Sanity has been restored – for now. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has dropped its case against the 31-year-old Michigan woman who was being charged with housing discrimination for seeking a Christian female roommate.

This case was absurd from the beginning. Our client, a single lady living in Grand Rapids, Michigan, wanted to share her house with another female roommate who was also a Christian. So she placed a note card on the bulletin board of her church, stating, “I am looking for a female Christian roommate.”

This should be seen as nothing out of the ordinary. This lady wanted to share her house with someone, and by so doing, wanted her “roomie” to be someone who would encourage her in her Christian walk. She wanted to be able to talk about her faith with her roommate, pray together, and read the Bible together.

She most certainly did not want to be living with someone who would constantly be tearing her down in her faith or trying to convert her to another faith. Your walls are your fortress. It should shock no one that she wanted to be with someone of the same faith behind the walls of her home.

But what was shocking is that the government thought it could step in and tell Ms. Tricia who she can and cannot seek in a roommate! Apparently the right to privacy does not extend to choosing who you share your one bathroom with in your home.

We kept telling the media that eventually, someone in Michigan would come to their senses and drop this case. And on October 28, HUD did drop this case, stating, “in light of the facts provided and after assessing the unique context of the advertisement and the roommate relationship involved in this particular situation potentially involving the sharing of personal religious beliefs, the Department defers to Constitutional considerations in reaching its conclusion. Accordingly, the Department finds that there is No Reasonable Cause to believe that the Act was violated in this matter.”

Or did it? Because in the same letter, HUD states that if the allegations in the complaint are “proven, the allegation would constitute a violation of Section 804(c) of the Act.” Furthermore, HUD then gives permission for the complainant to sue our client in federal court! “Notwithstanding this determination by the Department, the Fair Housing Act provides that Complainant may file a civil action in an appropriate federal district court or state court within two years … of the alleged discriminatory housing practice.”

So Ms. Tricia now has to wait 2 years to learn if the complainant – the Fair Housing Center of Western Michigan – plans to sue her for her supposed discriminatory actions.

We at ADF are not satisfied with this conclusion. We are pleased that HUD had the senses to stop their investigation. But our client should not have to live on pins and needles over the next 2 years wondering if she will be hauled into court for seeking a female Christian roommate. Consequently, we are considering all of her legal options to set the record straight.

==============================

>>Hate speech law unconstitutional: rights tribunal (National Post, 090903)

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal on Wednesday ruled that Section 13, Canada’s much maligned human rights hate speech law, violates the Charter right to free expression because it carries the threat of punitive fines.

The shocking decision by Tribunal member Athanasios Hadjis leaves several hate speech cases in limbo, and appears to strip the Canadian Human Rights Commission of its controversial legal mandate to pursue hate on the Internet, which it has strenuously defended against complaints of censorship.

It also marks the first major failure of Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, an anti-hate law that was conceived in the 1960s to target racist telephone hotlines, then expanded in 2001 to the include the entire Internet, and for the last decade used almost exclusively by one complainant, activist Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman.

Mr. Warman’s first big loss is a victory for the respondent Marc Lemire, webmaster of freeedomsite.org and a prominent figure in the Canadian far right. [KH: apparent bias]

Typically for the messy state of Canada’s perennial hate speech debate, public reaction to the ruling yesterday was polarized, running the spectrum from glowing praise for the “bold” Mr. Hadjis, to criticism that his “outrageous” conclusion is “vulnerable on judicial review.”

All sides seem to agree, however, that the stage is set for pitched battle in federal court, where CHRT rulings can be appealed. Another less likely outcome is for Parliament itself to repeal or amend Section 13, a law that even supporters say needs updating in the age of the Internet.

Neither the CHRC nor Mr. Warman would comment.

“No matter what happens, this decision is going to federal court,” Mr. Lemire said. “This is the beginning of the end for Section 13 now. This law is 32 years old. Not a single person has ever won until today. But did I really win? I have given up six years of my life. The process is the punishment.”

Mr. Warman, a former investigator for the CHRC, brought a complaint against Mr. Lemire in 2003, after monitoring his website for almost a year. He alleged that postings on the discussion forum, mostly written by others, contravened Section 13 in that they were “likely to expose” identifiable groups to “hatred or contempt.” Mr. Warman later urged the CHRC investigators to expand their investigation to other websites he believed Mr. Lemire was involved with, but to “hold off on informing” Mr. Lemire “until the police take a good look at it.” No criminal charges were ever filed.

In all but one case, Mr. Hadjis decided that these postings either did not contravene Section 13(1), or that Mr. Lemire cannot be held responsible for what others posted on his website.

Mr. Hadjis found Mr. Lemire violated the law in one case, by posting an article called “AIDS Secrets”, written by an American neo-Nazi, which Mr. Hadjis found was “rife with hyperbole and moral condemnation. Homosexuals, and Blacks to a lesser extent, are denigrated as purveyors of a “killer” that is on the loose, agonizingly destroying the lives of American children and adults alike.”

Even with this finding, however, Mr. Hadjis declined to make any order against Mr. Lemire. As a statutory tribunal, Mr. Hadjis does not have the legal authority to officially declare a law unconstitutional. But if he finds it would be unconstitutional to enforce it, he can do as he has done, which is to “simply refuse to apply these provisions.”

Part of his motivation was that virtually all the offending material was removed either before or shortly after Mr. Lemire received word of the complaint against him.

“Mr. Lemire had not only “amended” his conduct by removing the impugned material, but sought conciliation and mediation as soon as he learned of the complaint against him,” Mr. Hadjis wrote. “The problem had thus already been eliminated, yet the complaint continued to be processed.”

Section 13(1) remains valid Canadian law, despite this ruling. Its constitutionality was last upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in a 1990 split decision, before the Internet age.

That decision, about neo-Nazi John Ross Taylor, upheld the law as a justifiable limit on free expression largely because of its remedial, non-punitive purpose. But Mr. Hadjis found that that, today, the law “has become more penal in nature,” and this renders it an unjustifiable limit on freedom of expression.

Ever since a 1998 amendment to allow the Tribunal to levy fines up to $10,000 — payable to the government — the pursuit of Section 13(1) cases “can no longer be considered exclusively remedial, preventative and conciliatory in nature,” he wrote.

He cited Mr. Warman’s request for a $7500 penalty against Mr. Lemire. Mr. Warman has won over a dozen other Section 13(1) cases, many leading to similar fines, payments to himself, and legal restrictions on Internet activity.

This criticism about a punitive law masquerading as a remedial one echoes that of Richard Moon, a law professor hired by the CHRC last year to provide an expert analysis of their online hate speech mandate. In essence, his advice was that it could not be done fairly, and so should not be done at all.

Prof. Moon said Wednesday’s decision is “obviously a significant moment in the history of Section 13, but it seems like it is in some important sense inconclusive.”

He said the ruling has no weight as legal precedent, and could theoretically be ignored by future tribunals, but in practice it is impossible to ignore, and it hints at a fundamental problem with the law.

“As soon as the Supreme Court confirmed that the scope of Section 13 was narrow, and confined to extremely hateful messages, then it was highly unlikely that we were going to have a kind of regular human rights process that involves conciliation between the parties,” he said. “That was always something that we could have foreseen.”

“We still believe Section 13 is constitutional. There seems to be some major difference of opinion within the Tribunal itself,” said Bernie Farber, CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress, referring to previous constitutional challenges of Section 13 that went the other way.

Marvin Kurz, legal counsel to B’nai Brith, which was an intervenor in this case along with the CJC and others, echoed Mr. Farber’s question about why Mr. Hadjis did not simply “read out” the penalty section — that is, ignore it, but allow the actual hate speech section to stand.

“Not only did he not do it, but he failed to explain why he did not consider the alternative,” Mr. Kurz said. “It’s like if the police act wrongly in a criminal case, you don’t throw out the criminal law. That’s what he’s done here, and that doesn’t make sense to me.”

Ezra Levant, a blogger who has led the campaign against human rights hate speech law, said the ruling “shows that the CHRC has been acting illegally for many years,” and it forces the Conservative government to make a “new kind of decision” about whether to appeal.

“If they launch an appeal, they are casting their lot with the censors,” he said.

Pearl Eliadis, a human rights lawyer and a defender of Section 13, played down the importance of the ruling, and said Mr. Hadjis “just got it wrong. With respect, it’s constitutionally not within the normal way that these provisions are dealt with.” She said he should have simply ignored the offending penalty section and upheld the law.

Bruce Ryder, a constitutional law professor at York University, said Mr. Hadjis was correct to find that the penalty provision “exacerbated the chilling effect” on freedom of expression. But he said Mr. Hadjis’ reasoning “broke down at the end,” and he should have simply rejected the penalty provision.

