God NOT Your Idol, Says Teacher; Michael Jackson Is

A teacher at Lucy Elementary School in Millington, Tennessee forbid 10-year-old Erin Shead from considering God as her idol for a writing assignment, which broke the girl's heart.  The teacher encouraged Erin after she chose a more suitable idol — the performer Michael Jackson (dead from a drug overdose).

“God is my idol, I will never hate him. He will always be the number one person I look up to. . . . I love him and Jesus, and Jesus is His earthly son. I also love Jesus. . . . He is the reason I am on this earth.”
-- Erin Shead, censored by teacher

For background, read God Censored at North Carolina School, Citizens Rebel and also read ACLU Warns of Christianity in South Carolina Schools as well as Atheists Say Illegal Christianity 'Rampant' in Georgia Schools

In addition, read of the myriad battles against Christianity in American public schools



-- From "Mom Upset Daughter Wasn’t Allowed To Write About God" posted at CBS News Charlotte 9/12/13

“It was so cute and innocent. She talked about how God created the earth and how she’s doing the best she can,” [Erin's mother Erca] Shead told WREG [TV].

“But my teacher said I couldn’t write about God. She said It has something to do with God and God can’t be my idol,” said Shead about what her daughter told her.

“I told the principal this morning, ‘Would it be better if she wrote about Ellen Degeneres?’ Of course there was no comment.”

Instead of God, her daughter chose Michael Jackson as an idol and that was accepted.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "School Tells Child She Can’t Write About God" by Todd Starnes, FoxNews.com 9/11/13

Christian Ross, a spokesman for Shelby County Schools, told Fox News ”teachers are prohibited from promoting religious beliefs in the classroom.”

However he said the district does not have a policy that prohibits a student from expressing religious beliefs in class assignments.

If that’s the case, why was Erin Shead not allowed to write about God?

Ross did not provide an answer.

“This incident has been addressed at the school-level, and the principal has contacted parents of the student regarding their concerns,” he said. “Out of respect for and in order to protect the privacy of individual students and staff, the district is not commenting further on this matter.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "10-Year-Old Banned From Writing About God By Memphis Teacher, Told to Remove Paper From School Property" by Katherine Weber, Christian Post Reporter 9/12/13

When Erin's teacher received her written assignment, she told the young girl that she was prohibited from picking God as her idol, and demanded that she start the class assignment all over again and choose a new idol. She was also told that her assignment with God as her idol must be taken home and was not allowed to remain on school property.

In a similar incident in February 2013, a three-judge panel in New York ruled that an 8th-grade student could not include a religious blessing at the end of her graduation speech. In California in 2012, Kenneth Dominguez, 16, filed a lawsuit against his San Diego-area school district for forbidding him from bringing his bible on campus.

The Alliance Defending Freedom Christian legal group said in reference to the New York student's graduation speech that students in public school should feel free to express their religious beliefs.

"Public schools should encourage, not shut down, the free exchange of ideas. The personal well-wishes of a student are no different just because they mention God," Senior Counsel David Cortman said in a statement back in February, as previously reported by The Christian Post. "Public school officials have no legitimate basis to shut down personal speech just because it has a religious reference."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Alabama School Doesn't Back Gay Agenda, Obama Investigates

The root issue is American Religious Liberty vs. Anti-Christian Totalitarianism

Prayer Adopted for Glendale, AZ City Meetings

At the urging of the mayor, the Glendale City Council voted in favor of two-minute prayer or invocation at each meeting.  Mayor Jerry Weiers said that it's a worthy policy because, as he said, “The fact is, the city needs help.”

For background, read 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco Ruled Prayer OK Lancaster, Calif.

Coming soon: U.S. Supreme Court Considers Public Prayer Case of Greece, NY

-- From "Glendale City Council OKs prayer during meetings" by Caitlin McGlade, The Arizona Republic 9/11/13

More than 30 municipalities statewide convene council meetings with prayers or invocations, according to research compiled by Glendale staff.

Glendale’s 20-point set of guidelines . . . bar[s] one speaker from leading consecutive meetings and from leading more than three times a year. In addition, it bars speakers from the same denomination to appear more than three times in a year. If no speaker is scheduled, council will observe a moment of silence.

Glendale’s program will allow speakers to deliver prayers or invocations at each meeting, free of council or staff review, as long as they they do not proselytize their faith or disparage others. The mayor’s office will keep a list of such speakers, who will be scheduled on a first-come-first-serve basis.

Mayor Jerry Weiers, along with councilmembers Norma Alvarez, Sam Chavira and Ian Hugh, voted in favor of the measure. Vice Mayor Yvonne Knaack, joined by councilmembers Gary Sherwood and Manny Martinez opposed it.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "City council discusses adding a prayer at meetings" by Darrell Jackson, Staff Writer, The Glendale Star 8/26/13

Councilmembers discussed policies from cities such as Benson, Florence, Litchfield Park and Winslow as well as Lancaster, Calif., all of which start their meeting with an invocation, as does the Arizona House of Representatives.

“We have a large diversity in this city and that is something we have to pay attention to,” Weiers said. “This is just a way to have a quick prayer and give us inspiration in a way that will not hurt the city and will not be required.”

“There have been a lot of councils that have done this for years and it has never been an issue,” Weiers said. “It is a voluntary thing and we have constitutional right to freedom of religion, and I don’t know why we wouldn’t do this in Glendale.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Remove Jesus From Food Pantry, Says Government

The Florida Department of Agriculture gave an ultimatum to the Christian Service Center (CSC) of Lake City, Florida:  Either strip the place of Jesus portraits, Bibles, and prayer, or we'll strip you of any U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) food to give to the poor.  The CSC food pantry chose to keep Jesus and give the USDA the boot.

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

Indiana Food Pantry Told Voluntary Praying Against the Law

Jesus' Name Unconstitutional in Public: Supreme Court

Pentagon: Jesus' Command is Court Martial Offense

Jesus Talk & Prayer Banned at Government Senior Housing

Jesus Talk Outlawed in New Orleans, Arrests Made

Preachers Arrested for Quoting Bible in Public

-- From "Florida official tells Christian charity to choose between Jesus and cheese" by Todd Starnes, FoxNews.com 9/9/13

For the past 31 years, the Christian ministry has been providing food to the hungry in Lake City, Fla. without any problems. But all that changed when they said a state government worker showed up to negotiate a new contract.

