But Some Are More Equal Than Others

The Freedom from Religion Foundation says it simply wants all religions to be treated equally, including the religion of Atheism. (On second thought, they might object to being called a religion.) If the Illinois state government allows one religious symbol, a nativity scene, in the state Capitol, surely it must allow the religious or philosophical symbols of all other religions: a menorah, a crescent and star, or whatever would symbolize the sincerely held beliefs of atheists… the Great Black Bowling Ball of Oblivion, perhaps.

Obviously Mr. William J. Kelly, candidate for Comptroller of Illinois, wildly overreacted and displayed unlawful religious discrimination when he called the simple, heartfelt statement of first principles of the Freedom from Religion Foundation “hate speech” — and dared turn their little sign about so it couldn’t be read, at least temporarily (I’m sure someone would have turned it back eventually):

A conservative activist and Illinois comptroller candidate was escorted from the Illinois State Capitol building Wednesday when he tried to remove a sign put up by an atheist group….

But Kelly said when he turned the sign around so it was face down, state Capitol police were quick to escort him away….

Kelly called the sign “hate speech,” and said he does not believe it is appropriate for a sign that “mocks” religion to be placed next to a Christmas tree and also near a nativity scene.

“I don’t think the State of Illinois has any business denigrating or mocking any religion,” Kelly said, “and I think that’s what the verbiage on the sign was doing.”

How dare he trample on the FFRF’s freedom of mockery!

Except… well, it’s peculiar that such an obvious religious bigot as Mr. Kelly never objected to the Jewish menorah in the same Capitol rotunda display as the FFRF’s sign. Oh, and he also has no problem with other sundry symbols on parade there:

[Illinois Secretary of State's office spokeswoman Henry] Haupt said in addition to the sign, the Nativity Scene and the Christmas tree, there is also a Soldiers’ Angels wreath, and a tabletop display from the American Civil Liberties Union that says the group “defends freedom of religion.” A Hanukkah menorah had also been on display until the Jewish Festival of Lights ended on Saturday.

For the second year in a row, the Capitol also has an aluminum Festivus pole commemorating the fictional holiday created in “Seinfeld.”

Now that’s an odd duck of a religious extremist, one who seems to have no problem with other religious displays, including a fake religion created by a screenwriter — or even a display from the ACLU, which has far more often been on the side of, well, atheists and the anti-religious than believers in recent years. How to explain this seeming dichotomy?

Sometimes the devil (who doesn’t exist) is in the details; perhaps we ought to take a look at the actual wordage on the FFRF’s declaration, which they set up directly in front of the Christmas tree:

The sign reads: “At the time of the winter solstice, let reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is just myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”

Hm; in order to “let reason prevail,” let us consider how such a sign might look when pushing a different message; consider this hypothetical placard, which could have been erected directly in front of the menorah in the rotunda:

At the time of the Mass of Christ, let the Son of God prevail. There are no laws, no acts that can save you from hell. There is only the divine salvation that comes from the King of Kings. Judaism is just myth and superstition that bewitches believers and damns souls.

Does anybody believe that such a (purely hypothetical) sign would be allowed under the Illinois state Capitol dome? Obviously not, because it is not so much an expression of faith as an attack on other people’s faith.

As is the plaque placed by the Freedom from Religion Foundation. It may be sincere mockery, but mockery and attack it clearly is.

FRFF plants their pugnacious sign like Cortez planting the flag of Spain in Aztec Mexico: Wherever it stands, it’s a deliberate and truculent affront to religions other than Atheism… as even the foundation’s co-president agrees!

As to Kelly’s claims that the sign mocks religion, foundation co-President Dan Barker said: “He’s kind of right, because the last couple of sentences do criticize religion, and of course, the beginning is a celebration of the winter solstice. But that kind of speech is protected as well — speech that is critical and speech that is supportive.”

Protected, yes; but not necessarily hosted. If the FRFF wants to put up a sign on private property proclaiming the falsity of Christianity and Judaism — or of Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Wicca, though those other religions never seem to provoke such Vesuvian eruptions from the FRFF, the ACLU, or the United Separators (sorry, I meant Americans United for the Separation of Church and State) — let them.