He also wondered how Mr. Lemire was acquitted over the posting of an article that explicitly denied the Holocaust, which he called “outrageous and inconsistent with jurisprudence,” and makes the entire ruling “vulnerable on judicial review.”

Mark Steyn, a conservative author who was the target of a prominent hate speech complaint over his writing in Maclean’s, said Mr. Hadjis’ realized “that there is no future for Section 13 because of the damage done to it by the dress-up Nazis of the CHRC and and the sordid racket of Richard Warman.”

“It makes explicit that section 13 has no friends,” he said.

==============================

>>Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools (US Government, 030207)

http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/religionandschools/prayer_guidance.html

Introduction

Section 9524 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (“ESEA”) of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, requires the Secretary to issue guidance on constitutionally protected prayer in public elementary and secondary schools. In addition, Section 9524 requires that, as a condition of receiving ESEA funds, a local educational agency (“LEA”) must certify in writing to its State educational agency (“SEA”) that it has no policy that prevents, or otherwise denies participation in, constitutionally protected prayer in public schools as set forth in this guidance.

The purpose of this guidance is to provide SEAs, LEAs, and the public with information on the current state of the law concerning constitutionally protected prayer in the public schools, and thus to clarify the extent to which prayer in public schools is legally protected. This guidance also sets forth the responsibilities of SEAs and LEAs with respect to Section 9524 of the ESEA. As required by the Act, this guidance has been jointly approved by the Office of the General Counsel in the Department of Education and the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice as reflecting the current state of the law. It will be made available on the Internet through the Department of Education’s web site (www.ed.gov). The guidance will be updated on a biennial basis, beginning in September 2004, and provided to SEAs, LEAs, and the public.

The Section 9524 Certification Process

In order to receive funds under the ESEA, an LEA must certify in writing to its SEA that no policy of the LEA prevents, or otherwise denies participation in, constitutionally protected prayer in public elementary and secondary schools as set forth in this guidance. An LEA must provide this certification to the SEA by October 1, 2002, and by October 1 of each subsequent year during which the LEA participates in an ESEA program. However, as a transitional matter, given the timing of this guidance, the initial certification must be provided by an LEA to the SEA by March 15, 2003.

The SEA should establish a process by which LEAs may provide the necessary certification. There is no specific Federal form that an LEA must use in providing this certification to its SEA. The certification may be provided as part of the application process for ESEA programs, or separately, and in whatever form the SEA finds most appropriate, as long as the certification is in writing and clearly states that the LEA has no policy that prevents, or otherwise denies participation in, constitutionally protected prayer in public elementary and secondary schools as set forth in this guidance.

By November 1 of each year, starting in 2002, the SEA must send to the Secretary a list of those LEAs that have not filed the required certification or against which complaints have been made to the SEA that the LEA is not in compliance with this guidance. However, as a transitional matter, given the timing of this guidance, the list otherwise due November 1, 2002, must be sent to the Secretary by April 15, 2003. This list should be sent to:

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
Attention: Jeanette Lim
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20202

The SEA’s submission should describe what investigation or enforcement action the SEA has initiated with respect to each listed LEA and the status of the investigation or action. The SEA should not send the LEA certifications to the Secretary, but should maintain these records in accordance with its usual records retention policy.

Enforcement of Section 9524

LEAs are required to file the certification as a condition of receiving funds under the ESEA. If an LEA fails to file the required certification, or files it in bad faith, the SEA should ensure compliance in accordance with its regular enforcement procedures. The Secretary considers an LEA to have filed a certification in bad faith if the LEA files the certification even though it has a policy that prevents, or otherwise denies participation in, constitutionally protected prayer in public elementary and secondary schools as set forth in this guidance.

The General Education Provisions Act (“GEPA”) authorizes the Secretary to bring enforcement actions against recipients of Federal education funds that are not in compliance with the law. Such measures may include withholding funds until the recipient comes into compliance. Section 9524 provides the Secretary with specific authority to issue and enforce orders with respect to an LEA that fails to provide the required certification to its SEA or files the certification in bad faith.

Overview of Governing Constitutional Principles

The relationship between religion and government in the United States is governed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, which both prevents the government from establishing religion and protects privately initiated religious expression and activities from government interference and discrimination. ^[¹^] The First Amendment thus establishes certain limits on the conduct of public school officials as it relates to religious activity, including prayer.

The legal rules that govern the issue of constitutionally protected prayer in the public schools are similar to those that govern religious expression generally. Thus, in discussing the operation of Section 9524 of the ESEA, this guidance sometimes speaks in terms of “religious expression.” There are a variety of issues relating to religion in the public schools, however, that this guidance is not intended to address.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the First Amendment requires public school officials to be neutral in their treatment of religion, showing neither favoritism toward nor hostility against religious expression such as prayer. ^[²^] Accordingly, the First Amendment forbids religious activity that is sponsored by the government but protects religious activity that is initiated by private individuals, and the line between government-sponsored and privately initiated religious expression is vital to a proper understanding of the First Amendment’s scope. As the Court has explained in several cases, “there is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect.” ^[³^]

The Supreme Court’s decisions over the past forty years set forth principles that distinguish impermissible governmental religious speech from the constitutionally protected private religious speech of students. For example, teachers and other public school officials may not lead their classes in prayer, devotional readings from the Bible, or other religious activities. ^[⁴^] Nor may school officials attempt to persuade or compel students to participate in prayer or other religious activities. ^[⁵^] Such conduct is “attributable to the State” and thus violates the Establishment Clause. ^[⁶^]

Similarly, public school officials may not themselves decide that prayer should be included in school-sponsored events. In Lee v. Weisman ^[⁷^], for example, the Supreme Court held that public school officials violated the Constitution in inviting a member of the clergy to deliver a prayer at a graduation ceremony. Nor may school officials grant religious speakers preferential access to public audiences, or otherwise select public speakers on a basis that favors religious speech. In Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe ^[⁸^], for example, the Court invalidated a school’s football game speaker policy on the ground that it was designed by school officials to result in pregame prayer, thus favoring religious expression over secular expression.

Although the Constitution forbids public school officials from directing or favoring prayer, students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate,” ^[⁹^] and the Supreme Court has made clear that “private religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan, is as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression.” ^[¹⁰^] Moreover, not all religious speech that takes place in the public schools or at school-sponsored events is governmental speech. ^[¹¹^] For example, “nothing in the Constitution ... prohibits any public school student from voluntarily praying at any time before, during, or after the school day,” ^[¹²^] and students may pray with fellow students during the school day on the same terms and conditions that they may engage in other conversation or speech. Likewise, local school authorities possess substantial discretion to impose rules of order and pedagogical restrictions on student activities, ^[¹³^] but they may not structure or administer such rules to discriminate against student prayer or religious speech. For instance, where schools permit student expression on the basis of genuinely neutral criteria and students retain primary control over the content of their expression, the speech of students who choose to express themselves through religious means such as prayer is not attributable to the state and therefore may not be restricted because of its religious content. ^[¹⁴^] Student remarks are not attributable to the state simply because they are delivered in a public setting or to a public audience. ^[¹⁵^] As the Supreme Court has explained: “The proposition that schools do not endorse everything they fail to censor is not complicated,” ^[¹⁶^] and the Constitution mandates neutrality rather than hostility toward privately initiated religious expression. ^[¹⁷^]

Applying the Governing Principles in Particular Contexts

Prayer During Noninstructional Time

Students may pray when not engaged in school activities or instruction, subject to the same rules designed to prevent material disruption of the educational program that are applied to other privately initiated expressive activities. Among other things, students may read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, and pray or study religious materials with fellow students during recess, the lunch hour, or other noninstructional time to the same extent that they may engage in nonreligious activities. While school authorities may impose rules of order and pedagogical restrictions on student activities, they may not discriminate against student prayer or religious speech in applying such rules and restrictions.

Organized Prayer Groups and Activities

Students may organize prayer groups, religious clubs, and “see you at the pole” gatherings before school to the same extent that students are permitted to organize other non-curricular student activities groups. Such groups must be given the same access to school facilities for assembling as is given to other non-curricular groups, without discrimination because of the religious content of their expression. School authorities possess substantial discretion concerning whether to permit the use of school media for student advertising or announcements regarding non-curricular activities. However, where student groups that meet for nonreligious activities are permitted to advertise or announce their meetings—for example, by advertising in a student newspaper, making announcements on a student activities bulletin board or public address system, or handing out leaflets—school authorities may not discriminate against groups who meet to pray. School authorities may disclaim sponsorship of non-curricular groups and events, provided they administer such disclaimers in a manner that neither favors nor disfavors groups that meet to engage in prayer or religious speech.