“This program is a USDA-funded program and the requirements were outlined by the USDA,” [Florida government] spokesperson Amanda Bevis said. “This agency administers the program on the state level. Our staff did provide a briefing to CSC following turnover in leadership at CSC and did review the USDA requirements.”

“We decided to eliminate the USDA food and we’re going to trust God to provide,” [CSC Executive Director Kay Daly] told me. “If God can multiply fish and loaves for 10,000 people, he can certainly bring in food for our food pantry so we can continue to feed the hungry.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Christian Food Pantry Refuses to Give Up Jesus, Loses Government Food Contributions" by Morgan Lee, Christian Post Contributor 9/10/13

The CSC has served food to low-income Lake City residents for the past 31 years. As part of its service, CSC prays with its clients and asks them if they would like to learn more about Christ.

"When we meet with them to get an understanding of the crisis or need, we ask them if they know Jesus Christ and if we may share with them. If they decline, we don't. If they do want to, we share the Gospel with them," Daly told The Christian Post. "Sometimes we lead them to the Lord and sometimes we don't."

CSC has refused to comply with the new regulations, even though the loss of the USDA food will severely cut into the food it has available, as the government currently contributes 30 to 40 percent of its total supply.

It hopes to make up for the anticipated food shortage through the support of its many relationships with area churches and individual donations and prayers.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Christians Cause Workplace Conflict - Silence Them

The latest study touted by the religious left and mainstream media concludes that Christians who might share their faith at work should be trained by employers to end such tendencies, lest worker productivity suffer.

". . . where there's more diversity, the survey shows that we can expect to find more conflict."
-- Joyce Dubensky, CEO, Tanenbaum Center for Interreligious Understanding

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

Fired & Evicted for Being Too Christian

Christians Can Forget Having Any Career at NASA

FedEx To Employee: Stop All Religious Conversation

University of North Carolina On Trial for Anti-Christian Bias

In addition, read how President Obama's DOJ Forces Employees to Celebrate Deviancy

UPDATE 11/15/13:  Schools Fire Christian Bus Drivers for Praying

-- From "Poll finds problems accommodating religion at work" by Emily Alpert, Los Angeles Times 8/30/13

White evangelical Protestants were more than twice as likely as other workers, on average, to say they had shared their beliefs with coworkers at times. Nearly nine out of 10 said they were somewhat or very comfortable when faith came up in the workplace.

In contrast, 43% of atheist, agnostic and secular workers were somewhat or very uncomfortable when religion came up at work. Almost a third of workers who were religious but not Christian also felt uneasy about it.

Tanenbaum, which offers programs to help companies make sure people of different faiths are welcome at work, said its findings illustrated religion is a workplace issue that employers should not ignore.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Religion In Workplace Increasingly Diverse; Comes With Potential Pitfalls" by David Gibson, Religion News Service, Huffington Post 9/1/13

A major factor contributing to workplace conflict, according to a survey released on Friday (Aug. 30), is that evangelicals — whose religious identity is tied to sharing their beliefs — are much more likely to talk about their faith at work than other religious and nonreligious groups.

And one-third of evangelicals said they discuss religion frequently, compared to 14 percent of non-Christian believers, 10 percent of Catholics and 7 percent of white mainline Protestants. Moreover, nearly 9-in-10 white evangelical employees say they are somewhat or very comfortable when the issue of religion comes up in the workplace.

Conversely, the research found that nonbelievers are reticent to discuss religion and 43 percent of them say they feel somewhat or very uncomfortable when the topic comes up.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "New survey: Evangelicals threaten workplace harmony" posted at World Magazine 9/6/13

The report concludes that the difference [between workers' beliefs] could perpetuate conflict: “This suggests the potential for workplace clashes between atheists and evangelical Protestants, given that half of all evangelical Protestants report that they share their religious beliefs with coworkers occasionally.”

To fix this egregious problem, the report suggests religious diversity training. According to Tanenbaum’s survey, workers at companies with proactive accommodations or programs that promote religious diversity have greater job satisfaction, are less likely to seek a new job, and are more likely to look forward to coming to work. Businesses are promised that such programs will help them attract and retain “top global talent.”

It seems like everyone wins: The employee and the employer, the religious and the non-religious. Yet, could diversity instructors consider Christians “intolerant” for practicing a major tenet of their faith: telling others about the gospel?

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Study Reveals 'Rampant' Religious Discrimination in American Workplaces" by Jeff Schapiro, Christian Post Reporter 8/30/13

. . . People who work for companies that have no religious diversity policies are nearly twice as likely to be looking for a job as those who work for companies with such policies in place. . . .

While many non-Christians (49 percent) report being subject to or witnessing religious non-accommodation at work, a similar percentage of white evangelical Christians (48 percent) say the same is true for them. Fifty-nine percent of white evangelical Protestants say the discrimination against Christians is as severe as it is against other religious minorities.

"We anticipated that Americans from minority religious and non-religious groups would experience prejudice; and, as expected, both members of minority religions and atheists reported seeing or personally experiencing bias at work," the study says. "What is new is that a significant number of people from our nation's majority religious group, Christianity, are also feeling mistreated at work."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

American Kids Killed by Chemical Weapons: Abortion

President Obama and myriad other pro-abortion politicians are grieving over hundreds of Syrian children killed by chemical weapons, yet not a tear is shed for more than 3,000 American children killed daily.  And while horrifying images of these Syrian victims are flooding American airwaves, the media blackout of horrific images of American victims of abortion continues.

For background, read of Barack Obama's opposition to protection for infants born alive during abortion procedures. and also listen to Barack Obama argue that abortionists can be trusted to care for live babies born during an attempted abortion (audio):


And yet, More Abortionists Admit Killing Kids After Birth

UPDATE 3/29/14: Supreme Court hears how abortifacients (chemical weapons) murder American children

-- From "WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGES: Obama administration releases horrifying footage of nerve gas attacks in Syria" by Bill Hutchinson, New York Daily News 9/9/13

Horrific new videos of Syrian men, women and children in the throes of a sarin gas attack were released Sunday even as [Syrian] dictator Bashar Assad continued to deny he ordered the atrocities.

The 13 videos . . . include ghastly images of victims sprawled on a floor foaming at the mouth and convulsing and gasping for air.