But if they want to express themselves in a display in a public space devoted (for a time) to celebrations of religious faith, then let them simply state what they believe without mocking, attacking, deriding, or spitting on other faiths.

Mr. Barker seems to understand the thin ice on which he stands, for he attempts some sleight of hand to draw the false equivalence:

The foundation does not approve of the nativity scene, Barker said.

“We atheists believe that the nativity scene is mocking humanity,” by suggesting that those who do not believe in Jesus will go to hell, Barker said. “But notice that we are not defacing or stealing nativity scenes because we disagree with their speech.”

Of course, stating one’s belief in the divinity of Jesus is surely not the same as “mocking humanity.” In fact, a mere nativity scene doesn’t even argue that “those who do not believe in Jesus will go to hell.” I’m sure Christians generally believe that; but nothing inherent in a tableau of baby, parents, a trio of wiseguys, and a herd of barnyard animals makes any such case… no more than a Yule tree “makes the case” for Druidism.

(And why doesn’t the FFRF protest the menorah? It’s equally religious; why not equally offensive?)

There is certainly a fundamental constitutional right to freedom of religion (including the freedom to be of no religion); but there is no constitutional right to be free from religion: The latter would imply the right to remove all religious symbols from society, even those on private property, because the very sight of them — even the knowledge that they might be secreted out of sight inside a house of worship — could offend Mr. Barker’s “right” to live a life utterly devoid of contact with any religious beliefs, claims, sentiments, or values.

My freedom of religion as a non-Christian is not the slightest bit infringed by a nativity scene in a Capitol dome, nor by a cross in the seal of Los Angeles County, nor by an Islamic crescent erected decades ago in some state or federal park, if such a thing exists. Such symbols of faith do not assault my conscience; I am capable of passing them by, respecting them, even admiring the beauty of their designs without feeling any compulsion to convert.

I wonder at a religious zealot like President Barker, whose faith is so shaky that the sight of any other religious relic or symbol threatens it. Atheism must be a barren and comfortless religion indeed to provoke such insecurity, even in its most fervent defenders.

(posted in the Greenroom on hotair.com)

Subscribe to this blog's RSS feed

No Such Thing

as a

Liberal Christian

We seem to be hearing more and more today about liberalism or conservatism in many areas of life.  Now we are hearing the news media and others talk about liberal Christians versus conservative Christians. This view should never arise when pertaining to Christianity.

Listen carefully: There should be no such thing as a “liberal Christian”!

Even a so-called “conservative Christian’s” view could be messed up – depending on whom or what they always base their views on.

If asked what type of Christian you are, our response should be – I follow Jesus.  I believe and do just what Jesus did.

Whatever our ideas were before becoming a Christian – that was the past.  We are now required to change.
Rom. 12:2 tells us to “be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.”

We are to change and become like Christ – period!

John 12:50 – And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

This is Jesus speaking!  He wasn’t liberal in His thinking or speaking – He was one with the Father.

Do you recall what Jesus said when Philip asked Him to “show them the Father?”

John 14:9 – Jesus said unto him, have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.

The same should be true of our lives.  When people see us they should know what we believe and think by what we do and say every day.  We should not waver due to what is, or is not happening in the world.

God DOES NOT change – EVER!  When we follow God and put Him first place in our lives, in all we do, then we will be blessed.  The same is true of the world.

John 14:31 – But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do.

If this was good enough for Jesus, then this should be good enough for us.  It does not matter what century we live in and how times have changed!  God knows just where this world stands and He knows what works to get us out of trouble.

John 14:10 – Believe thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?  The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwells in me, he doeth the works.

John 14:23 – Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

We are the light of the world –our light cannot be out part of the time.  The world has to know where to come to get help – at all times!

If the airport turned its runway light out just as a jet was coming in for landing, the pilot would not know where to go.

If a lighthouse turned off its light at night, then ships may become shipwrecked.

The church (the body of believers) cannot, and must not be divided – on anything.  The Bible says that a house divided cannot stand!

