Chalk Another One Up for The ADF

[Colossus_500]

ADF successfully defends religious freedom for Gideons
Judge dismisses all charges against two Gideons members who handed out Bibles on public sidewalk
Friday, July 27, 2007, 12:34 PM (MST) |
ADF Media Relations | 480-444-0020

Why is Florida so interested in prosecuting people who hand out Bibles?

PLANTATION KEY, Fla. — A judge dismissed all charges Friday against two members of The Gideons International who were arrested while attempting to distribute Bibles on a public sidewalk outside Key Largo School.  Alliance Defense Fund Senior Legal Counsel David Cortman represented the two men.

"Christians cannot be treated as second-class citizens," said Cortman.  "These two men have the same constitutional rights as everyone else to pass out literature on a public sidewalk.  We are pleased that the court agrees that these men should not have been arrested and dismissed the charges against them."

On Jan. 19, police arrested Ernest Simpson and Anthony Mirto and charged them with trespassing after the principal of Key Largo School complained that they were handing out Bibles on the public sidewalk outside the school.  Following the initial motion to dismiss filed by ADF attorneys, the state dismissed the charges but then filed new ones under a different statute (www.telladf.org/news/story.aspx?cid=4079).  At Friday’s hearing, the court granted the request of ADF attorneys to dismiss the new charges.

A fact sheet on the case, State of Florida v. Simpson, is available at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/SimpsonFactSheet.pdf.

[Dos Equis]

Good.  I'm sure law enforcement can find a much better use of tax dollars than chasing folks trying to hand out Bibles. 

[Butterbean]

"These two men have the same constitutional rights as everyone else to pass out literature on a public sidewalk. 

This reminds me of being in Vegas and walking down the strip and the people that hand you flyers for strip clubs etc.  We were handing them back tracts on how to accept Christ as Savior

Most would not take them and some turned their whole bodies away but when one of the hawkers saw what it was it looked like she was going to cry and said "thank you."

[Colossus_500]

This reminds me of being in Vegas and walking down the strip and the people that hand you flyers for strip clubs etc.  We were handing them back tracts on how to accept Christ as Savior

Most would not take them and some turned their whole bodies away but when one of the hawkers saw what it was it looked like she was going to cry and said "thank you."

Wow, that's pretty cool.  And who's to say that one of these women won't go on to minister to others.  Just by reaching one, many more have the potential to be reached.  It's amazing how you described some of the people turning their entire body away, as if to act like you don't exist.  Interesting...  In the book, "Every Man's Battle", the author talks about the term "bouncing" (guy sees an attractive woman and looks away) and how the guy will literally do battle with his own body because he has to fight his own sinful nature.  Sounds like this even was similar only they were "fighting" with themselves when confronted with truth. 

Thanks for sharing that, Buddyro! 

[Decker]

ADF successfully defends religious freedom for Gideons
Judge dismisses all charges against two Gideons members who handed out Bibles on public sidewalk
Friday, July 27, 2007, 12:34 PM (MST) |
ADF Media Relations | 480-444-0020

Why is Florida so interested in prosecuting people who hand out Bibles?

...

Some people might view it as a nuisance.  Sometimes these people get a bit carried away with saving non-believers.  When I lived in Chicago, I was first exposed to street evangelists.  I always took their literature and donated a buck where applicable.  I also liked to engage them in discussion about their beliefs.  Most were pretty good sports.

I carried that perspective with me back to Wisconsin.  If the Jehovah Witnesses are making the rounds, I always invite them in to discuss things much to the consternation of my wife who thinks I'm an A-hole for doing that.

The link to the case doesn't work.

[Colossus_500]

Try this link, Decker:

http://alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=4190

[Colossus_500]

Another blow to the ACLU  

5th Circuit rejects “offended observer” attack on public prayer
Court says ACLU lacked standing to sue Tangipahoa Parish School Board over invocations
Thursday, July 26, 2007, 12:04 PM (MST) |
ADF Media Relations | 480-444-0020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 NEW ORLEANS — A full panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit issued a decision Wednesday that severely undercuts the American Civil Liberties Union and its “offended observer” claims in Establishment Clause cases.  The decision comes after the court granted the request of Alliance Defense Fund attorneys and their co-counsel to review the appeal of a lawsuit in which the ACLU sued the Tangipahoa Parish School Board for opening its meetings with voluntary prayer.

“The practice of opening public meetings with prayer is and always has been lawful and appropriate.  The Constitution does not ban citizens or elected officials from invoking divine guidance and blessings upon our public work,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Mike Johnson, who presented oral argument on behalf of the school board defendants May 22.

