Delaware School to Atheists: No Praying Allowed

After the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation complained to Cape Henlopen School District that a coach had been spotted in the vicinity of a few praying student athletes, Superintendent Robert Fulton wrote to the atheists assuring them that no longer will there be any possible appearance of school employees anywhere near somebody in prayer.

I can assure you that our employees, including coaches, will be reminded of laws involving the Separation of Church and State and will respond accordingly so that an objective/reasonable observer will not perceive their actions as endorsing religion in the future.
-- Robert S. Fulton, M.S. Ed

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

Oklahoma School Assures Wisconsin Atheists: No Praying Coaches Here

Florida Counties Bans Christians from School Football; Atheists Win

Maine Church Leaders Agree with Atheists: No Prayer Allowed with Students

Arizona Schools Ban Christian Football Coaches

Thousands of Citizens vs. Atheists: Prayer at Florida Football

Tennessee Cheerleaders Defy Atheist-forced Prayer Ban

North Carolinians Pray at School, Defying Wisconsin Atheists

Georgia Citizens & School Team Up vs. Anti-Prayer Atheists

Also read Most Americans Support Prayer in School: Poll

In addition, read Atheists Threaten to Sue Every School in Tennessee and in Mississippi but admit they're Short on Lawyers to Sue ALL Christians

-- From "Cape football prayer gets flagged" by Leigh Giangreco, Delmarva Daily Times 10/17/14

Two students on the team led the prayer, while coach Bill Collick participated, according to the [FFRF] foundation. Collick serves as both football coach and dean of students for the high school. . . .

The foundation is asking the district to investigate a possible separation of church and state violation but is not planning any legal action.

[Daniel Conkle, a professor at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, poses the question,] “Can [the coach] stand at the back of the room? At what point does the coach take a posture that he’s endorsing or promoting the prayer?”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Cape Henlopen School District responds to question about what appeared to be post-game prayer" by Mark Fowser, WXDE-105.9FM (Delaware) 10/17/14

The letter from Superintendent Robert Fulton was sent to a Staff Attorney for the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

The organization informed the district last week of its concerns about a photograph after a recent football game that appeared to show football coach Bill Collick and some players taking part in a post-game prayer, and raising questions about whether it was a constitutional violation.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "A kind word for Coach Collick" posted at Delaware Cape Gazette 10/17/14

Cape Henlopen High School football coach Bill Collick stood at the edge of a group of players on their knees in a post­game prayer recently. Sports Editor Dave Frederick, a friend of Collick’s and himself a coach of long standing, caught the scene with his camera. When the Cape Gazette published the photograph ­- in print and online - it captured the attention of the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation, dedicated to keeping religion and public functions separate.

Coach Collick didn’t organize, lead, or require the prayer. To the contrary, he exercised his own constitutional right to join this peaceful assembly. He was being supportive, and that’s what good coaches do. And Coach Collick is a good coach. He serves as a positive role model through his professional and positive demeanor on the field and in the hallways of Cape Henlopen High School as an administrator. He keeps students engaged, who might otherwise not be, and on the right track.

To read the entire editorial above, CLICK HERE.

Also read U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of public prayer, and read the resulting resurgence in public prayer following the Supreme Court decision including the long list of states enacting laws to bring prayer back to schools.

75% of Maryland Abortion Clinics Fail Inspections

Twelve of the 16 abortion clinics were found to be in violation of the 2012 updated state regulations by the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOH), and four of the 16 received emergency suspension of their licenses to protect “public health, safety or welfare.”

Meanwhile, former Planned Parenthood nurses Joyce Vasikonis and Jayne Mitchell-Werbrich are testifying before the Delaware state legislature about the “ridiculously” unsafe and filthy conditions while they worked at the abortion clinic -- video:

For background, click headlines below of related articles:

Most Abortion Clinics to Close in Virginia

Fetuses in Dumpsters Closes Michigan Abortion Clinics

New Michigan Law Requires 'Safe' Abortion Clinics

Unsafe Illinois Abortion Clinic Closes Permanently

Illinois Abortion Clinics Passed without Inspections

Abortionist Kills Chicago Mother in Second Trimester

Woman Dies from Abortion in Maryland, Media Silent

More Abortionists Linked to Murder Cases

-- From "Md. Health Department Investigation Finds Deficiencies at 12 Abortion Clinics" posted at WRC-TV4 (Washington, DC) 5/25/13

An investigation by Maryland health officials into the state's 16 surgical abortion facilities found that 12 were deficient in some respect . . .