Paul lets the readers of his epistles know that he worked very hard at writing down the whole will of God.  And when a person knows the whole will of God, then that should be, and must be our will also.

The world cannot get saved, healed and delivered when the church is wishy-washy, or liberal in their beliefs!

Once a person gets saved and begins coming to church, we, the church, cannot give him or her mixed signals.  Well – anything is OK – as long as you don’t hurt anyone.  NO!  The church must lead that new believer into all the good that God has for him or her.  We must teach them how to stay under the protective covering of Almighty God.

John 17:14-16 – I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I pray not that thou should take them out of the world, but that thou should keep them from the evil. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

That doesn’t mean to go live on another planet, or tuck ourselves away and become a hermit.  We still live in the world, but we do not have to join in on the world’s way of believing and doing things.

When we were born again, we came out of the stinking kingdom of darkness, with all its evil, and we came into the Kingdom of God, with all its rights and privileges that Jesus, Himself, obtained for us.

Whom do we want to please – God or the world?  It’s our choice.  And remember, one day we will stand – alone without anyone else beside us and give an answer to Jesus for how we thought and conducted ourselves in this world.

So, I pose this question to you again – what kind of Christian are you?   I want each an every one of us to be a light to the world so they can see Jesus and God in us every time we respond to anything   So we should respond – I follow Jesus in everything.  What He says in the Word of God (the Bible) that is what I believe, follow and do.

Window On The Word — by Marcia Greenwood

Rev. Ed Bacon

By Drew Zahn

On the third day of her televised “Best Life” week-long series, even Oprah Winfrey was stunned to hear one of her pastor panelists, Rev. Ed Bacon, declare, “Being gay is a gift from God.”

With wide eyes, Winfrey responded, “Well, you are the first minister I’ve ever heard say, ‘Being gay is a gift from God,’ I can tell you that.”

The comment was made earlier this month on the “Your Spiritual Journey” segment of Winfrey’s “Best Life Week” by Rev. Bacon of the All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, Calif., a church described by Pasadena Weekly as “one of the most socially progressive religious institutions in America.”

The comment was so controversial that Winfrey invited Bacon back four days later via video link to explain himself.

“Tell us, what did you mean by that comment?” Winfrey asked.

“I meant exactly what I said,” Bacon responded with a wide smile. “It is so important for every human being to understand that he or she is a gift from God, and particularly people who are marginalized and victimized in our culture. Gay and lesbian people are clearly outcasts in many areas of our life, and it is so important for them to understand that when God made them, God said, ‘You are good.’”

The video of both Bacon’s original statement and his follow-up interview with Winfrey can be seen below:

During the original broadcast, Bacon’s comment was applauded by another member of Winfrey’s panel, Michael Bernard Beckwith, founder and spiritual director of Agape International Spiritual Center in Los Angeles, who agreed and gave a high-five to Bacon.

“You … you are the first two ministers I have ever heard say, ‘Being gay is a gift from God,’” said Winfrey.

As Winfrey explains on the video above, however, Rev. Bacon’s comment – and Beckwith’s agreement – generated a massive viewer response.

“You don’t know how freeing it felt to hear that statement, and I was sure any gay person that heard it was in awe,” one of Winfrey’s Internet message board writers reportedly responded. “I want to thank both of them for letting my heart lift up and feel like something in this life, not an abomination.”

“On today’s show,” another viewer commented, “I was appalled by the pastor’s remark that being gay is a gift from God. How many gay people did this man of the cloth lead down the wrong road with his comment?”

Rev. Bacon, as well, confessed that he received an avalanche of e-mail and voice mail response, which he says was 30-to-1 appreciative of his comment.

“What I gather is that [the comment] simply unleashed a flood of healing throughout the country,” Bacon said. “People were talking about their hearts being healed, and their hearts leaping.”

Bacon also acknowledged that he received criticism over the remark.

“Ironically,” Bacon said, “the most meanspirited e-mail I received was from Christians who interpret the Bible – from my perspective – in a condemning way.”

Bacon further explained that he perceives some Christians use the Bible to condemn people, while others use it to love.

