Recently, the Roman Catholic Church has come under fire after two of its schools, one in Massachusetts and one in Colorado, declined to enroll students who have same-sex parents. Not surprisingly, these decisions created a firestorm of public criticism and outrage, raising questions about whether churches should have the right to make these types of enrollment decisions.

A similar situation arose in California not too long ago. A Lutheran high school in California was the target of a lawsuit by two former students who were expelled for violating the school’s Christian Conduct policy. The policy prohibited students from engaging in immoral or scandalous conduct, including homosexual behavior, which these two students engaged in. The lawsuit alleged that the school violated California law by discriminating against the students based on their sexual orientation.

Most of the time, non-discrimination laws serve worthy goals that help strengthen our religious freedom. But they can be misused and overextended, especially when religious organizations are involved. When that happens, these laws are put on a collision course with religious freedom. And far too often, it’s religious freedom that is sacrificed for the sake of political correctness.

These situations are perfect examples. One of the most basic and fundamental principles of the First Amendment is that churches should remain autonomous and not have the government interfering with their internal affairs. But churches lose that freedom when the government imposes non-discrimination laws that intrude into religious matters, like operating a private school.

After all, the mission of a church-run school is not just to provide a good education, but to inculcate students with a particular set of values and beliefs. So it’s essential that we give churches wide latitude in deciding how to implement their educational system, including its enrollment criteria, to best carry out that mission.

Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, in defending the Colorado school’s enrollment policy, put it this way: “The main purpose of Catholic schools is religious; in other words, to form students in Catholic faith, Catholic morality and Catholic social values. … Our schools are meant to be ‘partners in faith’ with parents. If parents don’t respect the beliefs of the Church, or live in a manner that openly rejects those beliefs, then partnering with those parents becomes very difficult, if not impossible.”

By God’s grace, the Lutheran school in California ultimately prevailed in its lawsuit. ADF and the Christian Legal Society filed briefs in that case supporting the school on behalf of over 830 private religious schools throughout California who would have all been affected by a bad ruling in the case. And we will continue to fight to ensure that churches keep the right to set their policies based on religious conviction, not government mandate.

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

We just received word that Bishop Rick Painter’s criminal conviction for ringing his Church’s bells was overturned.  Many of you have been following the story of churches in Phoenix that have been punished or threatened with punishment for ringing their churches’ bells.  The case started when Bishop Painter of Cathedral of Christ the King in Phoenix was convicted of violating the City’s noise ordinance and was sentenced to 10 days in jail (suspended) and 3 years of probation.  You can read the story in my past blog posts here and here.

But did you catch what I just said?  A Phoenix pastor was sentenced to jail for ringing his Church’s bells.  I have litigated this case for almost a year now and I still get chills down my spine whenever I realize what happened in this case and how far the City of Phoenix was willing to go to silence this one church.  In all my legal and historical research for this case, I was never able to uncover a single instance in the United States where a pastor had been sentenced to jail and branded a criminal for simply ringing church bells.

No pastor should ever have to fear criminal prosecution or jail time for peacefully exercising their religion.  The very idea that the government has taken the step of sentencing a pastor to jail for ringing church bells should awaken the revolutionary spirit inside every American citizen.  This country is, after all, the land of the free and our founders made sure to enshrine the freedom of religion in the First Amendment, thus making it our first freedom.  Yet how can we claim as a nation to value and uphold religious freedom when a pastor has his freedom taken away by a criminal court for ringing church bells?  This is something that churches across the world have been doing for centuries.

I am thankful to God that this case was successfully resolved.  After all, it is cases like this that ADF exists for.  As one of our founders Bill Bright stated, ADF’s mission is to “keep the door open for the spread of the Gospel.”  We are thankful that the door remains open in Phoenix after this litigation.  But let this case stand as a reminder that as the attacks on the Church in America intensify in the coming days, we must be prepared to meet the attacks head-on.  The attacks may come from a variety of sources.  In fact, if someone had told me a year ago that a pastor in America would be sentenced to jail for ringing church bells, I would have found the idea amusing to say the least.  But the Church can come under attack from almost any conceivable location.  And it is our duty to stand ready at the watch for the first signs of those attacks.