Among the issues found at the 12 clinics were lapses in providing information about the professional credentials of physicians, maintaining a sanitary environment, and providing a discharge diagnosis into the medical record.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Abortion clinics lose licenses again" by Andrea K. Walker, The Baltimore Sun 5/24/13

State health regulators suspended the licenses of several abortion clinics owned by Associates in OB/GYN Care for the second time after an employee with no health care license or certification gave a patient a drug to induce an abortion at the Baltimore facility.

The same employee also performed an ultrasound on the woman, although the employee wasn't trained in the procedure, according to records released Friday by the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. There also was no physician at the clinic, even though the woman had scheduled an appointment for a May 4 procedure.

The state's Office of Health Care Quality investigated the clinic and suspended its license after receiving an anonymous complaint about the patient's treatment on May 7. The agency also examined operations at clinics owned by OB/GYN Care in Cheverly, Frederick and Silver Spring and suspended the licenses of those clinics as well.

The investigation found that it was standard protocol at the clinics to administer the drug Misoprostol to induce an abortion in patients in the 11th week of pregnancy or later, even if the patient had not been seen by a doctor and there was no physician at the clinic.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Four Maryland abortion clinic licenses suspended: woman died at one clinic" by John Jalsevac, LifeSiteNews.com 5/24/13

The previous closure of three of the clinics in early March followed the discovery by state inspectors that a woman had died at Associates in OB/GYN Care’s Baltimore facility. While the woman was said to have died from an underlying condition, inspectors had learned that the abortionist and staff at the facility weren't certified in CPR, and a defibrillator at the clinic didn’t work.

The state decided to inspect the clinics following an anonymous complaint regarding the treatment of this client.

The Department of Health's letter announcing the license suspensions also revealed that the abortion clinics have not "provided acceptable plans of correction for all of the deficiencies" discovered during inspection.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Md: ‘No deficiencies’ found in care of woman who died after abortion" by Lena H. Sun, Washington Post 5/24/13

In the case of the Germantown clinic, the health department began an investigation shortly after the woman’s death Feb. 7 [of 29-year-old Jennifer McKenna Morbelli]. Officials interviewed clinic staff, reviewed medical records and the clinic’s policies and procedures, and consulted with the state medical examiner’s office.

In a letter Friday to state legislative leaders, health department officials said they “identified no deficiencies with respect to this complaint.”

But the department did find numerous deficiencies at Germantown Reproductive Health Services during its broader inspection of all surgical abortion clinics.

At the Germantown clinic, nurses were not properly trained to give sedation medication. The clinic’s medical director was not properly credentialed. One nurse’s license had expired the year before.

Inspectors also found that the clinic failed to develop and put in place policies and procedures for emergencies if patients had to be transferred to a hospital. . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

In addition, read Pro-lifers Prevail: More Abortion Restriction Laws and also read Pro-life Legislation Floods America as well as Eroding Roe v. Wade State-by-state

'Gay Marriage' Sweeps New England. D'ya Notice?

In the span of a few days, Rhode Island and Delaware made it 6-for-6 in New England, and eleven states nationally with same-sex "marriage," yet it barely made news -- so commonplace now, perhaps.  With several more states considering abandoning the traditional union that is enshrined in the constitutions of dozens of other states, it appears that the once united states of America are increasingly divided.

“The meaning of marriage cannot be redefined, because its meaning lies in our very nature. Therefore, regardless of what law is enacted, marriage remains the union of one man and one woman – by the very design of nature, it cannot be otherwise.”
-- San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordelione

For background, read In 2009, Homosexualists Expected a 'Gay Marriage' New England by 2012 and also read National Same-sex Marriage Expected by 2020 (said the ACLU in 2009)

In addition, read Obamanation: Gay Agenda Carries in 4 More States as well as Homosexual 'Marriage' Not Enough; Next Goal

UPDATE 5/31/13: Minnesota, the 12th "gay marriage" state, begins weddings June 6th

-- From "Gay marriage momentum expands to 2 Midwest states" by Patrick Condon, Associated Press 5/8/13

The national momentum on gay marriage has been limited mostly to the East and West coasts, but it looks like that's about to change.