“Everyone has to make a decision about how they use the Bible, if they’re biblically oriented like I am,” Bacon said. “You have to take the orientation of compassion and inclusion to the Bible, or you’re going to have to use it as a way to beat people up and condemn them and judge them.”

Bacon further addressed the issue at All Saints Episcopal Church the Sunday between his two appearances on Winfrey’s program.

Referring to critical e-mail received after his remark, Bacon said from his church’s pulpit, “Some of it is the most vitriolic stuff I have ever read, calling for the rescission of my ordination, saying I didn’t know what I was talking about and saying, ‘Show me where in the Bible it says that being gay is a gift from God.’”

To the last challenge, Bacon replied, “Well, if those folks would read the Bible, they would see that in Genesis it says that when God created humankind, God said that we are good – all good, didn’t mention any exceptions.”

A video of Bacon’s pulpit comments, made available by All Saints Church, can be seen below:

Rev. Susan Russell, associate pastor at All Saints, further backed Rev. Bacon and his comments.

“We take for granted that a message of toleration and inclusion is what God’s message is about, but a lot of people have never heard this,” Russell told Pasadena Weekly. “What I find so wonderful is that Ed Bacon [is] able to use this national stage for an inclusive message about the love of God.”

She continued, “Ed said he meant that we’re all created in God’s image. We invite those who thank us to come see us, and we explain the background of our positions to those who disagree. We think it’s an opportunity for dialogue even with those who think we’ll burn in the lake of fire.”

Newsweek magazine, one of the most influential news magazines in America, has decided to come out for same-sex marriage in a big way, and to do so by means of a biblical and theological argument.  In its cover story for this week, “The Religious Case for Gay Marriage,” Newsweek religion editor Lisa Miller offers a revisionist argument for the acceptance of same-sex marriage.  It is fair to say that Newsweek has gone for broke on this question.

Miller begins with a lengthy dismissal of the Bible’s relevance to the question of marriage in the first place.  “Let’s try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does,” Miller suggests.  If so, she argues that readers will find a confusion of polygamy, strange marital practices, and worse.

She concludes:  “Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script?”  She answers, “Of course not, yet the religious opponents of gay marriage would have it be so.”

Now, wait just a minute. Miller’s broadside attack on the biblical teachings on marriage goes to the heart of what will appear as her argument for same-sex marriage.  She argues that, in the Old Testament, “examples of what social conservatives call ‘the traditional family’ are scarcely to be found.”  This is true, of course, if what you mean by ‘traditional family’ is the picture of America in the 1950s.  The Old Testament notion of the family starts with the idea that the family is the carrier of covenant promises, and this family is defined, from the onset, as a transgenerational extended family of kin and kindred.

But, at the center of this extended family stands the institution of marriage as the most basic human model of covenantal love and commitment.  And this notion of marriage, deeply rooted in its procreative purpose, is unambiguously heterosexual.

As for the New Testament, “Ozzie and Harriet are nowhere” to be found.  Miller argues that both Jesus and Paul were unmarried (emphatically true) and that Jesus “preached a radical kind of family, a caring community of believers, whose bond in God superseded all blood ties.”  Jesus clearly did call for a commitment to the Gospel and to discipleship that transcended family commitments.  Given the Jewish emphasis on family loyalty and commitment, this did represent a decisive break.

But Miller also claims that “while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman.”  This is just patently untrue.  Genesis 2:24-25 certainly reveals marriage to be, by the Creator’s intention, a union of one man and one woman.  To offer just one example from the teaching of Jesus, Matthew 19:1-8 makes absolutely no sense unless marriage “between one man and one woman” is understood as normative.

As for Paul, he did indeed instruct the Corinthians that the unmarried state was advantageous for the spread of the Gospel.  His concern in 1 Corinthians 7 is not to elevate singleness as a lifestyle, but to encourage as many as are able to give themselves totally to an unencumbered Gospel ministry.  But, in Corinth and throughout the New Testament church, the vast majority of Christians were married.  Paul will himself assume this when he writes the “household codes” included in other New Testament letters.