Teachers, Administrators, and other School Employees

When acting in their official capacities as representatives of the state, teachers, school administrators, and other school employees are prohibited by the Establishment Clause from encouraging or discouraging prayer, and from actively participating in such activity with students. Teachers may, however, take part in religious activities where the overall context makes clear that they are not participating in their official capacities. Before school or during lunch, for example, teachers may meet with other teachers for prayer or Bible study to the same extent that they may engage in other conversation or nonreligious activities. Similarly, teachers may participate in their personal capacities in privately sponsored baccalaureate ceremonies.

Moments of Silence

If a school has a “minute of silence” or other quiet periods during the school day, students are free to pray silently, or not to pray, during these periods of time. Teachers and other school employees may neither encourage nor discourage students from praying during such time periods.

Accommodation of Prayer During Instructional Time

It has long been established that schools have the discretion to dismiss students to off-premises religious instruction, provided that schools do not encourage or discourage participation in such instruction or penalize students for attending or not attending. Similarly, schools may excuse students from class to remove a significant burden on their religious exercise, where doing so would not impose material burdens on other students. For example, it would be lawful for schools to excuse Muslim students briefly from class to enable them to fulfill their religious obligations to pray during Ramadan.

Where school officials have a practice of excusing students from class on the basis of parents’ requests for accommodation of nonreligious needs, religiously motivated requests for excusal may not be accorded less favorable treatment. In addition, in some circumstances, based on federal or state constitutional law or pursuant to state statutes, schools may be required to make accommodations that relieve substantial burdens on students’ religious exercise. Schools officials are therefore encouraged to consult with their attorneys regarding such obligations.

Religious Expression and Prayer in Class Assignments

Students may express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions. Such home and classroom work should be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance and against other legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the school. Thus, if a teacher’s assignment involves writing a poem, the work of a student who submits a poem in the form of a prayer (for example, a psalm) should be judged on the basis of academic standards (such as literary quality) and neither penalized nor rewarded on account of its religious content.

Student Assemblies and Extracurricular Events

Student speakers at student assemblies and extracurricular activities such as sporting events may not be selected on a basis that either favors or disfavors religious speech. Where student speakers are selected on the basis of genuinely neutral, evenhanded criteria and retain primary control over the content of their expression, that expression is not attributable to the school and therefore may not be restricted because of its religious (or anti-religious) content. By contrast, where school officials determine or substantially control the content of what is expressed, such speech is attributable to the school and may not include prayer or other specifically religious (or anti-religious) content. To avoid any mistaken perception that a school endorses student speech that is not in fact attributable to the school, school officials may make appropriate, neutral disclaimers to clarify that such speech (whether religious or nonreligious) is the speaker’s and not the school’s.

Prayer at Graduation

School officials may not mandate or organize prayer at graduation or select speakers for such events in a manner that favors religious speech such as prayer. Where students or other private graduation speakers are selected on the basis of genuinely neutral, evenhanded criteria and retain primary control over the content of their expression, however, that expression is not attributable to the school and therefore may not be restricted because of its religious (or anti-religious) content. To avoid any mistaken perception that a school endorses student or other private speech that is not in fact attributable to the school, school officials may make appropriate, neutral disclaimers to clarify that such speech (whether religious or nonreligious) is the speaker’s and not the school’s.

Baccalaureate Ceremonies

School officials may not mandate or organize religious ceremonies. However, if a school makes its facilities and related services available to other private groups, it must make its facilities and services available on the same terms to organizers of privately sponsored religious baccalaureate ceremonies. In addition, a school may disclaim official endorsement of events sponsored by private groups, provided it does so in a manner that neither favors nor disfavors groups that meet to engage in prayer or religious speech.

==============================

>>Big-time bigotry (townhall.com, 050520)

Thomas Sowell

Maybe the non-stop denunciations of judicial nominees by Senate Democrats will seem relevant to some people but it is in fact wholly beside the point. Senators who don’t like any particular judicial nominee — or any nominee for any other federal appointment — have a right to vote against that nominee for any reason or for no reason.

That right has never been in question during the more than two centuries since it was conferred by the Constitution of the United States. So all this unending talk about what Senate Democrats don’t like about Justice Priscilla Owen of the Texas supreme court or Justice Janice Rogers Brown of the California supreme court is completely irrelevant. Senators who don’t like them can vote against them.

The real issue is whether those Senators have the right to deprive all other Senators of the right to vote on these nominees. Nothing that is said for or against Justice Owen or Justice Brown has any relevance to the issue of some Senators denying other Senators the right to vote.

The essence of bigotry is denying other people the same rights you have. For generations, it was racial bigotry which provoked filibusters to prevent the Senate from voting on bills to extend civil rights to blacks. But bigotry is bigotry, whether it is racial bigotry, religious bigotry or political bigotry.

People who say that the right of unlimited debate in the Senate “has served this country well” can seldom, if ever, point to any specific benefit that has come from any specific filibuster.

The detriment includes years of denying equal rights to minorities, when the majority of the people in this country were ready to grant equal rights but Southern Democrats prevented the Senate from carrying out the will of the majority by preventing other Senators from voting.

Although this was the bigotry of the right, the bigotry of the left has since become pervasive, not just in politics but also in our educational system and in much of the media. Again and again, the left has claimed rights for itself that it denies to others.

Schools and colleges that bombard students with propaganda in favor of homosexuality often stifle any contrary views with rules against “hate speech” that prevent any criticism of either homosexuality itself or the policies advocated by gay activists.

Environmentalists who are against development think their views on this subject are a sufficient reason for unelected zoning boards and planning commissions to prevent other people from building homes or offices, even though there would not be any issue unless other people thought otherwise.

Indeed, the left in general has increasingly favored unelected institutions which impose their views, whether the federal courts, environmental agencies, or such national bureaucracies as the National Park Service or international agencies like the United Nations or the International Court of Justice at the Hague.

The left has for decades condoned or “understood” riots and violence that fit the vision of the left and even condemned police action to restore order and the rights of other people to go about their business unmolested. The New York Times published a sympathetic account of one of our domestic left-wing terrorists on the very day when international terrorists attacked the World Trade Center. Violence is of course the ultimate in imposing your views on others by forcibly over-riding their views.

Although scholarship is supposed to be the search for truth, there is no need to search for truth when you are dogmatically certain that you have already found it. That is too often the mindset of the left in academia, where contrary views are penalized by restrictive speech codes and faculty hiring decisions include ideological litmus tests, while even visiting public speakers are limited to those acceptable to the left.

Ideological bigotry has become the norm on even our most prestigious campuses, where students can go for years without reading or hearing anything that challenges the left vision.

The ideological bigotry of the left is currently holding center stage in the United States Senate, where those who favor one view of judicial nominees argue as if that view justifies preventing Senators with other views from voting.

==============================

>>Real Religious Intolerance: Archbishop Charles Chaput vs. America’s “New Blacklist.” (Weekly Standard, 050616)

THE LOS ANGELES WEEKLY’S “The New Blacklist” is author Douglas Ireland’s attempt to equate consumer boycotts of gay-themed entertainment sponsors with McCarthyism.

That’s a stretch to begin with, especially considering the storied history of consumer boycotts from the left and directed at various entities and people like Gallo, Laura Schlesinger, and just last fall the sponsors of Sinclair Broadcasting when that network considered running a documentary sympathetic to the Swift Boat Vets.

Ireland’s piece is full of over-the-top rhetoric, including repeated use of the term “Christers,” which many view as nakedly bigoted.

But Ireland is a proud radical atheist, as blogger-theologian Mark D. Roberts discovered as he began a lengthy assessment of Ireland’s piece. But although Ireland is hard left, the harshest language in his article didn’t come from him, but from the associate dean of the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School of Communication, Martin Kaplan. Kaplan, a long-time Democratic activist turned professor, called the trend among Christians refusing to buy products advertised on shows such as Will & Grace, “theocratic oligopoly.” Dean Kaplan continued: “The drumbeat of religious fascism has never been as troubling as it is now in this country.”

Kaplan’s absurdity would have lacked the context to make it other than the silly excess of a tenured Trojan had the Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe (OCSE) not just held a conference in Cordoba Spain on the rise of anti-Semitism and other forms of religious intolerance in Europe. But that conference was held, and an American delegation attended, headed by New York Governor George Pataki. Among the delegation was Denver’s Archbishop Charles Chaput. Archbishop Chaput’s remarks deserve widespread distribution and coverage, yet outside of a single story on the Rocky Mountain News they received none.