“Those videos make it clear to people that these are real human beings, real children, parents being affected in ways that are unacceptable to anybody, anywhere, by any standards,” [Secretary of State John] Kerry said.

“The question now is for Congress to resolve this week is, are there consequences for a dictator who would have used those weapons to gas to death hundreds of children?” [White House Chief of Staff Denis] McDonough said on “Fox News Sunday.”

A total of 13 videos were released in what the government is hoping is a convincing argument.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Rep. Wasserman Schultz: As a mother, I have a searing imprint of chemical weapons victims" posted at CNN's The Lead with Jake Tapper 9/4/13

[Democratic Party Chair Debbie] Wasserman Schultz said House members should put aside partisan politics, and pay close attention to national security when debating authorization for action in Syria.

Wasserman Schultz also said the U.S. has a "moral imperative" as "the strongest nation on earth" to respond when a dictator violates an international norm against using chemical weapons.

"As a mother, to me, I have an indelible searing imprint on my mind after seeing the pictures of those babies lined up. We have a moral responsibility to respond," said Wasserman Schultz.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Democratic Party Chair Heartbroken by Kids Killed in Syria, But Supports Abortion" by Lauren Enriquez, LifeNews.com 9/6/13

[Florida Congresswoman Debbie] Wasserman Shultz has spent her career ensuring that chemical and other forms of death continue to be protected by law and carried out on the babies in her own country.

Wasserman Schultz, like any compassionate human being, is appalled by the use of chemical weapons on children. But she has created a false dichotomy by working to ensure that American babies can be killed by the chemical weapon of a saline abortion, in which a woman’s uterus is filled with a saline solution that eats away at the inside and outside of the baby until it is burned to death in utero.

Wasserman Schultz also works to ensure that other babies can be killed by the RU-486 chemical abortion, in which the mother ingests a pill that cuts off her baby’s food supply and starves it to death, before ingesting another pill that makes her uterus contract to expel the dead baby into toilet water, to be flushed out of existence. No one gently dresses these fatally-wounded children in white shrouds, lining them up that we may see and mourn for them, and honor their lives. They are flushed, tossed, and ground out of existence.

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.



From "Why will the media show dead Syrian children but not aborted babies?" by Kristi Burton Brown, LiveActionNews 8/23/13

. . . the media is thoroughly covering the disastrous violation of human rights in Syria. They are openly demonstrating what it looks like when the basic right to life is ignored and trampled upon.

Why, then, the basic failure by the media to show what real abortion is? Abortion is just as real as the deaths in the Syrian conflict. It is tragic, horrific, and a daily violation of basic human rights here in the United States – as well as around the world.

Pictures of babies who have suffered through abortions are “graphic, disturbing” images. But they, too, would serve to “raise awareness of the plight of innocent people in a war that shows no sign of ending.”

. . . And so we must call on the media to speak the truth and to show the truth on abortion. Planned Parenthood – and the rest of the abortion industry – is a “regime that is killing us,” one child at a time. Innocent children struggle for their lives every single day in their mothers’ wombs. The media must be the voice of the silent, the downtrodden, the oppressed. They must speak out for those who cannot tell their stories to the world.

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

From "God’s red line extends beyond Syria" by Dr. Robert Jeffress (pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas), Dallas Morning News 9/8/13

Why is genocide in Syria intolerable while infanticide in our country is not only permissible but considered a constitutional right? By what moral authority do we deny the leader of another nation his “freedom of choice” to exterminate his own people, yet empower our own citizenry to kill their children and even provide hundreds of millions of tax dollars to Planned Parenthood to carry out the executions?

I can hear the liberal howl across North Texas as I type these words. “There is no moral equivalency between Assad’s heinous acts against his own people and the personal, painful choice of a mother to terminate a pregnancy.” But, alas, there is.

Both the Assad atrocities and abortion represent attacks against the most vulnerable members of society: children. We are understandably horrified by the pictures of endless rows of Syrian children’s corpses. But if we laid side by side the remains of the millions of children who have been aborted in the last 40 years — many during the second and third trimesters with discernible features — I imagine there would be an even greater outcry from the American people.

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

NC Townspeople Pray at Game Despite ACLU Threat

Randleman, North Carolina has no intention of ending community prayer at the high school football games, regardless of threats of lawsuit by atheists.  At the first game of the year, the prayer tradition continued over the loudspeakers, and at the second game, The Lord's Prayer roared from the grandstands.

UPDATE 12/7/14: Ohio School Supt. & Citizens vs. Complaining Atheists

UPDATE 9/1/14: Thousands vs. Atheists, Prayer at Florida Football

UPDATE 2/11/14: North Carolinians Pray at School, Defying Wisconsin Atheists

UPDATE 9/18/13: Crowds in Rowan County, NC Pray in Jesus' Name Despite ACLU Threat

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

Atheists Unite Alabamians in School Prayer

Atheists Raise Prayer at Schools as Texas & Tennessee Towns Respond

Texas City Ignores Atheist Threats, Keeps Praying

Praying Mother Banned from School Grounds in New Hampshire

South Carolina School Ensures Prayer Freedom Despite Lawsuit

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



-- From "Randleman High School Fans To Recite 'The Lord's Prayer' At Football Game Amid Controversy" by Liz Crawford, WFMY-TV2 (Greensboro, NC) 9/6/13

An organizer [of prayer] sent WFMY News 2 an email that said Randleman High School's football announcer received a notice with ACLU letterhead about the rules regarding prayer in public schools.

WFMY News 2's Liz Crawford spoke with Chris Brook, the legal director for the NC ACLU. Brook explained that initially the ACLU had not weighed in, but after complaints, they sent a letter to the Randolph County Board of Education.

Since then, the people in Randleman have started a grassroots effort to pray during [the newly created] moment of silence. There are more than 3,000 likes on the Facebook page. People plan to recite the "Lord's Prayer" in unison at the start of the game.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.





From "Fear of lawsuit doesn’t stop pre-game prayer" by JD Walker, The Courier-Tribune (Asheboro, NC) 8/24/13

For years, popular public address announcer and Randolph County Board of Education chair Tommy McDonald has led fans in a brief prayer before football games at Randleman High School.

McDonald said he spoke with county school attorney, Jill Wilson, earlier in the week about the pre-game prayer. He said Wilson advised him to seriously consider the consequences.

