The anti-Christian Freedom From Religion Foundation wants to destroy a monument to a beloved teacher because they cannot stand her Christian faith being referenced in the memorial.
Ravenswood Middle School in West Virginia has a monument to Joann Christy, a 26-year educators who died in a car accident. The memorial had bench, two stone planters and several crosses to represent her deep Christian beliefs.
“There’s so many kids that came through this school that were affected by her death, that were affected by her teachings, and now we’re just trying to keep her memory alive here,” Tracy Sadecky, a family friend, told a local TV station.
The family of the late teacher agreed to have the crosses removed in an attempt to appease the hate group, but left angels saying that Christy had a collection of angels and the angels represented her.
A new bill from an Oklahoma state senator will protect public schools in the state from lawsuits by anti-Christian groups for teaching non-sectarian Bible classes.
Senator Kyle Loveless introduced Senate Bill 48 that will declare any school that offers a “religious elective” impervious to lawsuits. The bill will allow “no liability as a result of providing an elective course in the study of religion or the Bible.”
The senator explained to a local newspaper that he was spurred to introduce the bill after anti-Christianists attacked the Mustang School District that had planned to offer an elective about the history of the Bible.
“The district projected that there were going to be between 20-30 students interested in the elective. In actuality, 180 students signed up,” he said. “They were extremely disappointed in having the class canceled.”
“I don’t see anything wrong [with a provision] that gives local school districts the ability to study the historical aspects of the Bible. That’s my reasoning for the bill. It is not a forced class and this would not be a ‘Sunday School’ type course. We are not endorsing one religion over the other,” he continued.
He says that there’s no violation of church and state to teach about the history of a historical religious book.
A cross that stood on a hill above Grand Haven, Michigan for over 50 years will now be removed after an anti-Christian man who does not live in the community threatened a lawsuit.
Grand Haven City Council voted 3 to 2 for the removal of the cross from Dewey Hill despite massive opposition from the community for the move.
Grand Haven resident Brandon Hall, who writes for West Michigan Politics, says that the community is united against a man they see as a bully.
“One thing I want to make clear: Grand Haven is not divided. It is very united in support of the cross,” Hall said. “All my atheist friends hate what is going on here. It’s very surprising that one guy can come from out of state and start all this. It is very shocking and disappointing.”
Mitch Kayle, who is openly bigoted against Christians, has bragged on social media of his actions attacking anything that might be Christian in public. He has conducted similar hate campaigns in Hawaii.
“He is an atheist extremist who targets Christians and gives atheists a bad name,” Hall said.
A group of residents is raising funds to purchase the land the cross sits upon to keep it standing above the city.
The Supreme Court is going to hear arguments in the case of a lawsuit brought by a small church against the town of Gilbert, Arizona.
The city has a law that prohibits the church from posting roadside signs.
The Alliance Defending Freedom is representing the Good News Presbyterian Church in the case. ADF Senior Web Writer Marissa Poulson said Monday that the signs are important.
“By stating the church’s signs are less valuable than political and other speech, the town is ignoring the church’s free speech rights and claiming to have the power to handicap, and even eliminate, speech it deems unimportant,” wrote Poulson.
The suit focuses on the fact that church signs are given restrictions that are not placed on other form of speech.
- Political signs can be up to 32 square feet, displayed for many months, and unlimited in number.
- Ideological signs can be up to 20 square feet, displayed indefinitely, and unlimited in number.
- Religious signs can only be 6 square feet, may be displayed for no more than 14 hours, and are limited to 4 per property.
The ADF says that if the government can use this law to restrict religious speech, there’s nothing to stop them from restricting other speech.
A Florida city who has been harassing pro-life protesters is being taken to court by two women threatened with loitering citations for their protest.
The American Center for Law and Justice says they are representing Judith Minihan and JoAnn O’Connell in a federal suit. The women hold protests and plead with women seeking to kill their children through abortion at the Fort Myers Women’s Health Center.
“When individuals who are driving into the medical office complex stop to speak with Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs will generally hand them literature and speak with them about abortion-related topics, including information about the possible emotional and physical effects of abortion, nearby maternity homes, local and national helplines, and fetal development,” the ACLJ wrote in their complaint.
The women take care to stand on the public sidewalk while they are there and do not block pedestrians from entering the abortionist. However, police have taken to harassing the women.
“Defendant Officer Conticelli stated that he would enforce the loitering ordinance against them if they (1) stood in one spot on the public sidewalk in front of the medical office complex and abortion clinic and did not keep walking on that public sidewalk, (2) approached any vehicles entering or leaving the medical office complex and abortion clinic to hand out literature or speak with the occupants of the vehicle, or (3) blocked vehicular traffic entering or leaving the medical office complex and abortion clinic by handing out literature or talking to the people in vehicles,” the complaint reads.
The women handed the officer a consent decree from a previous lawsuit with the city that said they would not interfere with their pro-life activities but the police continued their threats necessitating the current suit.
The city’s attorney said they would be reviewing the situation.
The Colorado Supreme Court has thrown a lawsuit out challenging the National Day of Prayer.
The ruling by the court overturns a lower court ruling that a declaration of a day of prayer is unconstitutional.