The real issue is not marriage, Miller suggests, but opposition to homosexuality.  Surprisingly, Miller argues that this prejudice against same-sex relations is really about opposition to sex between men.  She cites the Anchor Bible Dictionary as stating that “nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women.”  She would have done better to look to the Bible itself, where in Romans 1:26-27 Paul writes:  “For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

Again, this passage makes absolutely no sense unless it refers very straightforwardly to same-sex relations among both men and women — with the women mentioned first.

Miller dismisses the Levitical condemnations of homosexuality as useless because “our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions.”  But she saves her most creative dismissal for the Apostle Paul.  Paul, she concedes, “was tough on homosexuality.”  Nevertheless, she takes encouragement from the fact that “progressive scholars” have found a way to re-interpret the Pauline passages to refer only to homosexual violence and promiscuity.

In this light she cites author Neil Elliott and his book, The Arrogance of Nations.  Elliott, like other “progressive scholars,” suggests that the modern notion of sexual orientation is simply missing from the biblical worldview, and thus the biblical authors are not really talking about what we know as homosexuality at all.  “Paul is not talking about what we call homosexuality at all,” as Miller quotes Elliott.

Of course, no honest reader of the biblical text will share this simplistic and backward conclusion.  Furthermore, to accept this argument is to assume that the Christian church has misunderstood the Bible from its very birth — and that we are now dependent upon contemporary “progressive scholars” to tell us what Christians throughout the centuries have missed.

Tellingly, Miller herself seems to lose confidence in this line of argument, explaining that “Paul argued more strenuously against divorce—and at least half of the Christians in America disregard that teaching.”  In other words, when the argument is failing, change the subject and just declare victory.  “Religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all, then, but in custom and tradition,” Miller simply asserts — apparently asking her readers to forget everything they have just read.

Miller picks her sources carefully.  She cites Neil Elliott but never balances his argument with credible arguments from another scholar, such as Robert Gagnon of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary [See his response to Elliott here].  Her scholarly sources are chosen so that they all offer an uncorrected affirmation of her argument.  The deck is decisively stacked.

She then moves to the claim that sexual orientation is “exactly the same thing” as skin color when it comes to discrimination.  As recent events have suggested, this claim is not seen as credible by many who have suffered discrimination on the basis of skin color.

As always, the bottom line is biblical authority.  Lisa Miller does not mince words.  “Biblical literalists will disagree,” she allows, “but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history.”  This argument means, of course, that we get to decide which truths are and are not binding on us as “we change through history.”

“A mature view of scriptural authority requires us, as we have in the past, to move beyond literalism,” she asserts.  “The Bible was written for a world so unlike our own, it’s impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours.”

All this comes together when Miller writes, “We cannot look to the Bible as a marriage manual, but we can read it for universal truths as we struggle toward a more just future.”  At this point the authority of the Bible is reduced to whatever “universal truths” we can distill from its (supposed) horrifyingly backward and oppressive texts.

Even as she attempts to make her “religious case” for gay marriage, Miller has to acknowledge that “very few Jewish or Christian denominations do officially endorse gay marriage, even in the states where it is legal.”  Her argument now grinds to a conclusion with her hope that this will change.  But — and this is a crucial point — if her argument had adequate traction, she wouldn’t have to make it.  It is not a thin extreme of fundamentalist Christians who stand opposed to same-sex marriage — it is the vast majority of Christian churches and denominations worldwide.

Disappointingly, Newsweek editor Jon Meacham offers an editorial note that broadens Newsweek’s responsibility for this atrocity of an article and reveals even more of the agenda:  “No matter what one thinks about gay rights—for, against or somewhere in between —this conservative resort to biblical authority is the worst kind of fundamentalism,” Meacham writes.  “Given the history of the making of the Scriptures and the millennia of critical attention scholars and others have given to the stories and injunctions that come to us in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament, to argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt—it is unserious, and unworthy of the great Judeo-Christian tradition.”

Well, that statement sets the issue clearly before us.  He insists that “to argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt.”  No serious student of the Bible can deny the challenge of responsible biblical interpretation, but the purpose of legitimate biblical interpretation is to determine, as faithfully as possible, what the Bible actually teaches — and then to accept, teach, apply, and obey.