McDonald said his invocation in the past had always been fairly generic. Basically, he said, he asks the Lord to put his arms around the players and fans to keep them safe. He said he also asks for protection, so that everyone can make it home safely.

As the clock ticked down to the start of the game . . . [at] 7:18 p.m., McDonald took to the public address system. He led the stadium in prayer.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.



Because of the intimidation tactics of atheist lawyer organizations, state governments across America are educating its citizens on constitutional religious liberty by passing laws in Texas, and Louisiana, and North Carolina, and South Carolina, and Missouri, and Mississippi, and Florida, and Tennessee.

The root issue is American Religious Liberty vs. Anti-Christian Totalitarianism

To read the latest attacks on Christian prayer by atheists, click label "PRAYER" below:

Mom Sues: Doctors Insisted She Abort Healthy Baby

Sarah Hagan of Sunderland, England was given abortifacients at 24 weeks gestation because doctors said her fetus had only one eye, was brain dead, and had "no hope of survival."  After the medications (the type intended for use in early pregnancy) failed, doctors said she must immediately deliver her "dead baby," which turned out to be very much alive and with both eyes, but only weighed 1lb 7oz -- and still LIVES today!

"I just want other mothers to know my story so that nothing like this happens again."
-- Sarah Hagan, 38, of Farringdon, Sunderland

-- From "Sunderland Mum To Sue Hospital After Being Told To Abort 'Brain Dead' Baby" by Victoria Williams, Sky News (UK) 9/3/13

. . . the mum of two, along with partner Darren Perry, 25, has begun legal proceedings against City Hospitals Sunderland . . .

As a result of being born so early, Sarah says Aaron, now 15 months old, has suffered a catalogue of health problems including chronic lung issues and a cyst on the brain.

She said: "If I had been allowed to go longer into the pregnancy, I am sure he wouldn't have had any of these problems.

Sarah, also mum to six-month-old Harry, said: "I still find it hard to believe they could get it so wrong, that it was just presumed my baby would not survive.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "'I was told to abort my healthy baby': Mother, 38, sues hospital after 'brain dead' son was born kicking and breathing" by Emma Innes, UK Daily Mail 9/3/13

Ms Hagan went for her 24-week scan on May 4 last year.

Supported by her mother, Val, 66, medics took her into a consulting room where Ms Hagan says she was told her baby’s brain had not formed.

Left overnight to consider her options, Ms Hagan slept little and finally decided to take the tablets.

‘By Wednesday, May 9, I was back at the hospital because the tablets didn’t seem to be working.

‘I was seen by another medic who asked if I’d spoken to a neo-natal doctor.

‘I said “no” and he seemed flabbergasted. So they sent for one who then examined me and said he was going to deliver my baby.’

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Meet our best Christmas present of all" posted at Sunderland Echo 12/24/12

Just months ago she endured the ordeal of watching her pre-mature baby battle for survival, but tomorrow mum Sarah Hagan is set to celebrate her first Christmas at home with her “little fighter.”

While fighting for life on a ventilator, he also suffered an almost fatal infection and heart condition, which saw him given a police escort after leaving hospital in one of the worst lightning storms seen for years.

However, after eight months in the neo-natal unit at Sunderland Royal Hospital, Aaron is finally back home, enjoying the festive season with his family, and will soon be joined by a little brother.

“Aaron is doing really well,” she said. “He still has to go to hospital for check-ups since he was allowed to leave at the end of October. He has one working kidney and chronic lung disease and has to be fed oxygen. However, the difference in him is unbelievable.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Mother Sues Hospital for Healthy Birth of 'Aborted' Daughter

Obama Breaks Law, Gives VA Money to Homosexuals

President Obama ordered his "justice" department to violate Title 38 of the U.S. Code governing the Veterans Administration and the Department of Defense, which designates benefits only for one-man, one-woman marriage. In carrying out the order, DOJ Attorney General Eric Holder admits that the recent Supreme Court "Windsor" decision on same-sex "marriage" did NOT address Title 38, but Holder said the Obama administration considers Title 38 unconstitutional -- no need for a judicial branch decision.

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

President Obama's 'Marriage' Lawlessness Spreads Across America

President Obama Shifts Defense Funds to Homosexuals

President Obama Grants 'Reparations' to Homosexuals via Military

Countering Obama's Military Attack on American Culture

-- From "Same-sex military spoues to get benefits, Obama administration says" by The Associated Press 9/5/13

"Decisions by the Executive not to enforce federal laws are appropriately rare," Holder told Congress. "Nevertheless, the unique circumstances presented here warrant non-enforcement."

He said the Supreme Court's conclusion that DOMA imposes a stigma on everyone in same-sex marriages "would seem to apply equally" to the veterans benefits law.

Although the Supreme Court did not directly address the constitutionality of the veterans benefits provisions, the reasoning of the opinion "strongly supports the conclusion that those provisions are unconstitutional," Holder wrote.

President Barack Obama directed the executive branch to cease enforcement of the provision, Holder wrote.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Same-sex spouses can collect veterans' benefits" by Becca Clemons, Los Angeles Times 9/4/13

President Obama goes beyond the Supreme Court's Defense of Marriage Act ruling, directing the government to stop enforcing provisions that withheld spousal benefits from legally married gay veterans.

The Obama administration has made a series of policy decisions since the Windsor decision to extend federal benefits to legally married gay couples. Wednesday's announcement went further in that it declared unconstitutional and therefore invalid an existing statute that was not considered by the Supreme Court.

Last week, the Internal Revenue Service announced that couples in same-sex marriages could file federal taxes jointly. The Office of Personnel Management has allowed same-sex spouses of federal employees to receive insurance benefits regardless of where they live. And in regard to immigration law, same-sex marriages are now treated the same as opposite-sex marriages.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Spousal Benefits Now Await Gay Veterans, Obama Says" by Barbara Leonard, Courthouse News Service 9/4/13

Attorney General Holder announced the move in a letter to John Boehner, the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, and emphasized its consistency with United States v. Windsor.

Holder's letter also marks an additional step from one the Obama administration took in 2012 when it informed Congress that the Justice Department would no longer defend the Title 38 provisions, but that the Executive Branch would continue to enforce them.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Cost of Federal Government's Benefits Expansion to Same-Sex Couples Unknown, Sources Say" by Michael Gryboski, Christian Post Reporter 9/5/13

Edmund Byrnes, spokesman for the OPM [United States Office of Personnel Management], told The Christian Post via an email sent August 1 . . . "There are numerous benefits that are affected by the Supreme Court's decision . . . [but the OPM does] not have an estimate of same sex spouses that may be added" to the federal government health insurance program (FEHB).

. . . Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen, spokesman for the DoD [Department of Defense], told The Christian Post via email in August that "we will assess costs as we move forward with implementation."

"Additionally, we do not have an estimate of how many people this will impact. . . ." wrote Christensen.

When CP later contacted Christensen again as to whether DoD had an estimate, he responded that "Sept. 3 is just the tip of the iceberg" and that "we won't know for some time."

. . . In addition to no present estimates for the possible costs of the expansions from OPM, the DoD, or HHS, there has been no research done by the United States Government Accountability Office.

Jennifer Ashley of the Public Affairs for GAO told The Christian Post via an email sent Wednesday morning that "we have not done any relevant work."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read President Obama's Sexually Dysfunctional Military On Trial

In addition, read President Obama's Army Says Christians are Worst Terrorists

City Denies Cross, Miss. Law Forbids Church's Plan

The First Baptist Church of Brandon, Mississippi wants to allow the non-profit Crosses Across America (CAA) to build a $100,000 cross 110 feet tall on its property so it can be seen from 92,000 cars per day on I-20, but the city has denied the permit by blaming state law -- a law the city proposes to violate.

“It wouldn’t be built on city property, wouldn’t cost the city or its citizens a cent; yet, it is denied.”
-- Doris Alexander, member of First Baptist Church

For background, read Neighbor Disturbed by Cross on the Hill, Complains to State and also read Town Allows 'Signs for Jesus' after Lawsuit as well as Supreme Court Says No Crosses - Does that mean Arlington Also?

-- From "Planning panel rejects 110-foot cross in Brandon" by The Associated Press 9/4/13

Mayor Butch Lee said he objects to the cross because it is considered an auxiliary structure, limited by state law to a height of 20 feet.

First Baptist Pastor Scott Thomas said the city has offered to allow a 50-foot cross.

The Board of Alderman will vote on the proposal on Sept. 16.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Brandon planning board rejects 110-foot cross" by Terricha Bradley-Phillips, The Clarion-Ledger (Jackson, MS) 9/4/13

The Rev. Scott Thomas, pastor of First Baptist, said the Federal Aviation Administration and the Mississippi Department of Transportation already had signed off on the plan. The church, he said, has been working almost two years with CAA, which has more than 2,000 clusters of crosses in 29 states and two foreign countries.

Thomas said some commissioners said they believe in the purpose of the cross but felt it should be smaller in height.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Mississippi Town Objects to Church’s Giant Cross" by Todd Starnes, FoxNews.com 9/4/13

[Rev. Thomas] said the “Cross at Brandon” would also be used for multi-denominational gatherings, choral performances and outdoor weddings.

He said he suspects there’s more to their objections than just the size of the cross.

“They asked other questions that indicate to me that there’s something else that concerns them,” he said. “They asked, ‘what if the Muslims, the Buddhists want to build a sign?’”

But Mayor Lee said the planning commission’s decision has nothing to do with Muslims or non-Christians.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

'Gay Marriage' NOT America's Choice: Poll Study

New from Rice University is a study showing that American public opinion on same-sex "marriage" is not properly reflected in popular polls -- the nation is about evenly split with no recent "avalanche" toward the Gay Agenda.  Most significantly, almost a quarter of 18-to-39-year-olds are "unsure."

"Political scientists also know that when asked about controversial issues, some respondents will not give their actual opinion, but instead give the answer they deem socially acceptable."
-- Michael J. New, Ph.D., University Of Michigan – Dearborn

UPDATE 5/20/14: 'Gay Marriage' Not Favored in Polls, Only by Activist Judges

For background, read Pew Research Study: Mainstream News Media Favor "Gay Marriage" by Factor of Five

In addition, read Media Admit Propaganda Overstating Gay Population

-- From "What polls really say about gay marriage" by Mark Regnerus, University of Texas at Austin, posted at Chicago Sun-Times 8/20/13

Rice sociologists Michael Emerson and Laura Essenburg analyzed data from a poll that asked a random sample of nearly 1,300 American adults — on two different occasions, in 2006 and 2012 — whether they agreed or disagreed with this statement: “The only legal marriage should be between one man and one woman.” What’s the advantage to querying the same people six years later? Rather than simply mapping trends in the overall population — which is what most polls on the subject do — you can discern internal movement within people. That is, they change their minds, and the results show that they don’t always move in the direction of greater openness to same-sex marriage.

Here is what the Rice study’s authors say they discovered: First, they found less support for same-sex marriage than polls like Gallup and CNN tend to find. In fact, in 2012, 53 percent of those surveyed agreed that the only legal marriage should be between a man and a woman, while 13 percent sat on the fence, and 33 percent disagreed with the statement. Second, they detected no statistically significant change in overall sentiment on same-sex marriage over those six years. Third, some things did change — minds — and not all of them toward favoring same-sex marriage.

The uncommon results of this study, when contrasted with most media reports on the matter, may be to blame for the silence observed about this release. It simply didn’t jibe with the dominant narrative of majority — and growing — support for same-sex marriage.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "What is Marriage? Americans Dividing" by Michael O. Emerson and Laura J. Essenburg, Rice University 6/24/13

Debates have swirled around the legal definition of marriage, as U.S. states and indeed national governments consider the issue. This report draws on the longitudinal Portraits of American Life Study (PALS) to examine how the adult American public defines legal marriage, and whether that definition is changing over time. Interviewing the same 1294 Americans in 2006 and 2012, we track responses to the statement, “the only legal marriage should be between one man and one woman.” The findings include that in both years, the slight majority of adult Americans agree with the statement, and there was no significant overall change between 2006 and 2012. Yet, many Americans changed their minds over the period (some changing from agreeing to disagreeing, others from disagreeing to agreeing). The patterned manner in who changed their minds resulted in more division in 2012 than in 2006 in how Americans define marriage. Specifically, divisions have grown along educational, religious, and age lines. The patterns suggest a growing cultural divide across the nation.