Because Dean Kaplan’s bigotry and historical amnesia is not unique, we reprint the entire text of Bishop Chaput’s remarks here:

For a few weeks two months ago, the City of Rome doubled in size. People from around Europe and the world came to the funeral of Pope John Paul II. Some 600,000 people viewed his coffin on the first day. More than 1.4 million paid their respects before his burial. That should remind us of two things.

First, Europe remains obviously religious—not simply in its nominal and active believers, but also in its culture and assumptions about the dignity of the human person.

What we know as “Europe” was shaped, in vital ways, by the Christian faith. Judaism and Islam also clearly made important contributions to the European experience. But the founders of the European unity movement were all professed Christians. Their commitment to the great project of Europe’s future came from their moral convictions, which in turn grew out of their religious identity and Christian heritage.

Second, John Paul II’s appeal to people of every faith—and no faith—did not come simply from his personality but from his actions. His devotion to human freedom and his role in liberating Eastern Europe were rooted completely in his Catholic faith. In one sense, he embodied the greatness of Europe. And he did it by being a son of Europe’s Christian imagination and history.

We know from the totalitarian regimes in Europe’s recent past that a determined minority can persecute other minorities, and oppress even a majority of a nation’s citizens. Discrimination and intolerance toward Christians and minority religious groups are rising in several areas of the world today. Europe, despite its heritage, is not immune. And unfortunately, other parts of the OSCE region show similar troubling signs.

Discrimination and intolerance take two forms: direct and indirect. Direct discrimination has the shape of legal restrictions, and often police harassment and legal barriers, designed to stamp out unauthorized or unpopular religious communities or to limit the legitimate exercise of their religious freedom. The intolerant behavior of some OSCE states continues to violate the basic human rights of belief and worship.

In several OSCE states, regimes discriminate against religious communities by creating structures of prejudicial treatment. High membership requirements prevent small congregations from obtaining legal status which, in contrast, is granted to other “traditional” religious communities. Lack of historical presence can block newer religious groups from qualifying for basic rights and privileges. Denial of legal standing has the very real consequence of either violating individual rights or stigmatizing entire groups. This is state-sponsored discrimination, and it violates OSCE commitments to promote religious freedom for all.

An equally dangerous trend now dominates other OSCE states, where public expressions of religious faith often seem to be ridiculed as fundamentalism. In the name of respecting all religions, a new form of secular intolerance is sometimes imposed. Out of fear of religious fundamentalism, a new kind of secular fundamentalism may be coerced on public institutions and political discourse.

At the same time, various media in the OSCE area now often allow symbols of Christian identity, Christian believers and their faith to be publicly abused. Programs like “How to cook a crucifix” and sacramental confessions recorded without the confessor’s knowledge are deeply contemptuous of Catholic believers. This is unworthy of Europe’s moral dignity and religious heritage. Furthermore, it stands in stark contrast to OSCE commitments to promote religious freedom.

Europe has given the whole world the seeds of democracy. Today’s growing anti-religious and often anti-Christian spirit undermines that witness.

As with anti-Semitism, the OSCE must employ its practical commitments on combating discrimination to also fight discrimination and intolerance against Christians and members of other religious communities. Moreover, the OSCE must carefully monitor their implementation.

OSCE participating states must strive to protect Christian communities and other religious groups from discrimination and intolerance. The media should be encouraged to offer truly balanced coverage of religious faith. Educational systems should teach the value of faith in people’s lives. The specific contribution given to public life by Christian communities and other religious groups should be remembered.

Democracy depends on people of conviction taking an active, visible part in public life; peacefully and respectfully, but vigorously. That includes Christians, Jews, Muslims and all religious believers, as well as non-believers. Public debate without a free and welcoming role for religious faith does not produce diversity or pluralism. It can easily do the opposite. It can create politics without morality, and public institutions without enduring ideals.

My hope is that OSCE participating states will do everything in their power to discourage all forms of religious intolerance - including any disrespect for Europe’s own Christian roots.”

Hugh Hewitt is the host of a nationally syndicated radio show, and author most recently of Blog: Understanding the Information Reformation That is Changing Your World. His daily blog can be found at HughHewitt.com.

==============================

**The Supremes and Religious Freedom: Another Turn of the Screw (Christian Post, 100724)

By Chuck Colson

In late June, the Supreme Court, in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, issued a ruling with profound implications for the relationship of believers to the government.

The case involved the CLS chapter at the University of California’s Hastings College of Law. CLS requires members to ascribe to its statement of faith and renounce “unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle.”

Claiming that this requirement violated its policy that all students be permitted to participate in organizations’ activities, Hastings denied the CLS official recognition.

The Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, rejected CLS’ argument and decided in favor of Hastings.

The impact of this decision goes far beyond the Christian Legal Society. Groups like Intervarsity are rightly concerned about what the Court’s imprimatur on Hastings’ “all-comers” requirement means for them. Will they be able to exercise even basic discipline among their members? If anyone can belong and even become a leader, can they even remain a Christian organization?

Folks, these aren’t theoretical questions. And listen to this: In his concurring opinion, Justice Kennedy (the “swing vote” in the five to four decision) struck a very ominous note. He compared the CLS’ requirements to McCarthy-era “loyalty oaths” and pronounced that “the era of loyalty oaths is behind us.”

Now what does that say about loyalty to creed, statements of faith-indeed, the Bible itself? The era of loyalty oaths is behind us? I guess the only oath we can take today is to secular liberalism, which confines religion to an increasingly tiny, private sphere. As I have noted elsewhere, religious freedom is more and more defined as the right to “worship,” as long as that worship has no public dimension. You are free to think and feel as you wish, as long as you strive to keep it to yourself.

This has happened before, because in the absence of absolute standards of truth, decisions are made by whoever is in power. And those, like Christians, who lack power, are expected just to go along.

This decision forces us to confront the issue of whether-and at what point-we must disobey Caesar in order to obey God. Banning statements of faith would put us squarely in this position. We don’t choose civil disobedience, but we’re being forced to consider it ever more seriously.

This is why I have asked Dr. Timothy George, the dean of Beeson Divinity School and the chairman of the board of BreakPoint, to address the issue head on. He’s filmed a powerful message on believers and civil disobedience. I’ve made Dr. George’s video a part of my Two-Minute Warning this week. Please visit ColsonCenter.org and watch the Two-Minute Warning.

And then I want you to stand with organizations like CLS and InterVarsity by signing the Manhattan Declaration. It’s a protest against the increasing tendency to “trample upon the freedom” of those who would “express their religious and moral commitments.”

In a world where what’s increasingly being required of Christians goes beyond “tolerance” to actual participation in activities contrary to God’s law, we must be prepared to say “no.”

Saying “no” has its costs, but at some point, it’s no longer optional, at least if we’re clear about where our loyalty lies.

==============================

**Ga. School Forces Christian Student to Alter Beliefs to Graduate (Christian Post, 100722)

An Augusta State University student filed suit Wednesday after she was told to change her Christian beliefs or otherwise be expelled from the school’s graduate counseling program.

“A public university student shouldn’t be threatened with expulsion for being a Christian and refusing to publicly renounce her faith, but that’s exactly what’s happening here,” said David French, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund. “Simply put, the university is imposing thought reform.”

Jennifer Keeton, 24, has been enrolled in the College of Education’s School Counselor masters degree program since fall 2009. She has expressed her Christian beliefs in class discussions and written assignments, but it was her views regarding gender and sexuality that irked faculty.

According to the filed complaint, “She has stated that she believes sexual behavior is the result of accountable personal choice rather than an inevitability deriving from deterministic forces. She also has affirmed binary male-female gender, with one or the other being fixed in each person at their creation, and not a social construct or individual choice subject to alteration by the person so created. Further, she has expressed her view that homosexuality is a ‘lifestyle,’ not a ‘state of being.’”

In May, Keeton was notified that she would be asked to participate in a remediation plan. Mary Jane Anderson-Wiley, an associate professor who also oversees student education and discipline, explained that the faculty wanted to see Keeton’s writing skills improve and that they are concerned with some of her beliefs and views pertaining to GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender) issues.

Several faculty members later met with the student and told her that they considered her to be failing to conform to certain professional standards. In a written Remediation Plan, the faculty said her speech on GLBT matters violated the codes of ethics that counselors and those in training are required to adhere to.

Keeton’s views “depart from what ‘the psychological research about GLBTQ (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning) populations asserts’ that that ‘sexual orientation is not a lifestyle or choice, but a state of being,’” faculty members said.