The national news media are collectively embarrassed by the passage of Proposition 8 in California.  Gay rights activists are publicly calling on the mainstream media to offer support for gay marriage, arguing that the media let them down in November.  It appears that Newsweek intends to do its part to press for same-sex marriage.  Many observers believe that the main obstacle to this agenda is a resolute opposition grounded in Christian conviction.  Newsweek clearly intends to reduce that opposition.

Newsweek could have offered its readers a careful and balanced review of the crucial issues related to this question.  It chose another path — and published this cover story.  The magazine’s readers and this controversial issue deserved better.

‘There are many different versions; I don’t see why we can’t have one’

A filmmaker who recently released an independent project about a formula that turns all heterosexuals into “gays” now has announced he’s working on “The Princess Diana Bible” in which “God” ordains homosexuality as the better lifestyle.

“There are many different versions of the Bible; I don’t see why we can’t have one,” stated Max Mitchell in a statement on a website for his new project.

The “gay Bible,” produced by the New Mexico-based Revision Studios, states God instructs “it is better to be gay than straight.”

Mitchell said he developed the idea for the “Bible” from his new movie project, called “Horror in the Wind,” in which an airborne substance “reverses the world’s sexual orientation.”

He said it’s named “The Princess Diana Bible” because of Diana’s “many good works.”

The website offers a preview of the project, which is forecast to be available in 2009.

In Mitchell’s version, Genesis talks about Aida and Eve:

“And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Aida, and she slept: and he took one of her ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which the Lord God had taken from woman, made he another woman, and brought her unto the first. And Aida said, ‘This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of me. Therefore shall a woman leave her mother, and shall cleave unto her wife: and they shall be one flesh.’ And they were both naked, the woman and her wife, and were not ashamed.”

The new version continues:

And Eve conceived, and bore Cain, and said, we have created a child in God’s image. And God said the male was different than the woman because he was fathered by the serpent. … And Eve again conceived with the serpent and bore Cain’s brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

According to the pro-homosexual website Queerty.com, Mitchell has described his work as divinely inspired.

“Jesus was gay. In Biblical times homosexual relationships were so commonplace that no one gave it a second thought. It was heterosexuality that was considered sinful,” he told the website.

On the website’s comment page, one participant said, “Aida and Eve are a breath of fresh air upon the face of repressed homosexulity (sic) in America. Finally, a version of the bible everyone can relate to.”

At Belieftnet.com, a commentator expressed opposition to the project.

“Every once in a while, art doesn’t transcend truth as much as it distorts it, and that’s where I draw the line. Hence my opposition to the upcoming ‘Princess Diana Bible.’

“This book is inspired by a political agenda and one person’s desire to contort not only the text but the very context of it to suit his own perspective. That, you may say, is what commentators do – and perhaps even translators – but this guy is making himself an ‘author,’ which makes it a book, not a Bible,” the commentator wrote.

From World Net Daily News

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

The American Civil Liberties Union is asking the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to stop a suburban Atlanta county from opening its meetings with prayers that mention “Jesus” or other “sectarian” references, claiming the invocations represent government favoritism of Christianity.

The three-judge panel of the court, however, was immediately skeptical of how the ACLU expected prayers to be crafted without appering to favor one religion over another.

“What about King of Kings?” Judge Bill Pryor asked ACLU lawyer Daniel Mach in the case’s hearing last week. “Is that sectarian?”

“What about Lord of Lords?” Pryor persisted, interrupting the ACLU lawyer’s arguments. “The God of Abraham? … What about the God of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad?”

Judge Charles Wilson wondered just how far Mach was suggesting the county go in editing people’s prayers.

“As a practical matter, how do you draw the line?” Wilson asked.

He also asked what steps the ACLU suggested the Cobb County, Ga., board of commissioners take before its regulation became “some sort of censorship” or “just government prayer.”

At one point in the hearing, ACLU attorney Mach pointed out that the invitations Cobb County sends to guest clergy already ask that the prayers not proselytize or disparage other religions. According to the Associated Press, Mach suggested that the invitations simply be amended to ask the clergy to refrain from invoking “religious messages” at all.

