parents like me who don't know everything there is to know about kids. lol :D
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.”
-
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.
-
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!
-
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?