. . . Many groups consider the marriage issue “the civil-rights issue of our time,” and same-sex marriage “inevitable.” . . . [However,] many Americans—not a random sample—define and will continue to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Trends will not sway their opinions. Other Americans—also not a random sample—are defining marriage as something else.

. . . The news of massive public opinion change has, according to the PALS [Portraits of American Life Study] data, been exaggerated. In fact, we find that statistically, there was no change in people’s response to legal marriage being defined as one man and one woman [between 2006 and 2012].

. . . when we look behind the overall numbers, we find that many people did indeed change their minds over the 6-year period. The most stable category was among Americans who agreed in 2006 that the only legal marriage should be between one man and one woman. About three-quarters (74%) who agreed with the statement in 2006 also agreed with it in 2012. Among those who disagreed with the statement in 2006, 61% also disagreed in 2012.

What is surprising in light of other polls and the dominant media reports that Americans are moving in droves from defining marriage as one man and one woman to an expanded definition is the movement of people in the other direction as well, a fact missed by surveys that do not follow the same people over time.

To read the entire study above, CLICK HERE.

From "3 Reasons Polls May Be Overstating Support for Same-Sex Marriage" by Napp Nazworth, Christian Post Reporter 9/2/13

Polls may be showing greater support for same-sex marriage than actually exists. Due to question wording, priming (the question that comes before the same-sex marriage question), and a social desirability effect (people will not tell a pollster how they really feel if they think their response is unpopular), support for same-sex marriage could actually be lower than what many recent polls indicate, according to political scientist Michael J. New and sociologist Mark Regnerus.

In public opinion polls, question wording matters. When polling questions make reference to "rights" as they ask about support for same-sex marriage, support can be 10 percentage points higher than when a more neutral question is asked, New, assistant professor of political science at University of Michigan – Dearborn, points out for Catholic Vote.

. . . Looking at past data, Regnerus found that asking that priming question can contribute to about a six or seven percentage point increase in support shown for same-sex marriage.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Senator Ted Cruz Says the Gay Agenda Ends Christian Liberty

Atheists Raise Prayer at Schools as Towns Respond

The efforts of the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation to eliminate prayer from school football games is having the opposite effect across America: After these atheist lawyers threaten the schools, the citizens unite to emphasize public prayer at the games.

In Marion County, Tennessee, a privately-owned, portable PA system was used to lead prayer.

In Pottsboro, Texas, the grandstands roared with the Lord's Prayer during the school's "moment of silence."

For background, read Atheists Threaten to Sue Every School in Mississippi but admit they're Short on Lawyers to Sue ALL Christians

In addition, read Texas Law Tells Schools to Ignore Atheist Threats

-- From "Pottsboro ISD strikes traditional prayer from pregame" by David Gonier, Herald Democrat 9/1/13

Pottsboro residents attending the first local high school football game of the season saw the first match without a traditional stadium broadcast of a pregame prayer in many years. Many attending the game used the moment of silence to stand and audibly recite the Lord’s Prayer, apparently in defiance of the decision.

Pottsboro Independent School District Superintendent Dr. Kevin Matthews said the pregame prayer had been a normal event at middle school and high school game for years.

Earlier this year, the district received a formal complaint from a non-profit organization called the Freedom From Religion Foundation. The organization complained about the district’s traditional broadcast of a prayer and also claimed that the district allowed a coach to lead his team in a pregame prayer.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Pregame Prayer Changes In Marion County" by Kelsey Bagwell, WTVC-TV9 (Chattanooga, TN) 8/31/13

Last fall, a parent attending a South Pittsburg High School football game was offended by the pregame prayer. She contacted Freedom From Religion, a nonprofit advocacy group based in Wisconsin.

Director of Schools, Mark Griffith, has allowed ten minutes for student-led worship before each game.

They're calling it 'Meet Me At The Fifty,' a group prayer on the track at the 50-yard line. The first one took place Friday evening.

The school plans to continue these prayers at each home game.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.



From "Prayer Banned from Pottsboro Football Games" by Markie Martin, KTEN-TV10 (North TX, Southeast OK) 8/30/13

Residents of Pottsboro are up in arms about a recent change to the usual Friday night ritual. As of Friday, prayer will be banned at football games. Residents say its removal affects their rights, their traditions and the players on the field.

"God needs to be there with the people, and the kids playing ball," said one Exxon woman.

Residents say they expect a heavy turnout at the season opener, with fans who want to express their support for the players and opposition to a breaking of customs.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Because of the intimidation tactics of atheist lawyer organizations, state governments across America are educating its citizens on constitutional religious liberty by passing laws in Texas, and Louisiana, and North Carolina, and South Carolina, and Missouri, and Mississippi, and Florida, and Tennessee.

The root issue is American Religious Liberty vs. Anti-Christian Totalitarianism

To read the latest attacks on Christian prayer by atheists, click label "PRAYER" below:

Christian Free Speech Censored at Ohio College

When administrators at Columbus State Community College saw the pro-life flyer that student Spencer Anderson planned to distribute, they confined him to a tiny no-traffic "free speech zone" on campus.  In Anderson's lawsuit claiming that the college's action is unconstitutional, he cites the discriminatory (greater) freedom given to non-Christian student organizations.

“Colleges should be the marketplace of ideas. Free speech should not be censored or limited to a ridiculously small area on campus, nor should students need permission to hand out fliers. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech for all students in the outdoor areas of campus, regardless of their religious or political beliefs.”
-- David Hacker, Senior Legal Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

For background, read 'Higher Education' Indoctrinates Pro-abortion: Poll and also read Buffalo NY Univ. Charges Pro-life Students Extra Fees as well as University Says Student's Cross Necklace Offends Freshmen

In addition, read Obama Administration Muzzles College Students' Moral Speech

UPDATE 3/16/13: Ohio College Nixed Christian Speech, Now Pays Damages

-- From "College Student Suing for Freedom of Speech" by Andrew Evans, Washington Free Beacon 8/29/13

“Through the permitting process, the college retains unfettered discretion to determine whether students may speak at all,” the complaint says. “These college policies and practices chill protected student speech and disable the ability of students to speak on campus about recent and unfolding events.”

Anderson wanted to hand out his flyers in more heavily trafficked areas of campus, such as the dormitories, but the school would not let him.

The school maintains the “solicitation policy” because “when a student hands out a flyer on campus, the college no longer considers him a student but considers him an ‘activist,’” a school administrator told Anderson, according to the complaint.