Bishop Painter is a free man today, thank God.  But let his brush with jail time cause us to remember how fragile freedom is in an increasingly secular and authoritarian society.  And let us commit ourselves anew to continue the fight to keep the Church free.  Stand with ADF today.  Let us know of any attacks in your area and sign up to receive our updates so you can stay informed.  Together, through God’s grace and in His strength, we can fulfill the vision of Dr. Bright and keep the doors of the Church open for the spread of the life-changing message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

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

Justice John Paul Stevens recently announced his retirement from the U.S. Supreme Court after serving on the Court for 34 years. Stevens, who turned 90 in April, is a World War II veteran—the only veteran currently on the Court—and by all accounts is a truly warm and gracious man. Appointed by President Ford in 1975, Justice Stevens is known for his collegial nature and his respectful demeanor from the bench, along with his preference for bow ties (it’s hard to picture him without one) and his love for the game of tennis (even at 90, he still reportedly plays on a routine basis).

But, above all else, he will be remembered as the intellectual leader of the Court’s left wing. And in that role, he was consistently a staunch advocate for erecting a “high and impregnable wall between church and state” and has issued numerous opinions that have diminished our religious freedoms.

He repeatedly voted against any public recognition of religion. He wrote dissenting opinions in Van Orden v. Perry and County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, which upheld the constitutionality of certain religious displays on public property. Van Orden considered a Ten Commandments display, while County of Allegheny considered a display that included a nativity scene and a menorah. In Justice Stevens’ view, the First Amendment creates “a strong presumption against the display of religious symbols on public property.” He also dissented in Marsh v. Chambers, which upheld the 200 year old practice of opening sessions of Congress in prayer.

His views were particularly strong in the area of religion and schools. Justice Stevens was the lone dissenter in Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, which upheld the constitutionality of a federal statute that protected the right of public secondary students to form religious student groups on campus.  He wrote the decision in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, striking down the practice of student-led, student-initiated prayer before football games at a Texas high school. And he wrote the decision in Wallace v. Jaffee, striking down an Alabama law that authorized a daily period of silence in public schools for meditation or voluntary prayer. And in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, he voted to strike down an Ohio school voucher program that parents could use to send their children to private schools, including religious ones.

Perhaps most significantly, however, was Justice Stevens’ deciding vote in Employment Division v. Smith, which concluded that the Free Exercise Clause does not protect against government regulations that are neutral toward religion and are generally applicable—even if the regulations substantially burden religious exercise. Commentators have described this case as a “constitutional bombshell that blew apart the Free Exercise Clause and gutted it of any meaningful protections.”

The last religious freedom case that Justice Stevens will help decide is Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. In that case, ADF attorneys represent a Christian student group that is challenging a public law school’s refusal to recognize simply because it requires its leaders and voting members to share its Christian beliefs. As I discussed in a previous post, this case could have significant ramifications for Christian student groups and churches around the country.

These cases reveal how crucially important Supreme Court nominees are. Please be praying that President Obama will select a replacement for Justice Stevens who will be a strong advocate for our first liberty—religious freedom.

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

On April 15, United States District Court Judge Barbara Crabb, for the Western District of Wisconsin, struck down the National Day of Prayer statute, 36 U.S.C. § 119, claiming that it violated the Establishment Clause. 

Did this statute require people to join a church?  Did it force people to pay tithe to the Southern Baptist Convention?  No.  This statute did not even force people to sing all four stanzas of Amazing Grace. 

So how is it that this statute was found to violate our First Amendment’s prohibition against the establishment of a national religion?  Here is the exact wording of the statute:

The President shall issue each year a proclamation designating the first Thursday in May as a National Day of Prayer on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals.

All that this statute does is set aside a day each year for those that want to, to gather in prayer.  This is hardly the religious persecution our founding fathers faced when they fled England.  No one is forced to pray.  No one will be required to attend church or take communion in order to be a citizen. 

This statute is simply a reflection of our history and our heritage.  It is fast becoming a national secret, but America has a religious heritage.  We have a religious history.  As Supreme Court Justice William Douglas said, “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.”

From George Washington to today, Presidents have issued proclamations asking for national prayer.  In 1789, both the House and the Senate passed resolutions asking President Washington to issue an exhortation to the nation to pray and be thankful.   This tradition has been carried on by the many different presidents, has sustained us through national crises, and has continued till today.

But our nation’s history was of little concern here.  The opinion stated, ““[I]f history is controlling, it would require the Supreme Court to overrule much of its establishment clause jurisprudence of the last 50 years.”

Finally, we get a concession from a federal judge that the last fifty years of jurisprudence has been slightly off the mark from our nation’s history!  But in the end, the court struck down the statute because it was a promotion of religion in general.

Luckily for this nation, the court stayed its ruling until all appeals have been exhausted.  Most likely, the Supreme Court will have the last say on whether our history will be re-written.  And we at the Alliance Defense Fund will be employing every legal strategy to make sure our history, our heritage, is not so easily discarded.

Let President Obama know that the National Day of Prayer is important to you and to our country.  Encourage him to instruct the Justice Department to appeal this decision.

Sign the petition for President Obama

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

Michael Newdow has made quite a name for himself trying to eradicate any mention of God in the public square. He’s brought–and lost–lawsuits challenging the phrases “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance (three times), “In God We Trust” on our currency, and “So Help Me God” in the President’s inaugural oath.

Now he is going after pastors and the IRS.

Newdow, along with the Freedom From Religion Foundation, has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Sections 107 and 265(a)(6) of the Revenue Code, claiming that they violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Section 107 allows churches to provide pastors with housing (or a housing allowance) without requiring the pastor to pay additional federal income tax. Section 265(a)(6) allows pastors to deduct home mortgage interest payments and property tax payments from their taxable income–deductions given to all taxpayers. Newdow is also challenging the parallel state tax code provisions.

Such exemptions have been common throughout American history. Congress has always understood the First Amendment to authorize property tax exemption for religious groups. And it was natural for this exemption to extend to parsonages, or church-provided housing. A parsonage has generally been viewed as more than just a pastor’s residence; it is an extension of the church. So it’s no surprise that shortly after the modern federal income tax was established, a federal income tax exemption for parsonages appeared in the Revenue Code. That exemption has now been in place for almost 90 years.

If this exemption is eliminated, as Newdow wants, the financial consequences for churches and pastors would be significant. One past congressional estimate concluded that American clergy would see their taxes increase by $2.3 billion over a five-year period.

Is Newdow’s lawsuit likely to be successful? It’s doubtful. In a 1970 case, Walz v. Tax Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an Establishment Clause challenge to a New York law granting property tax exemption to religious organizations. It concluded that there “is no genuine nexus between tax exemption and establishment of religion” because the exemption “restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state,” and eliminating it would expand governmental involvement in churches–which the First Amendment is designed to protect churches against. The same reasoning applies equally to this case. So Walz should dictate its outcome.

Further weakening Newdow’s claim is the fact that pastors are not the only ones who receive these types of tax benefits. Employees who receive housing from non-religious employers get similar tax benefits under Section 119 of the Internal Code. So Section 107 simply puts pastors on the same footing. And, as mentioned above, Section 265(a)(6) merely ensures that pastors get to deduct their home mortgage interest and property tax payments from their taxable income the same way that most other taxpayers do.

In short, courts have consistently rebuffed Newdow’s efforts at eradicating religion from the public square, and I expect this case to be no different.

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