I observe in an article recently published in the Baptist Press that “even though freedom of religion is wounded, it’s certainly not dead.”  In 1991, the Supreme Court made it much more difficult to defend churches and religious people with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.  But as the article demonstrates, we at ADF have had some recent success in this area.  That’s crucial because religious freedom is foundational to our political life. As George Washington said in his Farewell Address,“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”

In fact, a lack of religious conviction can cause death. A recent study in Switzerland, titled “Swiss Losing Their Religion Are More Suicidal,” found that suicide rates are lower among people who are affiliated with Protestant or Catholic churches. This comes as no surprise to Christians, who find meaning to life in their relationship with God. ”For in him we live and move and have our being.” Acts 17:28.  Religious freedom (and exercising that freedom) is vital to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch

A recent decision by a federal district court in Connecticut has sent a very troubling message to those holding religious beliefs – you are not full members of society, but second class citizens!

Let me explain.  For many years, groups like the ACLU have argued that Ten Commandment monuments must be taken down, Bibles should be removed from schools, prayers must cease, and memorial crosses along the highways must be removed.  Their rationale is that such things make the ACLU supporters feel like political outsiders and not full members of society. 

They get this mantra from former Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O’Connor. According to her, the First Amendment “seeks to ensure that government does not make a person’s religious beliefs relevant to his or her standing in the political community … thereby sending a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.”

Well, the tables have turned now.  In an effort to appease the anti-religious crowd, the courts are now stripping away the basic rights of Christians.  Last month, a federal district court stopped the Enfield Public School District from holding graduation ceremonies at the First Cathedral, a very large Baptist church in the area. 

But before we even get to the part of the opinion that treats religious persons as second class citizens, I have to comment that this case is an example of political correctness gone awry.  Most graduations in large public schools have one thing in common – they’re crowded!  Many have to ration out tickets and pick their favorite family members because not all can attend due to limited space.  But because of this lawsuit filed by the ACLU, hundreds of family members missed out on this most special of times.  So rather than have an event in a comfortable environment, with adequate seating and cooling system, it was held in a crowded gym.  And for that, thank you ACLU!

But a politically incorrect ACLU or judicial opinion is not front page material anymore.  What should be screamed from the rooftops is this emerging trend to strip Christians’ rights as full citizens in America.  Here is why I am saying this: the main reason the judge ruled against the school district is because the Family Institute of Connecticut (“FIC”), a pro-family organization, lobbied the school district to hold the graduation services at the Cathedral.

Did you catch that?  The reason the judge ordered the graduation services to be stopped at this location is because a pro-family organization wanted the services to be located there!  I only wish I were making this up. 

The court said, “The issue here, however, is not Enfield Public Schools’ purpose, but instead the broader context within which a reasonable observer would understand the 2010 graduations. Given the unity of interest that developed between FIC and the Chairman, FIC’s agenda-and FIC and Chairman Stokes working together on that agenda-is clearly part of that context.” 

You see, the interests of the Enfield Public School District and the FIC were similar – they both wanted the graduation ceremony to be held at First Catherdral.  But their reasons were not the same!  The School District wanted the graduation services to be held at the Cathedral because it was the most cost effective place to hold the ceremony in a comfortable environment. FIC wanted the graduation ceremonies to be held there because as a pro-family organization, it wanted this special occasion to be held at a place where most family members could attend. 

In addition, the FIC did not want this outside special interest organization coming into town and demanding that the services not be held at a church.  They believed that caving to such demands would violate the constitutional rights of FIC and the church. 

Unfortunately, the judge ruled against the school district due to this organization’s beliefs.  So the message here to those holding religious values is … keep them to yourself!  Because if you share them, or go to your governing officials and ask them to do something, then the governing official will have to deny your request. 

It’s as if religion is a poison pill that will kill whatever a religious person hopes for.  In essence, the government is telling the church, “because of your religious beliefs, you are not full members of society.  You are outsiders in your own community.  Others who do not share your beliefs are more favored in this community.” 

Now where have I heard that before?

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch

On Glenn Beck’s program, David Barton, President and Founder of Wallbuilders, discussed the Alliance Defense Fund’s Pulpit Initiative and the upcoming Pulpit Freedom Sunday.  Pulpit Freedom Sunday was started in 2008 by the Alliance Defense Fund.  It is a head-on constitutional challenge to the IRS’ ability to censor what a pastor says from the pulpit.  On Pulpit Freedom Sunday, pastors will stand in their pulpit and speak biblical truth about the issue of candidates and elections.