Anderson’s lawsuit was filed in the same court that struck down a similar free speech zone at the University of Cincinnati . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Ohio College Sued for Subjecting Pro-Life Students to 'Free Speech Zones'" by Alliance Defending Freedom (plaintiff counsel in Anderson v. Harrison filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio) 8/27/13

In June, Spencer Anderson, a Christian student at Columbus State Community College was required by college officials to get a permit 48 hours in advance to distribute fliers about his new pro-life student group. Officials assigned him to one of the two speech zones and forbade him from exiting the zone to speak with people or hand out his fliers. According to the complaint, the speech zones comprise less than 1 percent of the college’s 80 acre campus. In April, Anderson was involved in another pro-life display on campus subjected to similar restrictions.

College officials have approved other groups, such as students associated with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, to distribute fliers and speak to students outside the speech zones.

The lawsuit explains that the college’s speech policy prohibits students from speaking spontaneously in reaction to news and current events on the public sidewalks and open spaces of the campus. According to the complaint, the policy violates the First Amendment and grants “college officials unbridled discretion to discriminate against speech based on its content or viewpoint.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Columbus State Community College's Solicitation Policy Challenged in Court" by Susan Kruth, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education 8/29/13

CSCC’s solicitation policy governs the “dissemination or posting of any verbal, written, or pictorial material such as flyers, notices, requests to pledge or join any organization ….” Though it appears in the Faculty Handbook, Anderson’s complaint alleges that “[i]t is the College’s policy and practice to apply the solicitation policy to individual students ….” Under a subheading titled “Assembly,” the policy describes the college’s two “designated areas for public speech and assembly” and states: “All organizations and individuals must request to use this space for public speech and solicitation and must do so in writing at least one business day in advance.”

As a public college, CSCC is bound by the First Amendment. Anderson’s attorney, Matthew J. Burkhart, reviews the factors that determine whether a prior restraint on speech—like CSCC’s notice-and-permission requirement—is constitutional:

Under the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause, a prior restraint on citizens’ expression is presumptively unconstitutional, unless it (1) does not delegate overly broad licensing discretion to a government official, (2) contains only content and viewpoint neutral reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, (3) is narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and (4) leaves open ample alternative means for communication.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read ObamaNation: Rating Colleges Based on Immorality as well as Porn Novel for Freshmen Orientation in South Carolina

Atheists & Pastors Agree: IRS Must Audit Sermons

A federal judge has ruled that the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation can sue the federal Internal Revenue Service for not enforcing a 1954 law that restricts churches from endorsing political candidates, and many evangelical pastors say to the IRS concerning the scrutiny, "Bring it on!"

“[The atheists] will win our case. The very thing they are trying to prevent – conservative, biblical political speech from the pulpit – they will exonerate as constitutional.”
-- Dan Cummins, pastor of Bridlewood Church in Bullard, Texas, and founder of Come Pray With Me

For background, read Pastors Defeating IRS on Freedom to Preach -- it's because the IRS Fears Prosecuting Churches over Politics (because the IRS will lose)

However, only some pastors make the effort to be freed of the IRS muzzle.  Will 'Wimpy' Pastors Engage the War on Christianity?

-- From "Atheist group can sue IRS over enforcement of pulpit politicking" by Sarah Pulliam Bailey, Religion News Service, posted at Washington Post 8/23/13

FFRF, a Wisconsin-based group for atheists and agnostics, filed a lawsuit after the 2012 elections, arguing that a lack of IRS enforcement was unfair. The IRS filed a motion to dismiss the case, saying taxpayers often do not have standing to sue other taxpayers.

On Monday (Aug. 19), U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman in Wisconsin [Western District] denied the motion, writing that FFRF “has standing to seek an order requiring the IRS to treat religious organizations no more favorably than it treats the Foundation.”

Observers found the judge’s decision significant because similar attempts in the past have failed. For instance, groups have tried to sue over the Catholic Church’s involvement in anti-abortion activism. “It is a tactic that’s been used before, but without success,” said Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame. “I can’t see it going anywhere.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Judge OKs Atheist Group's Suit Against IRS Over Church Politicking Ban Enforcement" by Michael Gryboski, Christian Post Reporter 8/21/13

[Judge Adelman wrote,] "If it is true that the IRS has a policy of not enforcing the prohibition on campaigning against religious organizations, then the IRS is conferring a benefit on religious organizations (the ability to participate in political campaigns) that it denies to all other § 501(c)(3) organizations, including the Foundation."

In 1954, Congress passed the Johnson Amendment. According to the amendment's language, tax-exempt entities, such as churches, cannot "participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of – or in opposition to – any candidate for public office."

Critics of the Johnson Amendment, including the Alliance Defending Freedom, have argued that the rule effectively "muzzles" the free speech of clergy by threatening removal of their tax-exempt status should they endorse a candidate from the pulpit.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Evangelical body supports politicking in the pulpit" by John Dart, Christian Century 8/29/13

A report prepared by the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability—a watchdog body that advises evangelical churches and ministries on good business practices—was given to Sen. Charles Grassley (R., Iowa).

. . . ECFA commission chairman Michael E. Batts wrote to Grassley: “It is both disturbing and chilling that the federal government regulates the speech of religious organizations.” His Commission on Accountability and Policy for Religious Organizations asserted in its report that “members of the clergy should be able to say whatever they believe is appropriate” in their religious contexts. IRS guidelines also “are often vague, causing uncertainty as to what is permissible,” added the report.

The ECFA said its recommendations came from 14 commission members and “66 panel members representing every major faith group in America.” . . .

In another survey, a Pew Research Center poll asked churchgoers last October whether their clergy had spoken about presidential candidates at their churches. About one in five (19 percent) said they had. Four in ten worshipers in black Protestant churches said their pastors have spoken directly about the candidates.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Pastors chuckle as atheists fight feds for them" by Gina Loudon, Ph.D., World Net Dailly 8/31/13

The pastors, in an initiative organized by the Alliance Defending Freedom called Pulpit Freedom Sunday, have been preaching what they believe the Bible says regarding current political issues and then informing the IRS of their actions. They’ve been trying to convince the IRS to bring a case against one of the ministers.

They believe the IRS intentionally is ignoring their statements to avoid a confrontation over the 1954 Johnson Amendment that purports to silence some speech in the United States through IRS regulations.