The Minnesota House votes Thursday on legalizing gay marriage, and Gov. Mark Dayton could be signing a bill as early as next week. The Illinois Senate approved it earlier, and supporters think they'll soon have enough votes in the House.

Minnesota's push comes after supporters mobilized last fall to block a constitutional ban. It's also become possible as Democrats took full power of state government.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Illinois Republican party chairman resigns" by Reuters 5/7/13

Illinois Republican Party Chairman Pat Brady resigned on Tuesday less than a month after surviving a challenge by some party leaders after he voiced public support for gay marriage as the state legislature considers a bill to legalize same-sex nuptials.

Conservative state Senator Jim Oberweis had spearheaded the effort to remove Brady as chairman, in part due to Brady's voiced support for a same-sex marriage law and the party's weak showing in the November election.

Illinois Republicans lost seats in Congress, and both chambers of the state legislature in November.

Some 30 U.S. states have passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read More High-profile Republicans Going Gay Agenda

From "With Delaware, Gay Marriage Now Legal in 11 States; Five More Likely to Follow" by Bethany Blankley, Christian Post Contributor 5/8/13

To date, 37 states ban same-sex marriage through constitutional amendments or legislative initiatives, while New Jersey and New Mexico neither ban nor permit same-sex marriage.

Eyes now turn to California, Illinois, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Oregon, as these states stand poised to override voter mandates at the ballot through legislation.

According to a survey conducted on Election Day 2012 for the National Organization for Marriage by pollster Kellyanne Conway, 60 percent of voters who actually cast ballots in the 2012 election believe that marriage is the union between one man and one woman.

The Supreme Court will rule on two historic cases related to marriage in June 2013, one on California's Proposition 8 and the other on the Defense of Marriage Act.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "After Rhode Island, is gay marriage ‘inevitable’? Conservatives say no" by Susan Page, USA Today 5/3/13

In an interview, [National Organization for Marriage president Brian] Brown blasted “cultural elites” for demonizing supporters of traditional marriage and warned Republican officeholders of the perils of supporting same-sex marriage proposals.

. . . In Illinois, he said supporters of a bill that passed the state Senate remain short of passage in the House, in part because of opposition from African-American Democratic legislators.

In Minnesota, he said opponents had “a very good chance of winning” against a bill that has cleared House and Senate committees. In New Jersey, he predicted Democratic efforts to overturn Gov. Chris Christie’s veto of a bill authorizing same-sex marriage weren’t “going to go anywhere.”

In Oregon, he predicted advocates of same-sex marriage would succeed in getting a proposed constitutional amendment on the 2014 ballot that would reverse a ban on gay marriage voters passed a decade earlier. “I think we can win that vote even though Oregon, again, is viewed as a very liberal state,” Brown said.

“And the goal of this whole inevitability argument is to sap the will of the majority of Americans to even fight on the issue, and that is not going to happen.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Obama and gay marriage: one fabulous year" by Jonathan Capehart, Washington Post 5/9/13

One year ago today, President Obama finally allowed his words to match his deeds when it came to same-sex marriage.

After more than a couple of years saying that his views on marriage equality were “evolving,” he told ABC News’s Robin Roberts, “At a certain point, I just concluded that for me, personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think that same-sex couples should be able to get married.” With those simple words, the president kicked off a remarkable year in gay history.

On May 14, 2012, Newsweek dubbed Obama “The First Gay President” because of his stance on marriage equality and other gay rights issues. That seemed about right to me then, and it still does today.

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

From "RI Bishop on Gay Marriage: We’ve Entered ‘Post-Christian Era’" by Michael W. Chapman, CNSNews.com 5/7/13

Bishop Thomas Tobin, head of the Catholic diocese of Providence, said the “gay marriage” bill signed into law in Rhode Island by its governor, Lincoln Chafee, constituted a “new challenge of the post-Christian era into which, clearly, we have now entered.”