The anti-Christian group Freedom From Religion Foundation sued in 2008 claiming that then-Governor Bill Ritter was “showing governmental preference for religion” by designating a Day of Prayer. The initial ruling in 2010 was in favor of the state.
“Plaintiffs argue that the proclamations excessively entangle government and religion because it facilitates the Colorado Day of Prayer festivities. In light of the fact that most festivities are planned well in advance of the proclamation’s issuance, this argument is not credible,” wrote Judge Michael Mullins. “Announcing that people will in fact gather to celebrate a public holiday does not necessarily involve the state in any way in the planning of religious activities.”
The anti-Christianists then appealed and the Colorado Court of Appeals overturned the lower court decision.
The Supreme Court threw out the case on a 5-2 decision.
“Although we do not question the sincerity of respondents’ feelings, without more, their circuitous exposure to the honorary proclamations and concomitant belief that the proclamations expressed the Governor’s preference for religion is simply too indirect and incidental an injury to confer individual standing,” wrote Chief Justice Nancy Rice.
“To hold otherwise would render the injury-in-fact requirement superfluous, as any person who learned of a government action through the media and felt politically marginalized as a result of that secondhand media exposure would have individual standing to sue the government.”
Religious freedom attorneys have filed a lawsuit in California aimed at protecting the religious freedom of a first grade student who was harassed by his school for handing out candy canes last Christmas with a message of Jesus.
Isaiah Martinez was told by his teacher “Jesus is not allowed in school” and prohibited from handing out the candy canes.
Advocates for Faith & Freedom filed suit in U.S. District Court to prohibit the West Covina Unified School District from stopping Isaiah’s distribution of the candy canes this year.
“The school has neglected to correct its actions, and after exhausting all options to avoid a lawsuit we were left with no choice but to file a complaint in federal court. We are asking the court to protect Isaiah’s rights and the rights of others like him from having their religious speech censored. Students do not shed their First Amendment rights just because they enter into a classroom,” attorney Robert Tyler said.
There has been no official statement from the school, however attorney James Long with the AFF says the school has made it clear they want only “religious neutrality.”
A Christian teenager has sued his school after he was prohibited from praying, singing and discussing religious topics with classmates during the school’s “free period.”
Chase Windebank, a senior at Pine Creek High School, has been leading a group for the last three years that meets during what the school calls the “seminar” period. On Mondays and Wednesdays students can participate in a variety of activities and students with passing grades may also do so on Fridays.
“During the free time, students are permitted to engage in a virtually unlimited variety of activities, including gathering with other students inside or outside; reading; sending text messages to their friends; playing games on their phone; visiting the bathrooms; getting a snack; visiting teachers; and conducting official meetings of school clubs,” states Alliance Defending Freedom.
The school claims that because the “Seminar” is considered class time, they’re now banning Christian students from meeting. The school has not backed down despite it being shown that their actions are violations of the Constitution.
“Public schools should encourage the free exchange of ideas. Instead, this school implemented an ill-conceived ban that singles out religious speech for censorship during free time,” remarked ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco.
A three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals voted to review a case that claims police officers in Dearborn, Michigan failed to protect the freedom of speech for Christian preachers.
The court had ruled in August in a 2-1 decision the police did not violate the free speech rights of “Bible Believers” but voted in favor of a review, which is “intended to bring to the attention of the entire court a precedent setting error of exceptional public importance.”
Ruben Israel, a street preacher who organized the Dearborn outreach, told the Christian Post the review is about protecting free speech in America.
“We had to get [the case] out of Dearborn and we had to get it out of Detroit. Now, since the circuit has picked it up, we believe and trust that they will set the record straight,” Israel said in an interview with The Christian Post. “Free speech sometimes may not be very gracious. But there is something called ‘the hecklers veto.’ That is when you can say something very unpopular and it is protected. We believe that since the circuit wants to and has gone ahead and picked it up, now we believe that we have a pulse. We are thankful for our court system that we still have the appeal case and that’s working.”
The group was blocked by police from preaching in the majority Muslim town outside of a Muslim street festival.
“I told [the police officer] that we were already getting pelted with water bottles and he says ‘oh that’s Ok, we will keep an eye out for you.’ He turned around and he walked away. Of course, that was it,” Israel said. “The police did confront us several times. Every time they came to talk to us and tell us that we had to leave, everything got stopped. Once they walked away, it just turned around and did the same thing all over again.
The California Catholic Conference has taken the state government to court over the state’s order that all Catholic institutions pay for voluntary direct abortions.
The abortions that must be covered include abortions for gender selection and for late-term abortions.
“Catholic beliefs about life and human dignity animate and shape our Catholic ministries,” Bishop Robert McElroy, auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of San Francisco told the Christian Post. “It’s why we oppose abortion, but it is also why Catholic schools provide education, Catholic hospitals care for the poor and vulnerable and why Catholic social services provide assistance to people and families in need. It goes to the core of our moral beliefs.”
The group claims that the state’s orders violate federal human rights laws.
“This is a coercive and discriminatory action by the state of California,” McElroy added. “This demand by the state was directly targeted at Catholic institutions like Santa Clara University, Loyola Marymount University, along with other California employers and citizens. It is a flagrant violation of their civil rights and deepest moral convictions, and is government coercion of the worst kind.”