“The court today has delivered a serious blow to the ACLU by affirming that the far left can no longer bully its way into court without any proven, concrete injury,” Johnson explained.  “Simply claiming that one is ‘offended’ by religious speech or symbols is not enough to spark a federal case.”

In October 2003, an anonymous plaintiff represented by the ACLU sued the board claiming, among other things, that the school board’s decades-old invocation practice offended him.  In February 2005, federal district court judge Ginger Berrigan, a former state president of the ACLU, permanently halted the board’s opening prayers as a violation of the plaintiff’s rights under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Wednesday’s 5th Circuit ruling overturns the district court opinion and once again allows for opening prayer at school board meetings.  The majority noted that its opinion on standing “spares this court from issuing a largely hypothetically-based ruling on issues of broad importance to deliberative public bodies in this circuit and beyond.”

The ACLU has filed five lawsuits in 13 years against the Tangipahoa Parish School Board on matters related to religion in some form.  A full copy of the ruling issued Wednesday in Doe v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board can be read at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/TangipahoaDecision.pdf.

ADF attorneys filed the en banc appeal with assistance from co-counsel Louis C. LaCour, Jr., Kirk Gasperecz, and James Keith of the law firm Adams and Reese, LLP; the board’s attorney, Christopher M. Moody; and ADF-allied attorneys Kelly Shackelford and Hiram Sasser of Liberty Legal Institute.

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

[Decker]

Try this link, Decker:

http://alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=4190

Thank you Colossus.

[Decker]

The ACLU deals with maintaining civil liberties.  They support both religious and non-religious clients in these matters depending on the subject matter relative to defending civil liberties.

You seem to focus on the cases where the subject matter of the case pits religion against civil liberties.

You could emphasize cases on the other side of that coin once in a while.

I say this b/c I don't view the ACLU as an enemy of religion.  I see it as a defender of civil liberties and our constitution.  Anyone filing amicus briefs on behalf of Jerry Falwell or the Ku Klux Klan shows the ACLU's interest in anyone's civil liberties.

[Dos Equis]

Another blow to the ACLU  

5th Circuit rejects “offended observer” attack on public prayer
Court says ACLU lacked standing to sue Tangipahoa Parish School Board over invocations
Thursday, July 26, 2007, 12:04 PM (MST) |
ADF Media Relations | 480-444-0020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 NEW ORLEANS — A full panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit issued a decision Wednesday that severely undercuts the American Civil Liberties Union and its “offended observer” claims in Establishment Clause cases.  The decision comes after the court granted the request of Alliance Defense Fund attorneys and their co-counsel to review the appeal of a lawsuit in which the ACLU sued the Tangipahoa Parish School Board for opening its meetings with voluntary prayer.

“The practice of opening public meetings with prayer is and always has been lawful and appropriate.  The Constitution does not ban citizens or elected officials from invoking divine guidance and blessings upon our public work,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Mike Johnson, who presented oral argument on behalf of the school board defendants May 22.

“The court today has delivered a serious blow to the ACLU by affirming that the far left can no longer bully its way into court without any proven, concrete injury,” Johnson explained.  “Simply claiming that one is ‘offended’ by religious speech or symbols is not enough to spark a federal case.”

In October 2003, an anonymous plaintiff represented by the ACLU sued the board claiming, among other things, that the school board’s decades-old invocation practice offended him.  In February 2005, federal district court judge Ginger Berrigan, a former state president of the ACLU, permanently halted the board’s opening prayers as a violation of the plaintiff’s rights under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Wednesday’s 5th Circuit ruling overturns the district court opinion and once again allows for opening prayer at school board meetings.  The majority noted that its opinion on standing “spares this court from issuing a largely hypothetically-based ruling on issues of broad importance to deliberative public bodies in this circuit and beyond.”

The ACLU has filed five lawsuits in 13 years against the Tangipahoa Parish School Board on matters related to religion in some form.  A full copy of the ruling issued Wednesday in Doe v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board can be read at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/TangipahoaDecision.pdf.

ADF attorneys filed the en banc appeal with assistance from co-counsel Louis C. LaCour, Jr., Kirk Gasperecz, and James Keith of the law firm Adams and Reese, LLP; the board’s attorney, Christopher M. Moody; and ADF-allied attorneys Kelly Shackelford and Hiram Sasser of Liberty Legal Institute.

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

Good.  How many of these lawsuits are filed because one knucklehead is offended? 

[Colossus_500]

The ACLU deals with maintaining civil liberties.  They support both religious and non-religious clients in these matters depending on the subject matter relative to defending civil liberties.

You seem to focus on the cases where the subject matter of the case pits religion against civil liberties.