In 2008, the first year of the Pulpit Initiative, 33 pastors from 22 states preached sermons about the candidates facing election that year.  They made specific recommendations about voting based on their biblical evaluation of the candidates.  Then, these courageous pastors took their sermons and sent them to the IRS, all in the hopes of sparking an IRS audit of the church that would lead to a constitutional challenge to the IRS’ ability to censor a pastor’s sermon.  In 2009, 84 pastors from 30 states and the District of Columbia participated in Pulpit Freedom Sunday.

This year, we hope to have over a hundred pastors standing in their pulpits to speak biblical truth about candidates and elections.  If the IRS audits these churches, ADF will represent them free of charge and will argue that the tax code restriction that censors a pastor’s sermon is unconstitutional.  For more information about the Pulpit Initiative, visit our website.

Pastors must be free to speak biblical truth from the pulpit without fearing government censorship or control.  It’s time to get the government out of the pulpits out of America.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch

Have you heard the joke, “if con is the opposite of pro, then congress is the opposite of progress?”  While there might be several examples supporting the truth of this statement, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person’s Act (“RPUIPA”), passed by Congress, is not one of them.

RLUIPA is an example of Congress actually doing well by churches and protecting them from overzealous zoning officials.   Churches were being pushed out of cities and counties.  For example, they were being told they could not locate in the business district because church use was supposedly inconsistent with generating a revenue stream for the city.  But on the other hand, churches were also told they could not locate in residential areas on the theory that church use caused traffic and noise issues so it was inconsistent with residential use as well.  Churches had a real uphill battle on their hands just to locate within any part of urban and suburban areas.

To make matters worse, cities could discriminate against churches under the guise of a bogus safety issue that for some reason, only applied to churches and not other similar uses.   Something had to be done to rein in this seemingly unstoppable power of zoning officials to hinder church property use.

So Congress stepped up and provided churches with meaningful protection against these overzealous zoning officials by passing RLUIPA.  This federal law prohibits towns and counties from treating churches differently than other similar uses.  It protects churches from ordinances that substantially burden their beliefs and practices.

But a recent decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of appeals in River of Life Kingdom Ministries v. Village of Hazel Crest, Illinois, threatens to gut the protections of RLUIPA.  In this case, the River of Life church bought a building in a commercial district to hold its church services.  When the church bought the property, the following uses were automatically permitted: art galleries, gymnasiums, meeting halls, lounges and taverns, along with several other uses.  In addition, the following uses were allowed with a permit: museums, day care centers, schools of any kind, community centers, and live entertainment venues.

But, the city prohibited any and all church use in the district!  What possible reason could the city have for prohibiting a church, which teaches moral values to the citizenry, while allowing community centers and live entertainment venues?

So the church filed a lawsuit claiming that the town’s actions violated their constitutional rights, as well as their rights under RLUIPA.  But the Seventh Circuit ruled against the church.  In so doing, the Seventh Circuit effectively eliminated the protections of RLUIPA.   We will delve deeper into the court’s reasons in future blogs, but for now, I would like to point out this quote from the court: “Commerce and industry must be recognized for what they are, necessary and desirable elements of the community….”  See 2010 WL 2630602, *5 (C.A. 7 (Ill.)).

According to the court, the town was justified in discriminating against the city because “commerce and industry” are “necessary and desirable elements of the community”.   But what about the church?  Is not the work of the church necessary and desirable for the community?  Of course it is.  But to certain government officials who only understand the value of the dollar, providing moral direction and the other benefits of churches is worthless.

Maybe there will come a day when we remember that churches are also beneficial – and even necessary – to communities.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch

The federal court in Idaho recently rejected an attempt to restrict the religious freedom of the Boise Rescue Mission. This Christian ministry provides free food, shelter, and other services to the homeless. Of course it encourages those who benefit from its charity to participate in Bible studies and worship services. It also offers a Christian discipleship program that – oddly enough – actually requires participants to be Christian or at least open to Christianity.

But the Intermountain Fairhousing Council was having none of that and sued the Rescue Mission under the federal Fair Housing Act. The federal court summarily ruled for the Rescue Mission in a well-reasoned opinion that does a great job of protecting religious freedom. The court determined that “prohibiting the Rescue Mission from engaging in the activities challenged by Plaintiffs would result in requiring a religious organization to remove religion from its religious programs, and prohibit a religious organization from choosing how to introduce its religious beliefs to people who voluntarily come to the organization.”

Unfortunately, this blatant attempt by a local “civil rights” organization to secularize a religious ministry that is providing valuable services to the community (free of charge) is not an isolated incident. ADF is currently representing a homeless shelter in Iowa that is being investigated by a local governmental agency for merely teaching biblical morality to those it serves, and reflecting biblical principles in the rules it uses to govern its charity.

Thank God the court in Idaho got it right. Hopefully this will be an important lesson for those who illogically insist that Christian ministries have no right to minister in a way that actually reflects Christianity.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch