Increased animosity toward churches because of their Biblically based moral teaching sometimes results in actual disruption of church services.  The disruptors’ intent is to intimidate churches into foregoing their right to speak up on issues like homosexual behavior by terrorizing parishioners.  ADF went to court to protect a Michigan church in Mt. Hope Church v. BashBack! when a self-described anarchist homosexual group interrupted Sunday Morning worship, shouting anti-Christian slogans, throwing pamphlets at worshipers, and blocking entrances.  We won that case, securing a nationwide injunction against BashBack! prohibiting it from continuing to disrupt churches.

But the Mt. Hope case illustrates why churches should have a security plan in place in the event of similar disturbances.  Our resource “Church Security FAQ” answers questions on how to go about getting started in this area.  It’s also important that churches follow Mt. Hope’s example and actually take legal action against the perpetrators of this anti-religious bigotry. Often times, government officials are unwilling to do anything about it, as was the case with Mt. Hope. If this anti-Christian behavior is left unchecked, the perpetrators are emboldened to take even more violent action against churches who dare to engage the culture and speak up on controversial issues like sexual morality.

Please share your comments below and to join the conversation join our facebook page Facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch

Pastor Jim Garlow from Skyline Wesleyan Church who is also Chairman of Renewing American Leadership was on Glenn Beck TV last week.  See the video below for their inspiring discussion on Pulpit Freedom Sunday.

There is still time to sign up for Pulpit Freedom Sunday.  Just go to www.pulpitfreedom.org and sign up to be one of hundreds of pastors who are standing courageously to regain their right to speak freely from their pulpits without fearing any government censorship or control.  Pulpit Freedom Sunday is October 2 so sign up today at www.pulpitfreedom.org.

Please share your comments below and to join the conversation join our facebook page Facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch

Who decides what can be said from the pulpits of America’s churches? For more than 50 years now, the IRS has had a say in what a pastor can preach.

The free exercise of religion depends on a free pulpit.

Join a movement of courageous pastors by participating in Pulpit Freedom Sunday and reclaiming a pastor’s right to speak freely from the pulpit.
http://www.PulpitFreedom.org

Please share your comments below and to join the conversation join our facebook page Facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch

I’ve reported several times on a case in Maryland where a nurse at a Catholic nursing home sued her employer because it required her to dress in a way that conforms to Catholic teaching.  Last September the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to hear this case, which is referred to as Kennedy v. Villa St. Catherine.  The federal appellate court took the case early in the litigation process because the trial court’s ruling resulted in the ironic determination that St. Catherine’s could have fired Ms. Kennedy for not being Catholic, but could not first ask her to simply conform her dress to Catholic teaching in an attempt to save her job. This created a huge loophole in the broad exception Congress made to Title VII that allows religious organizations the freedom to employ only those individuals that believe and act in accordance with the ministry’s teachings.

The great news is the Fourth Circuit issued an order on September 14, 2011 which affirms that St. Catherine and other ministries have the right to employ only those who agree with their religious teachings and apply them to their daily lives.  The Court said a contrary result would be “nonsensical,” reasoning that ”Kennedy admits that St. Catherine could fire her for her religion without any recourse. But, by first asking if she would consider changing her clothing before terminating her—i.e., by giving her the opportunity to keep her job—St. Catherine would suddenly open itself up to the strictures of Title VII. Such an approach cannot be squared with Congress’ desire in the first instance to permit a cooperative, accommodative approach to workplace discrimination.”

This is a fantastic result for religious freedom and church autonomy - the right of churches to operate without interference from the government.

Please share your comments below and to join the conversation join our facebook pageFacebook.com/SpeakUpChurch

There’s an increasing willingness in the U.S. to categorize any speech critical of a particular religious belief as “hate speech” that is some how not worthy of First Amendment protection.  But the Supreme Court held over 70 years ago in Cantwell v. Connecticut that pointing out the errors of the religious beliefs of another is exactly what the Free Speech Clause was designed to protect. If it’s not protected, everyone’s freedom suffers because one never knows when their particular religious views may be deemed critical of some else’s.  For instance, merely holding a sign in a public park stating, “Jesus: there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.  Acts 4:12″ seems innocuous enough.  But it might be considered offensive to, and defamatory of, religions who believe there are many paths to salvation.

The danger of not protecting speech that defames or criticizes a particular religion is dramatically demonstrated in other countries that have started down this slippery slope.  The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life published a study on August 9, 2011 that directly ties laws prohibiting the defamation of religion to an overall decrease in religious freedom.

“Globally, countries that have laws against blasphemy, apostasy or defamation of religion were more likely to have high government restrictions or social hostilities than countries that do not have such laws. A solid majority (59%) of countries that enforce such laws had high or very high restrictions on religion (government or social) as of mid-2009. Among countries that do not have such laws, by contrast, 58% had low restrictions or hostilities. Not only were government restrictions and social hostilities involving religion generally higher in countries with laws against blasphemy, apostasy or defamation of religion, but restrictions also rose in many of these countries.”

The Pew report observed that laws criminalizing defamation of religion are often touted as means of protecting religion.  In reality, the numbers show they have the opposite effect. These laws are the proverbial wolves in sheep’s clothing.  Giving government the power to say what religious speech is acceptable is a lousy way to protect religion. It simply doesn’t work.

It is vital that we continue to resist efforts in this country to categorize speech critical of a particular religion or religious beliefs as “hate speech” that is somehow unworthy of full constitutional protection. Another 1940s Supreme Court case said it best. “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official,  high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette.

Please share your comments below and to join the conversation join our facebook pageFacebook.com/SpeakUpChurch