[Bp. Tobin said,] “Our respect and pastoral care, however, does not mean that we are free to endorse or ignore immoral or destructive behavior, whenever or however it occurs. Indeed, as St. Paul urges us, we are required to ‘speak the truth in love.’ (Eph 4:15)”

“At this moment of cultural change, it is important to affirm the teaching of the Church, based on God’s word, that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered,’ (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2357) and always sinful,” said Bp. Tobin.  “And because ‘same-sex marriages’ are clearly contrary to God’s plan for the human family, and therefore objectively sinful, Catholics should examine their consciences very carefully before deciding whether or not to endorse same-sex relationships or attend same-sex ceremonies, realizing that to do so might harm their relationship with God and cause significant scandal to others.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "When you say 'Gay marriage is inevitable,' do you mean rich people want it?" by Jennifer Roback Morse, American Thinker 5/9/13

. . . as races developed in state legislatures, the Gay Lobby got reinforcements from not just Hollywood millionaires, but Republican billionaires. In New York State, Republican hedge-fund manager Paul E. Singer pumped money into the campaign coffers of pro-gay marriage Republicans. In the words of the Washington Post, "He coaxed Republican state senators in New York to back a same-sex marriage law in 2011, offering financial cover against backlash stemming from their votes, helping raise six figures for each of them."  You would think they would show some shame over such blatant quid pro quo corruption.  But hey, he's rich. He supports Republican candidates and Democratic causes, so who is going to confront him?

[In Rhode Island,] How did the marriage redefinition bill pass, given the opposition from traditionally Democratic constituents? Look at the professional side of the equation.  One can track the number of lobbyists registered for each side of each bill on this page,  from the Rhode Island Secretary of State.  The House version of the marriage redefinition bill, H5015A has one lobbyist opposed: my buddy Chris Plante of NOM Rhode Island. The other side has 12 registered lobbyists.  On the Senate side, the proponents of the marriage redefinition bill, S0038, have 18 lobbyists.  Opposed?  You guessed it. Chris Plante, all by his lonesome.

Same story in Minnesota, where a vote on the marriage bill is expected this week.  Minnesota for Marriage has one registered lobbyist.  According to John Helmberger, Chairman of the Minnesota for Marriage, the other side has 12 lobbyists.  Paul Singer's organization pumped a quarter million dollars to lobby Republicans to redefine marriage in Minnesota.

So when the Gay Lobby says "gay marriage is inevitable," what they really mean to say is this:

We have the money and the power to get what we want.

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Gay Lobby Purchases Same-sex 'Marriage'

Judge Says Lord's Prayer Unconstitutional in Delaware

U.S. District Judge Leonard P. Stark granted a preliminary injunction stopping the Sussex County Council from reciting The Lord's Prayer before the meeting opens because he agrees with the atheist plaintiff that the act violates the First Amendment to the Constitution.

For background, read Atheists Sue to Stop Lord's Prayer in Delaware and also read Prayer in America: Hidden Faith, or Public?

UPDATE 6/28/12: Citizens won't remain silent - keep praying aloud at meetings

-- From "Judge silences Sussex County Council's prayer" by James Fisher, The News Journal (Wilmington, Del.) 5/16/12

The court "is likely to conclude that the Council's practice of opening each meeting with a recitation of this distinctly Christian Lord's Prayer violates the Establishment Clause because it constitutes government endorsement of the Christian faith," Stark wrote in his opinion. "The fact that The Lord's Prayer has been the only prayer recited at the beginning of Council meetings for over six years is likely to be found to demonstrate that the Council gives Christianity an unconstitutionally preferred status."

"Whatever happened to freedom of speech?" Councilman Sam Wilson said when called for comment Tuesday. "I don't know how we're gonna get around it. But we're gonna have to find a way."

Alex Luchenitser, an attorney with Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said he is "very pleased with the court's decision." His group represents [local] plaintiffs Barbara Mullin, Julie Jackson, John Steinbruck and William O'Connor.

Stark's injunction takes effect June 15 but doesn't end the lawsuit. The council would violate the court order if it began its scheduled June 19 meeting with the the Lord's Prayer.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Court halts Lord's Prayer at council meetings" by Ron MacArthur, Cape Gazette - Bethany Beach Wave 5/16/12

The court has issued a 30-day stay of the preliminary injunction in the hope a settlement can be reached out of court. “It is hoped that during this period the parties may confer – perhaps with the assistance of this court's judicial officers as mediators – and attempt to agree upon how to preserve the council's practice of opening its meetings with a prayer but to do so in a manner that is consistent with the United States and Delaware constitutions,” wrote Stark.

Stark said courts across the country have grappled with the determining the constitutionality of legislative prayers, but he noted courts have upheld a legislative body's practice of inviting community religious leaders to deliver prayers of any type – including sectarian prayers – with a variety of religious expressions.