The Remediation Plan required that Keeton attend workshops on diversity sensitivity training toward working with GLBTQ populations, work to increase exposure and interaction with gay populations by attending such events as the Gay Pride Parade in Augusta, and read more on the topic to improve counseling effectiveness with GLBTQ populations.

Failure to complete all elements of the remediation plan will result in dismissal from the Counselor Education Program, according to the plan.

Keeton told faculty members, “I can’t alter my biblical beliefs, and I will not affirm the morality of those behaviors in a counseling situation.”

But she stressed, “I understand the need to reflect clients’ goals and to allow them to work toward their own solutions, and I know I can do that.”

When Keeton asked why her biblical ethical views would disqualify her competence as a counselor, Anderson-Wiley at one point responded, “Christians see this population as sinners.” Though Keeton stated that all people are sinners, including herself, Anderson-Wiley told her that she had a choice of standing by the Bible or by the American Counseling Association Code of Ethics. Keeton chose the Bible.

“Abandoning one’s own religious beliefs should not be a precondition at a public university for obtaining a degree,” ADF’s David French contended. “This type of leftist zero-tolerance policy is in place at far too many universities, and it must stop. Jennifer’s only crime was to have the beliefs that she does.”

==============================

**InterVarsity Head Laments: ‘Evangelical Groups Are Out’ (Christian Post, 100702)

[KH: danger to all Christian groups]

InterVarsity Christian Fellowship has 860 chapters at universities throughout the country.

So when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this week that a public law school in San Francisco could deny the Christian Legal Society recognition because it bars gays, InterVarsity president Alec Hill knew it would have ripple effects.

“I hate the idea that InterVarsity and other religious groups may become second-class citizens who really aren’t part of the ‘in’ group, if you will, of the recognized student groups,” he told The Christian Post Wednesday.

“It’s a significant statement of role shifts of who’s in and who’s out. Evangelical groups are out,” he lamented. “To me, it seems just wrong-headed.”

Hill doesn’t know what to expect when the new school year begins in the fall. Some schools may move forward in a hostile manner against recognizing such campus groups as InterVarsity. Others may take a broader view of accommodating religious pluralism, he said.

One thing’s for sure though: the high court decision makes things more difficult for student groups, according to Hill.

On Monday, the Supreme Court handed down a ruling against the Christian Legal Society. The nearly 50-year-old Christian group had filed a lawsuit after it was denied recognition by the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. The school said CLS’ bylaws did not comply with Hastings’ policy because they excluded students based on religion and sexual orientation.

CLS requires voting members and leaders to sign a statement of faith, which includes a tenet stating that sexual activity should not occur outside of marriage between a man and a woman. In other words, those who engage in “unrepentant homosexual conduct” cannot hold a leadership position or vote in the club.

In a 5-4 ruling, the court upheld Hastings’ unique policy that states that Registered Student Organizations must allow all students to participate, become a member or seek leadership positions, regardless of status or beliefs.

“It’s a bit nonsensical because in theory it waters down all the distinctives of any group whatsoever and makes them all homogeneous,” Hill commented. “This decision requires a Democratic Student group to accept Republicans as leaders. Or a Muslim group to have Orthodox Jews as leaders. Or the Sierra Club to have leaders who deny global warming.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in the majority opinion that Hastings’ so-called “all-comers policy” was “reasonable” and “viewpoint-neutral” and did not violate CLS’ right to free speech or impair the group’s right to expressive association. Groups can choose between welcoming “all students” and forgoing the benefits of official recognition, which include minimal funding, access to facilities and access to channels to communicate with students, she wrote.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Samuel Alito pointed out that the all-comers policy was only imposed after the lawsuit against Hastings was filed. And then a third policy was rolled out later.

“The adoption of a facially neutral policy for the purpose of suppressing the expression of a particular viewpoint is viewpoint discrimination,” he said.

The court did not rule on CLS’ claim that the all-comers policy was selectively enforced. The issue was remanded back to the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court.

Though a narrow decision, the language used in the majority opinion will likely be cited in future court cases.

Samuel B. Casey, general counsel at Advocates International commented, “[T]he Court’s decision ... does not bring to an end almost two decades of unconstitutional discrimination by administrators on many public law school campuses against CLS and other religious student groups simply because of their Christian faith when, as occurred in this case, no such viewpoint discrimination is being experienced by any other student groups.”

Discrimination and litigation are not foreign to InterVarsity. The group filed a lawsuit four years ago against the University of Wisconsin after it was “derecognized” for the 2006-2007 school year. The university contended that the Christian group’s Doctrinal Basis of Faith that leaders have to affirm violated its anti-discrimination policy.

InterVarsity argued, however, that the university’s position violated First Amendment religious and free speech rights, as well as freedom of association and self-identification of organizations.

“It also violates simple logic: an organization must be able to choose leaders that identify with its goals and its reason for existence,” the group stated.

Months after the suit was filed, the university adopted a policy change that allows student groups to limit officer positions to students who affirm the group’s goals and beliefs.

Though a win for InterVarsity, under the latest Supreme Court decision, the group might have lost the case, said Hill.

InterVarsity has had to deal with similar difficulties with recognition on a number of other campuses, including Harvard University, the University of North Carolina, the University of Arizona, Boise State University and Rutgers in New Jersey.

InterVarsity chapters are located on both private and public campuses. Though they have no legal protection at private colleges, the Constitution protects the chapters at public universities, the ministry leader noted.

Over the past several decades, particularly since the Widmar v. Vincent case in 1981, the Supreme Court has ruled against public universities singling out student groups because of their points of view. Religious groups were ensured greater access to public facilities. But this week’s decision was out of line with precedent, Hill said.

“This case obviously is a serious reversal of that trend,” said Hill, who previously taught law.

Despite the barriers InterVarsity has faced and will likely continue to face, the evangelical group has seen tremendous growth in recent years. New believers, or those who make decisions for Christ, are up 68% since 2005 and the number of staff – a third of whom became Christian in college – is at a record high, Hill said.

Whatever the impact of the court decision, Hill said confidently that they will continue to operate whether they have to find space off-campus or find other ways of communicating with students.

“We believe that God is bigger than all of this and He’s sovereign,” he said. “While this is discouraging and will make our work more difficult, it does not cripple the Gospel on campus.”

==============================

**Defending Christianity’s Place in U.S. Against ‘Anti-Faith’ Attacks (Christian Post, 100612)

With America seeing huge attacks against the Christian faith, one congressman is not sitting idly by and allowing Christianity to be pushed out of the public square.

“Over the last several decades we have seen this constant erosion of just an access to the marketplace of ideas,” Virginia Congressman Randy Forbes said on Friday’s Family Talk radio broadcast.

“We don’t want to dominate the marketplace,” he noted. “We don’t want to control it. We just want to have faith and religion having a seat at the table.”

Forbes is the founder and chairman of the Congressional Prayer Caucus and active in defending the place of faith in American society.

Recently in May, Forbes and some 30 other congressmen defended a National Day of Prayer event held at the Cannon House building when protesters tried to block it from taking place.

Last month, he also introduced a bipartisan resolution reaffirming “In God We Trust” as the official motto of the United States.

“I think overwhelmingly people across America would say ‘in God we still trust,’” he told Dr. James Dobson on the conservative radio show. “I think it’s the time for us to have that kind of legislation.”

Before Forbes was featured on Friday’s broadcast, Dobson noted to listeners that the newly launched Family Talk is not being turned into a ministry that has “a political or public policy bent.” But he stressed the significance of still addressing such issues and was unapologetic about doing so with passion.

“That’s who we are and might as well state that up front,” said Dobson, who started Family Talk with his son after leaving the prominent Focus on the Family ministry in February.

“This is the one reason that I didn’t want to retire when I left Focus on the Family,” the 74-year-old conservative evangelical leader stated. “The country is in a great deal of trouble and I just felt like we needed to do something about it.”

Like many like-minded Christians, Dobson feels there is a growing attack against Christianity and efforts to eliminate all references to the Christian faith.

Expressing the same level of concern, Forbes said “anti-faith” groups around the country are amassing huge sums of money and focusing their resources on one particular situation or lawsuit so that they can get a precedent.

But through the Congressional Prayer Caucus, Forbes and his fellow congressmen have had some success in dealing with the attacks.

After some 60 congressmen wrote a letter last year to a judge who initiated criminal contempt proceedings against two high school officials in Florida’s Santa Rosa County School District for praying during a luncheon, the case was dismissed.

“We have to make sure that these individuals who are making these decisions know that it’s not just the anti-faith groups that are looking at what they’re doing, but it’s people of faith as well,” Forbes said.