Cobb County attorney David Walbert countered that such restrictions would make it a “virtual impossibility” for clergy to draft any kind of meaningful prayer.

Liberty Legal Institute Chief Counsel Kelly Shackleford was indignant about the ACLU asking clergy to pray without “invoking religious messages.”

“I think this is really where you pull the cover off and see what you’re really looking at with the ACLU,” Shackelford told OneNewsNow. “This is religious bigotry; it’s anti-free speech; it’s everything that they’re supposed to be against.”

“The government really has no business telling anybody how they should or should not pray,” Shackelford said. “And the fact that the ACLU is trying to use the power of government to tell people how to pray is just an incredible invasion of freedom, and (it) shows that they are not about freedom and liberty at all. They’re about oppression and trying to stamp out religious speech.”

The ACLU, together with Americans United for Separation of Church and State, are arguing on behalf of seven individuals who filed suit in 2005 challenging the “sectarian” nature of Cobb County’s invocations, claiming 70 percent of the prayers were Christian or mentioned Jesus Christ.

Last year, U.S. District Judge Richard Story ruled the prayers could continue and said that because the county invites clergy from all denominations, the practice doesn’t constitute endorsement of one religion over another.

Story did, however, criticize the county’s practice of selecting its invited clergy by merely thumbing through a phone book and awarded $1 to each of the seven plaintiffs.

The ACLU then appealed the case to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, ALCU attorney Mach argued that federal appeals courts in Richmond, New Orleans, Chicago and San Francisco already have ruled sectarian invocations at government meetings violate the First Amendment.

Cobb County attorney Walbert, however, disagreed with the argument, saying that the U.S. Congress has opened its sessions with sectarian prayers since the appointment of the first Senate chaplain.

“Everything that is at issue here was clearly being done in 1789,” Walbert said.

The AP reported Judge Pryor also questioned the reasoning, pointing out that even the Supreme Court opens its session with a prayer that could be called sectarian: “God save the United States and this honorable court.”

With arguments concluding last week, the court is expected to rule on the case sometime in the coming months.

Atheists abandon attempt to ban baptisms

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

An atheism-promoting organization has withdrawn its lawsuit demanding Christian baptisms of children be banned in Italy after a U.S.-based legal team took on the defense of a bishop and the Roman Catholic Church there.

“This was a preposterous lawsuit, and we are pleased that it has been dropped,” said Joseph Infranco, a senior counsel for the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund.

However, he said, “Americans should be aware that such lawsuits may seem far-fetched, but they really are happening … and foreign legal decisions are increasingly cited in American courts.”

The ADF stepped into the battle when the Italian Union of Rationalist Atheists and Agnostics filed a lawsuit seeking an end to all baptisms of children in Italy. The organization alleged the practice encroached on its religious freedom and violated Italian Constitutional Court precedents regarding free will and personal privacy in religious decisions.

The organization alleged the law does not allow parents to enroll their children in certain groups such as trade unions, therefore, the law also “does not allow, as well, that the parents may decide their children become members of a religious association.”

The Alliance Defense Fund reported the plaintiff in the case was demanding that his name be erased from a baptism registry in what was described as a type of “debaptism.”

But the petition was withdrawn just before a court hearing was to take place.

Gianfranco Amato, an ADF-allied attorney, said the plaintiff became convinced that the nation’s legal precedents would not support such demands.

“It’s unthinkable to ask the government to force the church to abandon one of its sacraments to appease a radical, anti-religious agenda, yet that’s what this activist group did,” said Amato.

“According to Italian law, the demand to remove a name from the register must be made by an individual with a personal interest, rather than by a private association such as the UAAR,” said Amato. “Also, it was easy to demonstrate that the group had no legal leg on which to stand.”

Infranco said, “All parents have the right to raise their children in their religious tradition, which obviously includes participation in the historic rituals associated with that religion.”

The website for the atheist organization is in Italian, but an English translation describes the group as being based on the values of human rights, democracy, pluralism, equality and individuality.

The website has been highlighted among a listing of resources on the website of prominent atheist Richard Dawkins.