According to court documents, it's unclear exactly when the practice of opening council meetings with The Lord's Prayer began. Audio recordings on the county's website indicate the practice dates back to at least March 28, 2006

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Jesus' Name Unconstitutional in Public: Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court let stand two separate lower court rulings that forbid Christian public prayer prior to school board or county board meetings.

For background, read Jesus' Name Unconstitutional in Public: Federal Court and also read Jesus' Name Unconstitutional at School Board Meetings

UPDATE 5/13/14: U.S. Supreme Court rules prayers to Jesus Christ OK at government meetings

-- From "Court rejects appeal over prayer at public meeting" by The Associated Press 1/17/12

The justices on Tuesday left in place a federal appeals court ruling that held that the predominantly Christian prayers at the start of Forsyth County commission meetings violated the First Amendment's prohibition on government endorsement of a particular religion.

The commission said its doors have long been open to religious leaders of many faiths. But the appeals court in Richmond, Va., found that more than three-quarters of the 33 invocations given before meetings between May 2007 and December 2008 referred to "Jesus," "Jesus Christ," "Christ" or "Savior."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Prayer Cases Turned Away by U.S. Supreme Court Justices" by Greg Stohr, Bloomberg 1/17/12

The justices today left intact a federal appeals ruling that said a North Carolina county board was violating the constitutional separation of church and state by opening most of its sessions with a Christian prayer. The high court also refused to review a separate decision that barred prayers at meetings of a Delaware school board.

The Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on the constitutionality of prayer at government meetings since 1983, when the justices said lawmakers could begin sessions with nonsectarian prayers offered by a state-employed chaplain. In other contexts, the court under Chief Justice John Roberts has given governmental bodies more freedom to support religion.

The [county] case is Forsyth County v. Joyner, 11-546.

In the other case, the justices left intact a federal appeals court decision that barred prayers at meetings of the Indian River School Board in Delaware.

The case is Indian River School District v. Doe, 11-569.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Atheists Sue to Stop Lord's Prayer in Delaware

Federal Judge Leonard P. Stark heard arguments from atheists wanting to stop the 41-year prayer tradition at Sussex County Council meetings, but defenders oddly responded that the Lord's Prayer is NOT uniquely Christian and therefore not unconstitutional.


For background, read Atheists Sue to Stop Prayer in Delaware

UPDATE 5/16/12: Judge Says Lord's Prayer Unconstitutional in Delaware

-- From "Judge Hears Arguments in Sussex Council Prayer Lawsuit" by Michael Lopardi, WBOC-TV16 1/11/12

Four residents, including a [liberal ELCA] Lutheran minister, claim the council's use of a Protestant version of the Lord's Prayer is unconstitutional because it favors one religion.

Americans United [for Separation of Church and State] is arguing the case on behalf of the plaintiffs: Rev. John Steinbruck, Barbara Mullin, Julie Jackson and William O'Connor. The plaintiffs have all attended council meetings in the past and were offended by the council's use of the prayer, said Americans United.

The organization, which filed the case in June 2011, said the council's choice of prayer excludes people who do not share that faith and pressures members of the audience to take part.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Delaware lawsuit delves into Lord's Prayer" by Chad Livengood, The (Wilmington, Del.) News Journal 1/12/12

At the start of each Tuesday morning meeting, Council President Mike Vincent stands up and nods to his four colleagues, signaling them to bow their heads and begin to recite the Lord's Prayer.

The county's attorney contends the council's recital of the Lord's Prayer is permissible under the U.S. Supreme Court's 1983 ruling in Marsh v. Chambers, which found in a Nebraska case that having a government-funded chaplain say a prayer before a legislative session was constitutional.

[County attorney J. Scott] Shannon argued the prayer is generic and that Vincent, who is named as a defendant in the lawsuit, is not proselytizing or asking the audience to join in.

Shannon said the language of the Lord's Prayer is tolerable and contains language that fits with widely held beliefs of people of other faiths.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Jesus' Name Unconstitutional at School Board Meetings

Reversing a lower-court judgment, the United States 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Indian River [Delaware] School District’s policy allowing board members to open meetings with prayer unconstitutionally promoted Christianity over other religions and excessively entangled church and state.