A number of states have begun to form prayer caucuses, including Mississippi and Virginia. Part of the purpose of prayer caucuses is to monitor legislation, agency rulings and court opinions that deny religious freedoms and access to the marketplace of ideas for people of faith, he said.

Forbes hopes to see prayer caucuses in every state “because it would be the first time that we have been able to integrate all of these policymakers across the country so that they can know what’s going on and we can have policies that effectively deal with some of these attacks before it’s too late.”

While “anti-faith” groups are becoming increasingly vocal, Forbes encouraged Christians to be courageous and let decision makers and others know that “there is not just a single voice – that being the anti-faith voice – but there are people of faith that are standing up as well.”

==============================

**Court rules against Christian group that bars gays (National Post, 100628)

WASHINGTON – A university can legally deny recognition to a Christian student group that bars gays and nonbelievers, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a case that pitted anti-discrimination principles against religious freedom.

Such official recognition qualifies campus groups for funding and other benefits.

By a 5-4 vote, the justices upheld a U.S. appeals court ruling in favor of the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law.

It denied recognition to the group because of a school policy that membership should be open to all.

The high court’s ruling was a defeat for the Christian Legal Society. It argued the U.S. Constitution does not allow a school to deny recognition to a religious student group that insists its members agree with its core views.

The group requires members to sign a statement of faith that vows devotion to Jesus Christ. It bars those with what it defines as a “sexually immoral lifestyle,” including gays and lesbians.

Founded in 1961, the Christian Legal Society has law student chapters across the country. Its members hold Bible study meetings and discuss ways to apply their religious faith to the practice of law.

The Hastings College of the Law chapter initially was open to all students, but in 2004 began requiring members to endorse a statement of faith and barred anyone who engaged in “unrepentant sexual conduct.”

The state-run law school in San Francisco cited its anti-discrimination policy and withdrew official recognition, though it allowed the group to continue to meet on campus.

The school said official campus groups may not exclude people because of religious belief, sexual orientation or other reasons.

A federal judge and then a U.S. appeals court ruled for the law school, holding that its policy was reasonable and that it did not violate the rights of the Christian group.

The Supreme Court, in a majority opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, agreed.

Summarizing the ruling from the bench on the last day of the court’s term, Ms. Ginsburg upheld the university’ open-access policy and said other law schools have similar policies.

She said the university need not provide a religious-based exception to its policy that groups must open membership to all students who want to join.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.

The Supreme Court case is Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, 08-1371.

==============================

**It’s Getting Dangerous Out There - A Preacher is Arrested in Britain (Christian Post, 100504)

By R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

We have seen this coming for some time now. The public space has been closing, especially when it comes to Christian speech - and especially when that speech is about homosexuality.

Now, a Christian preacher has been arrested in Britain for the crime of saying in public that homosexuality is a sin. This arrest is more than a news event - it is a signal of things to come and an announcement of a new public reality. Even if all charges are dropped against this preacher, the signal is sent and the message is clear. The act of Christian preaching is now a potential criminal offense.

Street preaching has a long and well-recognized history in Great Britain. Indeed, preachers of every sort are hardly alone in continuing Britain’s tradition of public rhetoric, seen quintessentially at “Speakers’ Corner” in London’s famed Hyde Park. Dale McAlpine of Wokington in Cumbria has been preaching on the streets for years. The 42-year-old preacher, a Baptist, was arrested after telling a passerby that homosexuality is a sin.

According to The Telegraph [London], McAlpine had been preaching from atop a stepladder. He also passed out tracts explaining the Ten Commandments. Later, he was involved in a discussion with a woman who wanted to “engage him in a debate about his faith.”

From The Telegraph:

During the exchange, he says he quietly listed homosexuality among a number of sins referred to in 1 Corinthians, including blasphemy, fornication, adultery and drunkenness. After the woman walked away, she was approached by a PCSO [Police Community Support Officer] who spoke with her briefly and then walked over to Mr. McAlpine and told him a complaint had been made, and that he could be arrested for using racist or homophobic language. The street preacher said he told the PCSO: “I am not homophobic but sometimes I do say that the Bible says homosexuality is a crime against the Creator”.

The police officer, identified in the news report as a homosexual and as the “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender liaison officer” for the local police department, then identified himself to Dale McAlpine. The preacher responded, “It’s still a sin.”

He then preached a sermon on a range of issues that did not include homosexuality. The paper reports, “Three regular uniformed police officers arrived during the address, arrested Mr. McAlpine and put him in the back of a police van.”

He was arrested under Britain’s “Public Order Act,” which, the paper reports, “has been used to arrest religious people in a number of similar cases.” The law allows the arrest and prosecution of anyone who, with intent to harass or cause harm, uses “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour.”

In this case, the simple act of stating in public that homosexuality is a sin was enough to get this preacher arrested. He is not the first. The Telegraph also reported that Harry Hammond, a lay preacher, was convicted in 2002 for holding a sign that read “Stop Homosexuality. Stop Lesbianism. Jesus is Lord” as he preached in Bournemouth, near Southampton.

The arrest of Dale McAlpine is attracting some degree of international media attention, but the case represents far more than a media spectacle. This arrest is a clear sign that the logic of “hate speech” laws and similar rules and campus codes runs into direct collision with religious liberty and the freedom of religious speech.

The Telegraph’s report includes the ironic and chilling explanation that Dale McAlpine was arrested for saying that homosexuality is a sin and for doing so “in a voice loud enough to be heard by others.” Is not the purpose of any speaker to be heard by others? Are we to assume that the British police would suggest that Dale McAlpine hold fast to his beliefs, but mutter them only under his breath?

He is being defended in court by the Christian Institute, a group that monitors such cases and offers legal counsel. Sam Webster, a solicitor-advocate with the Institute, said, “Yes, the police have a duty to maintain public order but they also have a duty to defend the lawful free speech of citizens. It’s not for police to decide whether Mr. McAlpine’s views are right or wrong.” He continued: “Case law has ruled that the orthodox Christian belief that homosexual conduct is sinful is a belief worthy of respect in a democratic society.”

That may not be true for long, and it may not help Dale McAlpine now. Both the Labour Party and the Liberal Democratic Party have pushed for repeal of language offering some protection for religious speech. The Conservative Party has generally opposed such measures. Will British Christians have this in mind when they vote Thursday in the nation’s general election?

We are witnessing the constriction of Christian speech and the criminalizing of Christian ministry. The Bible clearly condemns homosexual behaviors, and the Christian church has been clear about this teaching for twenty centuries. But now, the statement that homosexuality is a sin can land a preacher in jail.

We will soon learn which nations truly believe in religious liberty and freedom of speech. Cases like this are inevitable when the logic of hate speech and special rights for “sexual minorities” prevails.

Do not think for a moment that this troubling development is of consequence only for street preachers in Britain. The signal sent by this kind of arrest reaches right into every church in every nation where a similar logic takes hold.

Yes, we will soon learn which nations honor religious liberty - but we will also soon learn which preachers are determined to honor God’s truth, whatever the cost. Paul’s command to preachers to preach the Word, “in season and out of season” is about more than when preaching is more and less popular. It may well mean preaching the Word, in jail or out of jail.

Just ask Dale McAlpine.

==============================

**Can Christian Organizations Remain Christian in a ‘Tolerant’ Age? (Christian Post, 100323)

By R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

Can a Christian organization remain Christian in a culture of postmodern “tolerance?” That question is the focus of a case soon to come before the U. S. Supreme Court.

Like most colleges and universities around the nation, the University of California Hastings College of Law recognizes certain student organizations within the life of the school. Until recently, the Christian Legal Society had been one of those groups. But, controversy arose about five years ago, when leaders of the CLS chapter at Hastings asserted the national policy of the organization, which states: “In view of the clear dictates of Scripture, unrepentant participation in and advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle is inconsistent with an affirmation of the Statement of Faith.”

The presenting issue is homosexuality and, as the Los Angeles Times reported, the issue before the nation’s high court is “whether a Christian student group’s right to religious liberty and the freedom of association can trump a university’s ban on discrimination against gays and lesbians.” Of course, another way of stating the same issue is this: Must a Christian organization surrender its Christian convictions in order to be recognized by a secular university?

The Christian Legal Society describes its mission as “to inspire, encourage, and equip lawyers and law students, both individually and in community, to proclaim, love and serve Jesus Christ through the study and practice of law, the provision of legal assistance to the poor, and the defense of religious freedom and sanctity of human life.” It also clearly states that it is a “fellowship of Christian lawyers and law students.”