You could emphasize cases on the other side of that coin once in a while.

I say this b/c I don't view the ACLU as an enemy of religion.  I see it as a defender of civil liberties and our constitution.  Anyone filing amicus briefs on behalf of Jerry Falwell or the Ku Klux Klan shows the ACLU's interest in anyone's civil liberties.

That might be who they used to be, but if you go through the many cases that are being defended on behalf of schools, memorials, etc, this is the battle we're seeing.  It's obvious to me that this is not who they are now.  I think Beach had a great post depicting this very point some time ago in another debate.  And it's not about freedom of religion for the ACLU.  It's freedom from Christianity, pure and simple. 

[Colossus_500]

Good.  How many of these lawsuits are filed because one knucklehead is offended? 

an innumerable amount!!!! 

[Colossus_500]

ADF attorneys secure victory for church in lawsuit brought by American Atheists
Wednesday, August 08, 2007, 12:35 PM (MST) |
ADF Media Relations | 480-444-0020

Court grants ADF motion to represent church in suit filed by atheists against city of Detroit

DETROIT — A federal court Wednesday ruled against the American Atheists in its lawsuit against the city of Detroit.  The atheist group sued because the city promised to reimburse a church for property improvements. Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund represented the church’s interests in the suit.

“Churches cannot be treated as second class simply because they are religious institutions.  They have the same right to reimbursement for physical improvements as all other entities have,” said ADF Legal Counsel Dale Schowengerdt.  “No reasonable person would consider a church’s receipt of contractually-promised reimbursement to be a government endorsement of religion.  The court agreed that the church was rightfully allowed to be part of the city’s program.”

The City of Detroit Development Agency entered into a contract with St. John’s Episcopal Church to improve its exterior appearance to enhance the city’s image prior to the 2006 Super Bowl and to spur economic development in the area.  The city entered into a contract with the church to reimburse half of its expenses, up to $180,000.

American Atheists filed suit on behalf of itself and residents claiming a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  As a result of the suit, the city withheld reimbursement to the church, which had already secured a loan and completed the improvements (www.telladf.org/news/story.aspx?cid=3958).  In its opinion, the court ruled that the church should receive most of the reimbursement promised by the city.

“Despite the cramped interpretation of the First Amendment by the American Atheists, reimbursing churches for non-religious purposes is not an establishment of religion, just like reimbursing a secular business is not an endorsement of the store or its products,” said Schowengerdt.  “We’re glad that the court saw through this blatant attempt to punish an inner-city church when all it desired to be is a good member of the Detroit community by agreeing to improve its property.”

A copy of the opinion in American Atheists v. City of Detroit Downtown Development Authority, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, can be read at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/DetroitOpinion.pdf.

[Dos Equis]

ADF attorneys secure victory for church in lawsuit brought by American Atheists
Wednesday, August 08, 2007, 12:35 PM (MST) |
ADF Media Relations | 480-444-0020

Court grants ADF motion to represent church in suit filed by atheists against city of Detroit

DETROIT — A federal court Wednesday ruled against the American Atheists in its lawsuit against the city of Detroit.  The atheist group sued because the city promised to reimburse a church for property improvements. Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund represented the church’s interests in the suit.

“Churches cannot be treated as second class simply because they are religious institutions.  They have the same right to reimbursement for physical improvements as all other entities have,” said ADF Legal Counsel Dale Schowengerdt.  “No reasonable person would consider a church’s receipt of contractually-promised reimbursement to be a government endorsement of religion.  The court agreed that the church was rightfully allowed to be part of the city’s program.”

The City of Detroit Development Agency entered into a contract with St. John’s Episcopal Church to improve its exterior appearance to enhance the city’s image prior to the 2006 Super Bowl and to spur economic development in the area.  The city entered into a contract with the church to reimburse half of its expenses, up to $180,000.

American Atheists filed suit on behalf of itself and residents claiming a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  As a result of the suit, the city withheld reimbursement to the church, which had already secured a loan and completed the improvements (www.telladf.org/news/story.aspx?cid=3958).  In its opinion, the court ruled that the church should receive most of the reimbursement promised by the city.

“Despite the cramped interpretation of the First Amendment by the American Atheists, reimbursing churches for non-religious purposes is not an establishment of religion, just like reimbursing a secular business is not an endorsement of the store or its products,” said Schowengerdt.  “We’re glad that the court saw through this blatant attempt to punish an inner-city church when all it desired to be is a good member of the Detroit community by agreeing to improve its property.”

A copy of the opinion in American Atheists v. City of Detroit Downtown Development Authority, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, can be read at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/DetroitOpinion.pdf.

Good.