UPDATE 1/17/12: Atheists win as Supreme Court refuses to hear appeal

UPDATE 8/31/11: Indian River School District Board of Education votes unanimously to file petition requesting U.S. Supreme Court hear case

-- From "Court: IR prayers violate Constitution" by Sean O'Sullivan, The News Journal 8/9/11

While U.S. District Judge Joseph J. Farnan Jr. [previously] ruled the school board did not violate the law because it was more akin to an elected body than a school, the appeals court ruled the opposite was true and the prayers amounted to a state endorsement of one religion over others.

"In arriving at this outcome, we recognize, as the Supreme Court has, that 'religion has been closely identified with our history and government,' " wrote Circuit Court Judge Julio M. Fuentes in a 74-page opinion for the panel, which included Circuit Court Judge Jane Roth. "But we take to heart the observation ... that '(i)t is neither sacrilegious nor anti-religious to say that each separate government in this country should stay out of the business of writing or sanctioning official prayers and leave that purely religious function to the people themselves.' "

IR Superintendent Susan Bunting said the district's next step will be to meet with the lawyer to discuss the details to decide what's next.

The ruling can be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Prayers at School Board Meetings Struck Down" by Mark Walsh, Education Week 8/8/11

Prayers before school board meetings are commonplace in the United States, though certainly not everywhere.

The 3rd Circuit case involves the 8,400-student Indian River school district in Delaware, which has had prayers at its board meetings since its founding in 1969, court papers say. In 2004, the district formalized its board meeting prayer policy, which calls for board members to rotate in leading a prayer or moment of silence to "solemnify" formal meetings. The policy says prayers may be sectarian or non-sectarian, "in the name of a Supreme Being, Jehovah, Jesus Christ, Buddha, Allah," or any other entity.

Two families challenged the board prayers as a violation of the First Amendment's prohibition against government establishment of religion. A federal district court upheld the practice. But in its Aug. 5 decision in Doe v. Indian River School District, the 3rd Circuit court panel said the board's policy and practices cannot be squared with the establishment clause.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Court Rules Delaware School Board's Prayer Policy Unconstitutional" by Meagan Johnson, Christian Post Contributor 8/9/11

At each meeting, the Delaware school board would open with a prayer offered by one of the board members. The Court of Appeals had a concern about the prayers-- which were usually Christian in their orientation-- since students usually attended the meeting to receive awards or as part of their extra-curricular activities.

The panel stated that the meetings were comparable to graduation ceremonies. Although the meetings were not mandatory, the judges felt that the students were nevertheless coerced into participating in religious exercises. Therefore, the Court of Appeals decided that the primary effect of the school board’s prayer policy was to advance a specific religion and violated the U.S. Constitution.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Court strikes down school board's prayer policy" by Bob Allen, Associated Baptist Press 8/8/11

The school board argued the prayers are legal citing a 1983 Supreme Court ruling recognizing a long tradition of using prayer to “solemnize” public gatherings. . . .

The Philadelphia-based 3rd Circuit, however, said the Delaware school board’s meetings were more like a graduation ceremony than a session of Congress. While not technically mandatory, the court said the school board encouraged student participation with practices like awards ceremonies, color guards from school JROTC groups and inclusion of student-government representatives.

The U.S. Supreme Court first ruled against prayer in public schools in 1962, followed a year later by a ruling that forbade daily Bible reading. Since the 1980s courts have judged Establishment Clause cases based on three criteria: whether a government’s practice has a “secular purpose,” its primary purpose is to advance religion or it creates excessive entanglement between government and religion.

Using that standard, the court said the Indian River prayer policy “rises above the level of interaction between church and state that the Establishment Clause permits.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Jesus' Name Unconstitutional in Public, says Federal Court

Atheists Sue to Stop Prayer in Delaware

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State has filed a lawsuit against Sussex County for having the Lord's Prayer open civic meetings, but county leaders say they'll fight this challenge just as they've resisted all such previous unconstitutional attacks.

UPDATE 10/6/11: The Lord's Prayer goes to court in January

-- From "Sussex County Sued Over Prayer" by Angelica Spanos, WBOC TV-16 (Delaware) 7/1/11

The lawsuit, named Mullin vs. Sussex County, has Barbara Mullin as one of its plaintiffs. Mullin lives near Lewes, and she and the other plaintiffs who are part of the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State have attended council meetings in the past and were offended by the promotion of one religion. The group said in a statement, "By persistently sponsoring this Christian prayer the county council has publicly aligned itself with a single faith."