The CLS “Statement of Faith” is clearly rooted in orthodox Christian beliefs, and the group is candid in pointing to its Christian intellectual, moral, and organizational commitments. It is involved in local chapters across the country and in student fellowships on many law school campuses. As the group warns, “Because law school is the formative period in an attorney’s life - setting patterns and habits that will long endure and, in the case of bad tendencies, will only be broken with anguish - it is imperative that Christian law students seek out one another for fellowship, encouragement, and accountability. As a supplement to involvement in the local church, a Christian law fellowship should facilitate a closer relationship with Christ, so that in the words of the 10th century prayer, He may defend, refresh, preserve, guide, justify, and bless us.”

The CLS understanding of “unrepentant participation in and advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle” as “inconsistent” with the organization’s Statement of Faith ran into direct collision with the Hastings College of Law administration, which told the group it would lose its recognition by the school because its stance on sexuality violated the school’s policy against discrimination based on “race, color, religion, national origin, disability, age, sex or sexual orientation.”

Back in December, the U. S. Supreme Court agreed to take the case after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the Christian Legal Society’s Hastings chapter.

Writing in USA Today, Tom Krattenmaker argues that the case comes down to this set of questions:

Does religious freedom include the right to discriminate on the basis of gender, race or sexuality? Do authorities have the right to foist their values on religious groups through carrots and sticks such as meeting-space privileges and the threat of withholding funds? And, as more conservatives are asking these days, shouldn’t that oft-proclaimed liberal principle of “tolerance” also be invoked to the benefit of tradition-minded Christians?

A more fundamental question is whether Christian organizations can remain Christian in the light of such anti-discrimination codes and policies. The presenting issue in the current case has to do with the issue of homosexuality. But what about the clause banning all discrimination on the basis of “religion?” The Hastings policy would appear to exclude any Christian student organization that would refuse entry to an atheist.

Krattenmaker attempts to be even-handed, acknowledging what he calls “complex questions.” Still, he manages to tip his hand in the argument. “Freedom from discrimination based on your color or gender or, as our society is coming to better appreciate, sexual orientation is not some flavor-of-the-month trifle,” he insists. “Like religious liberty, it’s enshrined in the Constitution, and correctly so. It’s not politically correct so much as it’s morally correct.”

Well, the words “sexual orientation” are not found within the Constitution, but clear language ensuring freedom of religious expression is. As is so often the case, a policy banning discrimination is cited as exhaustively tolerant - which it is not. Not all “sexual orientations” are accorded these rights under anti-discrimination policies. The argument in Krattenmaker’s article does not extend to a deliberation of just how broadly such policies are to be applied.

Instead, he chides Christians for claiming that actions like the removal of the Hastings CLS chapter’s recognition is a form of intolerance.

He writes: “At its heart, [tolerance] is a philosophy and moral commitment to accepting the rights of others to believe or behave differently from ourselves without excluding or penalizing. Don’t expect champions of tolerance to “tolerate” acts of exclusion or bigotry that represent the very opposite of the principle they hold so dear.”

In this statement, Krattenmaker is echoing the arguments of the late Herbert Marcuse, who argued that authentic tolerance would mean the toleration of virtually any ideology or practice that was itself sufficiently tolerant. The flip side of Marcuse’s argument is that true tolerance requires unqualified opposition to any ideology that is considered intolerant. Marcuse was seeking a radical transformation of society. Today’s increasingly aggressive secularism looks much like what Marcuse and the young radicals who followed him hoped to see.

The case pitting the Hastings College of Law against the Christian Legal Society presents the nation - and its highest court - with an inescapable question: Are Christian organizations to be allowed to remain Christian, or must they all morph into secularized associations?

Must the Christian Legal Society surrender its biblical convictions in order to remain a recognized campus organization? Does religious liberty now stop at the law school door?

Obviously, much is riding on this case. The same logic used against the Christian Legal Society in this case can be used to argue that any Christian organization, school, or institution no longer serves the community’s welfare if it holds such policies. How long before similar arguments are made against churches and Christian schools?

Can Christian organizations remain Christian in an age of ideological “tolerance?” All eyes will soon be on the U. S. Supreme Court as the Christian Legal Society’s appeal is heard. Far more than one CLS chapter in one law school is at stake here.

==============================

**Religious charities threatened by rights tribunal rulings (National Post, 091215)

TORONTO — Religious charitable groups could be forced to choose between abandoning their values or going out of business if an Ontario Human Rights Tribunal decision is not overturned, an Ontario Divisional Court was told on Tuesday.

In 2008, the tribunal ruled that Christian Horizons, an evangelical Christian group that provides care and homes for the severely disabled, did not have the right to fire an employee because she entered into a lesbian relationship. The woman, Connie Heintz, like all other employees, had signed a code of conduct that forbids sex outside of a traditional marriage between a man and a woman.

The tribunal based its decision on a provision of the Ontario Human Rights Code that allows religious groups to discriminate in hiring if they can prove the interests they are serving are those of people who share the same religious identity. But because Christian Horizons cared for people of all faith groups, it could not use that provision, the tribunal ruled. As well, it added that because Christian Horizons is not involved in indoctrination, the group had no right to use the exception.

On Tuesday, lawyers for Christian Horizons argued that the tribunal did not understand the fundamental mission of Christianity and that it was a violation of religious freedom to deny the group the right to live out its faith as it saw fit.

“The mission is to serve, not to indoctrinate,” lawyer Adrian Miedema told the three-judge panel. “It does not mean the exception should be denied because you don’t teach Christian principles.”

Earlier in the day, Barbara Grossman, another lawyer for Christian Horizons, told court that the group’s religious beliefs compel it to serve all people, not just co-religionists.

“They are following what Jesus Christ said in the Gospels that they must minister to all.”

She said if the court let the ruling stand, then Christian Horizons would be left with just two options: cease being a religious organization or refuse to help people who don’t share their faith.

She said the latter option would be a practical impossibility, akin to asking patrons of a soup kitchen to fill out a religious questionnaire.

Ms. Grossman questioned whether the intent of the provision was to allow a situation in which charitable groups would only care for people of the same faith.

“Did the legislature intend to put these groups out of business because they care for those of other faiths?” she asked.

Ms. Grossman said Christian Horizons “serves the disabled without regard to their faith” and noted that the staff of 2,500, through various group homes, cared for 1,400 of the province’s “most difficult to serve.”

She said the interests being served are not those of the clients, but of the larger religious community that supports the group — in this case, evangelical Christians.

She pointed to a 1984 British Columbia case in which a Catholic teacher was fired from a Catholic school board for marrying a divorced man and then doing so in a civil ceremony. She challenged the decision under that province’s human rights code, which also had a religious exception. The woman argued that the school was serving the interests of the students and therefore her marital status did not impact her employment. But the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the interests being served were those of the broader Catholic community, not the students.

Likewise, in 1991, Christian Horizons was brought before another human rights tribunal after firing two people who went to live in common law relationships. The tribunal said the interest Christian Horizons was serving was not its disable clients but its fellow evangelicals. Christian Horizons ultimately lost that case, but only because they did not have a morals code in place so the two could not have known what they were violating. As a result, Christian Horizons instituted a morals code that every employee must sign.

Ms. Heintz joined Christian Horizons in 1995 as a committed evangelical Christian. She was asked to leave in 2000. A year later she brought a complaint, which took seven years to reach a conclusion. Ms. Heintz was in court on Tuesday but told the judges she would not be making a submission.

The court will also hear from several religious intervenors, including the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and the Canadian Council of Christian Charities.

A lawyer for the Ontario Human Rights Commission will have a chance to defend the tribunal’s decision and the group Egale Canada, a gay rights organization, will act as an intervenor for Ms. Heintz.

The appeal hearing is expected to end on Thursday but a decision may not come for at least six months.

==============================

**Evangelicals in Canada Fight to Preserve Hiring Policy (Christian Post, 091216)

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada began on Tuesday defending in court the rights of religious organizations to hire people based on their religious beliefs.

In the landmark religious freedom case Heintz v. Christian Horizons, the Superior Court of Ontario will consider whether to uphold an earlier ruling that a faith-based organization involved in social work cannot require an employee to share its same religious beliefs and service commitment.

If the Superior Court does uphold the ruling, then it will significantly impact the operations and identities of churches, Christian public service organizations, denominations and higher education institutions across Canada, the EFC warned.

“Canada has a long history of accepting religious differences and allowing them to exist peacefully,” said EFC Vice-President and General Legal Counsel Don Hutchinson, who noted that Canada, unlike the United States, has no constitutional concept of separation of church and state.

Federal and provincial governments have historically funded activities conducted by religious organizations that benefit the public such as ones related to education, health services and care for special-needs individuals.