Pastors who spoke with WND believe that the only way to get rid of the Johnson Amendment is to get audited by the IRS and have the case go to the Supreme Court, where they believe it will be ruled unconstitutional.

The Black Robe Regiment is a group of pastors who insist the First Amendment doesn’t stop at sanctuary doors. They argue that all laws are based on someone’s morality and point to the time-tested Judeo-Christian principles espoused by the Founding Fathers.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

In addition, read President Obama Redefines 1st Amendment Freedom of Religion and yet President Obama Denies Leading War Against Christianity, and also read Religious Liberty & Anti-Christian Totalitarianism

Global Warming a Religion, Say Climate Scientists

According to many scientists, Global Warming has become the religion of "Climatism" -- with a global congregation led by a clergy of institutional science.  However, "the cracks in the scientific claims for catastrophic warming are…becoming much harder for the supporters to defend."

"Global climate alarmism has been costly to society, and it has the potential to be vastly more costly. It has also been damaging to science, as scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions."
-- Dr. Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)

For background, read Religion (Secular Humanism) Taught in New National Science Curriculum

UPDATE 9/28/13: Parents Sue Kansas to Stop Religious (Environmentalism) Education

In addition, read Pagans, Liberal 'christians' Celebrate Earth on Good Friday and also read Environmentalism Greatest Threat to Civilization as well as Global Warming Adherents Shoot Children

UPDATE 9/10/13: U.N.’s Church of the Burning Planet prophesies, scriptures proved wrong

-- From "Has global warming hit a plateau? -- The skeptics' favorite scientist" by The Week Magazine Staff 8/24/13

Richard Lindzen is a climate change skeptic with a novel theory. The MIT meteorologist concedes that greenhouse gases cause warming, but he believes Earth will be able to regulate its temperature, like a thermostat, thanks to clouds. Lindzen argues that when surface temperature increases, the moist air that rises from the tropics will rain out more of its moisture, leaving less to form the wispy, high clouds known as cirrus. Just like greenhouse gases, those cirrus clouds trap heat in the atmosphere, so a decrease in them would counteract the increase of greenhouse gases. "If I'm right, we'll have saved money" by not adopting emissions restrictions . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Climate Science Exploited for Political Agenda, According to Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons" by Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), posted at The Sacramento Bee 8/28/13

Climatism or global warming alarmism is the most prominent recent example of science being coopted to serve a political agenda, writes Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the in the fall 2013 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. He compares it to past examples: Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union, and the eugenics movement.

. . . he writes, "A profound dumbing down of the discussion…interacts with the ascendancy of incompetents." Prizes and accolades are awarded for politically correct statements, even if they defy logic. "Unfortunately, this also often induces better scientists to join the pack in order to preserve their status," Lindzen adds.

In normal science, models are judged by how well they agree with nature, Lindzen explains. In the climate "debate," however, the models are given a claim to validity independent of agreement with real observations.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read “Climate change is the totalitarian’s dream come true.”

Tennessee College OKs Homosexual Indoctrination

Columbia State Community College officials have concluded that psychology professor Dr. Linda Brunton was right to require students to participate in a "gay pride" assignment.  Christian students, referred to by Brunton as “uneducated bigots,” complained that she infringed on their constitutionally-guaranteed right of conscience.

"I don't really see why it would be much of a problem if it's an assignment, I mean people should be more open-minded, we're in college, anyway."
-- Ivan Jones, Junior at Columbia (Tennessee) State Community College

For background, read ObamaNation: Rating Colleges Based on Gay Agenda Indoctrination and also read Obama Administration Muzzles College Students' Moral Speech as well as Gays, Media Attack Christian College with Values

-- From "Teacher cleared in gay rights inquiry" by Ric Bohy, Columbia Daily Herald 8/29/13

The investigation was conducted by Randy Elston, director of the Columbia State Human Resources Department, whose findings were submitted to the college in a document dated Aug. 26.

[Elston's conclusions include:]

* The issue of homosexuality is part of the course content and appears in several textbook chapters. Brunton’s comments in class could have been tempered with “more sensitivity,” he added, but were within the bounds of academic freedom.

* While many students in all three classes were uncomfortable with the assignment for religious reasons, “I also believe that (Brunton) in some cases did not consider those beliefs and the impact on students when she was dealing with this subject matter.”

* Only four of the 43 students who participated in the assignment received a grade of zero. Two of them “who allegedly received a zero because of their religious beliefs” turned in an optional assignment that they knew was not written according to instructions.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Professor Orders Students to Support Gay Rights" by Todd Starnes, FoxNews.com 6/18/13

A Tennessee community college professor ordered her students to wear ribbons supporting gay rights and said those who believed in the traditional definition of marriage are just “uneducated bigots” who “attack homosexuals with hate,” according to a legal firm representing several of the students in the class.

Students in a general psychology class at Columbia State Community College were directed by their professor to wear “Rainbow Coalition” ribbons for an entire day and express their support for the homosexual community, said Travis Barham, an attorney with the Alliance Defending Freedom.

According to her faculty page, Brunton is a member of the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Educators Network and lists diversity issues among her professional interests.

The students were also barred from defending or explaining any other views regarding homosexual conduct, dismissing such arguments as “throwing Bible verses” at her,” the attorney said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Tenn. Professor Requires Students to Support Gay Rights, Calls View of Those Opposed to Assignment 'Ignorant'" by Alex Murashko, Christian Post Reporter, 6/19/13

When several students objected to being forced to support conduct that violates their faith convictions, Brunton brushed aside their concerns, described their views as "ignorant and uneducated," and explained that she hoped this assignment would cause them to change their beliefs, ADF stated. Regardless of their convictions, students had to express the views in a paper about the assignment she mandated in order to receive class credit.

The ADF letter explains that "for at least seven decades, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the government may not compel a citizen to say what he does not want to say." The letter points out that the Supreme Court has specifically ruled that "the First Amendment protects the right of individuals…to refuse to foster…an idea they find morally objectionable."

"College officials must respect their students' constitutional freedoms, including freedom of speech and freedom of religion," added Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot. "Compelling students to utter government-approved ideas is not education, but an abuse of power. We hope Columbia State acknowledges this and ensures that its professors stop forcing any students to endorse views with which they disagree in order to receive a passing grade."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.