Since 2009, the Lord's Prayer has been included in the council meeting minutes as an invocation.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Four Sussex residents sue over prayer at council meetings" by Dan Shortridge, The News Journal 6/30/11

Former Councilman Dale Dukes, a Laurel-area Democrat, said previous council members had agreed to defend the prayers in court if anyone sued, and he hoped the current council would do the same.

The [atheist] group also has objected in the past to the council's sponsorship of an annual county prayer breakfast, though taxpayer money is not used.

Councilwoman Joan Deaver, the lone Democrat, attempted in 2009 to have the council's Easter break renamed "spring break," citing concerns from her Jewish constituents. Her motion did not gain support from any of the four Republicans.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Same-sex Civil Unions in Delaware

Homosexual couples now have the same rights and benefits of married couples in Delaware, as Gov. Jack Markell signed civil unions into law.

-- From "Delaware legalizes same-sex unions" by The Associated Press 5/12/11

It makes Delaware the eighth state to allow civil unions or domestic partnerships for same-sex couples.

The law takes effect Jan. 1, 2012.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Governor signs Delaware civil unions bill" by Beth Miller, The (Wilmington, Del.) News Journal 5/12/11

After decades of struggle with the gay-rights debate, the civil unions bill seemed to fly through the Legislature, moving from its filing date to final passage April 14 in less than four weeks.

Lawmakers passed the bill in both chambers by margins of almost 2-to-1, with several expressing the difficulty with which they cast their votes for and against. Scores of people testified — some warning of dire consequences if Delaware endorsed same-sex relationships, others urging lawmakers to respect the rights of all and recognize the relationships of the state's same-sex couples as valuable and worthy of legal protection.

Wilmington lawyer David Facciolo and Jane Monahan, a lawyer now living in Geneva, Switzerland, fought against Delaware's version of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, but that law passed and remains in effect, which was one reason Equality Delaware sought a civil unions bill for same-sex couples only.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

More Abortionists Linked to Murder Cases

Delaware's medical regulators have suspended licenses of two abortionists associated with Dr. Kermit Gosnell, the Philadelphia abortionist who is charged with the murder of only seven of the thousands of babies he has killed, as well as one mother.

For background, read Kermit the Abortionist Loses 'License to Kill' and also read Murders by Abortionist are Conservatives' Fault, Says Media

UPDATE 4/10/13 - The Murder Trial the Media Won't Report: Kermit Gosnell

-- From "2nd Del. doctor suspended over Pa. abortion case" by The Associated Press 3/6/11

[Delaware] Attorney General Beau Biden requested on Friday the emergency suspension of Dr. Arturo Apolinario's license. Apolinario will not be allowed to practice medicine pending a hearing.

Earlier this month, state officials also suspended Dr. Albert Dworkin's license. Authorities contend the two physicians have worked with Dr. Kermit Gosnell, who is charged with eight counts of murder for the deaths of seven babies and one patient at the Women's Medical Society clinic in Philadelphia.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Delaware pulls abortion doc's license" by Jonathan Starkey, Delaware News Journal 3/6/11

Delaware's most recent complaint against Apolinario detailed the case of a 17-year-old girl, whose aunt paid Atlantic [Women's Medical Services' clinic] $2,500 for an abortion in July 2008. An ultrasound showed the girl's pregnancy was 29 weeks along.

According to the complaint, Gosnell began the abortion process at Atlantic in Wilmington [Delaware], then instructed the girl to report to his Philadelphia facility the next day to complete the procedure. After 13 hours of labor, the girl gave birth to a baby boy who was 18 to 19 inches long, according to sworn testimony by an eyewitness. According to testimony, Gosnell slit the baby's neck with scissors and "put him in a box where he continued to move for some time until he died."

Delaware prosecutors are also seeking a cease-and-desist order against Panzy Myrie, Atlantic's owner, for improperly advertising herself as a doctor. They're also seeking fines against Atlantic. While the state's complaints could result in fines and suspensions, they are civil, so they will not result in any jail time.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Execution Sought for Doc in Patient Deaths" by Maryclaire Dale, Associated Press 3/2/11

Prosecutors in Philadelphia say they will seek the death penalty against a doctor charged with killing a patient and seven babies at his abortion clinic.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell is charged with running a filthy medical practice that allegedly served as a pill mill by day and an abortion mill by night.

City prosecutors cite as aggravating circumstances the multiple deaths and the tender age of the babies allegedly killed with scissors after being born alive.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Murder Case Puts Spotlight On Abortion Clinic Rules" by Kathy Lohr, NPR 3/6/11

A murder case involving a sordid Philadelphia abortion clinic is fueling debate about how clinics should be run, with several states considering stricter regulations. Abortion rights groups say that could force some clinics to close and make abortions more expensive.

Some abortion opponents in Pennsylvania and other states say the regulations, even if enforced, were not enough. Delaware, Maryland and Oklahoma are among the states looking into stricter regulations in the wake of the Gosnell incident. About a week ago, Virginia lawmakers passed a bill that requires most clinics to be regulated as ambulatory surgical centers.

"I don't think that this is going to stop 'cause I don't think the Gosnell situation is going to disappear for awhile," [Daniel McConchie, with Americans United for Life] says. "He is going to go to trial and frankly, the horrific nature of what went on at his clinic is something that people just don't easily forget."

Some anti-abortion activists in Philadelphia say they hope to raise money as a result of the Gosnell case — enough to buy his clinic and turn it into a crisis pregnancy center that would not offer abortion.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Media Scorn God's Involvement in Elections

The mainstream media's favorite pastime of making fun of Christians again targets Delaware's U.S. Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell and her stated belief that God is in control of America's elections (and everything else, for that matter).



-- From "O'Donnell says prayer may have boosted her polling" by Ben Evans, The Associated Press 10/25/10

Delaware Republican Christine O'Donnell says prayer could be boosting support for her Senate campaign.

"The day that we saw a spike in the polls was a day that some people had a prayer meeting for me, that morning, for this campaign, so I believe that prayer plays a direct role in this campaign," O'Donnell said. "I always ask, please pray for the campaign, please pray for our staff, please pray specifically that the eyes of the voters be opened."

O'Donnell has been criticized for her conservative commentary over the years - she once voiced opposition to masturbation in a campaign against premarital sex - and has been ridiculed for saying that she once dabbled in witchcraft. [The AP is in error writing "that she once dabbled in witchcraft."]

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.

After quoting O'Donnell, USA TODAY points out that she's trailing in the polls by double digits -- "obviously proving" (in their minds) that prayers to God are ineffective.

It's noteworthy that the mainstream media does NOT quote from this portion of the same interview:

Mainstream Media Ignorant of First Amendment to Constitution

Fifty years of faulty public education has been exposed by "tea party" candidate Christine O'Donnell running for U.S. Senate in Delaware, as she seemed to be the only person in the debate hall who knew the REAL First Amendment language.

UPDATE 10/21/10 (video): ABC News reports what other media has not on First Amendment debate (begins at time mark 2:10)




-- From "Coons, O’Donnell Debate the Constitution" by Jess Bravin, Wall Street Journal 10/19/10

Ms. O’Donnell attacked her Democratic opponent, Chris Coons, for insisting that public schools teach evolution but not “intelligent design,” which posits that life forms are too complex to have evolved through natural processes and must have been created by a conscious being such as God. Mr. Coons, the New Castle County executive, said that public schools could not teach intelligent design or similar theories, like creationism and creation science, because they were “religious doctrine” rather than science.

“That is a blatant violation of our Constitution,” Ms. O’Donnell said. “The Supreme Court has always said it is up to the local communities to decide their standards.”

When Mr. Coons interjected that “one of those indispensible principles is the separation of church and state,” Ms. O’Donnell demanded, “Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?”

The audience exploded in laughter.

The moderator moved on, but Ms. O’Donnell later returned to this question, demanding of Mr. Coons, “So you’re telling me the phrase, ‘the separation of church and state,’ is found in the Constitution.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Mr. Coons claimed the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as his source. It reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

From "The Separation of Church and State" by David Barton, WallBuilders, January 2001

In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." The "separation of church and state" phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.

[After the] election of Jefferson . . . a President who not only had championed the rights of Baptists in Virginia but who also had advocated clear limits on the centralization of government powers, the Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson a letter of praise on October 7, 1801, telling . . . Jefferson their grave concern over the entire concept of the First Amendment, including of its guarantee for "the free exercise of religion" . . .

Jefferson understood their concern; it was also his own. In fact, he made numerous declarations about the constitutional inability of the federal government to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression.

. . . in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, [Jefferson] assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government. As he explained:

Gentlemen, – The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem.

In summary, the "separation" phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson's explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts apply it today. "Separation of church and state" currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.