“There are a variety of public service organizations, both religious and non-religious, that are selective in their employment to ensure a common motivation and to maximize the use of charitable and public dollars,” Hutchinson asserted.

The current case was sparked when a former employee of faith-based ministry Christian Horizons resigned because she felt she could no longer live according to the commitment of the group’s Statement of Faith and Lifestyle Policy that she was required to sign. After resigning, she filed a human rights complaint.

The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal ruled that Christian Horizons, which cares for and supports over 1,400 developmentally disabled Canadians, cannot discriminate against employees because of their religious beliefs.

“This decision was shocking,” said Faye Sonier, EFC legal counsel. “It’s inconsistent with long-standing Supreme Court jurisprudence that clearly sets out that people of faith can choose to gather for ministry works and service – this has been confirmed as an extension of their right to freedom of religion.”

For more than 40 years, Christian Horizons has cared for thousands of disabled individuals in Canada. The government of Canada has repeatedly recognized the ministry’s work, which helped move the provincial-wide model of care from institutional care in favor of residential care.

As a result of its success, the ministry expanded significantly to meet the need. Christian Horizons employs over 2,500 people to provide housing, care and support to developmentally disabled individuals.

Hutchinson, who also directs the EFC’s Center for Faith and Public Life, said that if the lower court’s decision stands then religious ministries “will have the very foundation for their public service stripped from beneath them, forcing them to re-evaluate their ability to provide those services.”

“Christian service is an integral extension and expression of the Evangelical Christian faith,” the EFC legal counsel said. “To attempt to sever that link misunderstands the very ethos and motivation that undergirds the Christian care and compassion for others. What this case comes down to is the ability of a recognized religious community, that’s doing good not harm, to define its own beliefs, practices and standards of membership.”

The court case is scheduled to take place from Dec. 15 to 17.

==============================

**Woman at heart of rights battle struggled with faith, sexuality (National Post, 091217)

Toronto • A woman who was fired from a Christian charity organization for breaking the group’s code of conduct said on Thursday she never believed that her sexual orientation made her less of a Christian or got in the way of her work.

For the past three days, Ontario Divisional Court has heard appeal arguments about a 2008 Ontario Human Rights Tribunal decision that said Christian Horizons, a charitable religious organization that tends to the severely disabled, had no right to dismiss Connie Heintz because she violated a morals code.

The tribunal determined that Christian Horizons’ main purpose was serving the disabled, not teaching a creed, and therefore could not take advantage of an exclusion in the human rights code that allows religious groups to discriminate in hiring in certain cases.

It fined Christian Horizons roughly $30,000 and ordered that the group develop an anti-discrimination code.

Christian Horizons, and several intervenors, said that the group’s ability to do its work depended on sharing common values as an evangelical Christian faith community, a part of which was a rejection of the sexual activity outside of traditional marriage.

Ms. Heintz, now 41, said on Thursday in an interview she signed the code willingly when she joined Christian Horizons in 1995 as a group home worker. At the time she was wrestling with her sexuality, but had not yet come out, she said.

“Speak to any person raised in a fundamentalist Christian background like I was — it is extremely difficult to come to terms with your sexual orientation,” she said after the hearing concluded on Thursday. “You can’t flip the switch and decide.”

During the three-day hearing, lawyers for Christian Horizons noted that Ms. Heintz had also expressed doubts about her faith, another thing that alienated her from the group and their statement of faith.

Ms. Heintz, who did not testify at the hearing, said she indeed had a “crisis of faith” as she was deciding to come out but still considered herself a deeply believing Christian.

“You come out in phases by first coming out to yourself and then coming out to those closest to you. That process triggered a crisis of faith.”

In group homes for the disabled, workers tended to their clients by changing beds, serving meals and bringing them to medical appointments. The most specific religious duties were saying prayers and conducting Bible readings.

Ms. Heintz said she felt she could do all those things despite being gay.

“I never felt like a hypocrite,” she said.

Christian Horizons, the biggest provider of care for the disabled in the province, has 200 group homes, serves 1,400 patients and has a staff of 2,500. It has been in operation for 40 years.

During Thursday’s hearing, Cynthia Petersen, a lawyer for the gay rights group Egale Canada, said that Ms. Heintz also had a religious calling, which was thwarted when she was forced to go.

“It was a restriction to her religious freedom. They don’t have the right to say she’s not an evangelical Christian.”

Earlier in the hearing, Barbara Grossman, lawyer for Christian Horizons, said the dispute was not an issue about Ms. Heintz’s sexuality.

Any person who changed their religion, for example, or entered into a heterosexual common law relationship, would have also been asked to leave.

Her co-counsel, Adrian Miedema, rejected the argument that because Christian Horizons was not specifically engaged in teaching it was not involved in religious activity.

“The group’s ethos resulted in the outcome of the work they did,” again pointing out that to be a Christian means to do service to others.

It is not known when a decision from the court will come, but lawyers speculated it would take at least six months.

==============================

**Pastor Acquitted of Hate Crime Charge in Canada (Christian Post,091209)

A Canadian judge last week exonerated a former pastor who was charged of committing a hate crime for sending a letter to a local newspaper criticizing homosexuality.

Judge E.C. Wilson overturned a 2008 ruling by the Alberta Human Rights Commission that ordered former Alberta pastor Stephen Boissoin to stop all public criticisms of homosexuality and to pay the plaintiff $5,000 in damages, according to The Canadian Press.

Wilson ruled on Friday that the 2002 letter, which carried the headline “Homosexual agenda wicked,” was not a hate crime but is permissible under freedom of speech.

“The decision of Justice Earl Wilson of the Court of Queen’s Bench in Boissoin v. Lund will have a significant long term positive impact on religious freedom in Canada,” wrote Gerald Chipeur , Boissoin’s attorney, in a summary analysis of the judgment, according to LifeSiteNews.com.

Chipeur commented that the definition of what qualifies as hate speech was made clearer through the ruling. He also said the judge took away the “tools of censorship” and protected freedom of expression.

In 2002, Boissoin sent a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate newspaper criticizing the pro-gay rights curriculum in the province’s education system.

“From kindergarten class on our children, your grandchildren are being strategically targeted, psychologically abused and brainwashed by homosexual and pro-homosexual educators,” Pastor Stephen Boissoin wrote.

The letter caught the attention of a human rights activist who filed a complaint against the pastor for “hate-mongering.” The activist supported his case by pointing to a homosexual who was beaten up two weeks after the letter was published as evidence that such speech can incite violence.

Boissoin’s attorney, however, argued that the plaintiff cannot prove the connection between his client’s letter and discriminatory practices against homosexuals in Alberta. The lawyer also highlighted that Alberta’s hate speech laws cannot suppress people’s right to express their opinions.

“While the decision did not strike down Alberta’s ‘hate speech’ laws, it significantly limited the application of such laws,” Chipeur said.

But plaintiff Darren Lund responded to the ruling saying, “I really think this is a step backwards for our province,” in an e-mail to The Canadian Press.

“In my view, the judge’s ruling sets such strict standards for hate speech that this section is rendered all but unenforceable.”

The case of Boissoin, which had been ongoing for more than seven years, was used by conservative Christian leaders in the United States as an example of what could happen if D.C. lawmakers passed an expanded hate crimes law.

Prominent Christian right leaders such as James Dobson, Chuck Colson, and Tony Perkins warned that a hate crimes law could lead to “thought police” who consider verbal attacks or speeches to be hate crimes.

Despite the vocal protest by conservative leaders, a U.S.-version of the expanded hate crimes law was passed in October. The law adds violence against individuals based on sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability to the list of federal hate crimes. Conservative groups have vowed to keep a close watch on whether the legislation respects free speech and religious liberty as its supporters have promised.

==============================

**ECP Centre celebrates victory for Stephen Boisson and Canadian liberty (Christiangovernment.ca, 091204)

By Tim Bloedow

The ECP Centre (Equipping Christians for the Public-square Centre) is very encouraged to see that sanity prevailed in Alberta’s court system with the decision Thursday to overturn the abusive Human Rights Commission ruling against Stephen Boissoin. We are also grateful to have played an important part in the case, raising awareness of the case over the past several years and organizing three successful fundraising dinners in the spring of this year which helped to bring in over $25,000 from generous Canadians towards Mr. Boissoin’s substantial legal costs. We continue to receive donations designated to Mr. Boissoin’s legal defense and we are grateful for the Christians who take their faith seriously enough to be aware of these disturbing cases and who are able to donate to support fellow-Christians in today’s battles.

Those familiar with the case will know that seven years ago, a “human rights” complaint was filed against Stephen Boissoin due to his sharp criticism of homosexuality in a letter to the editor printed in the Red Deer Advocate. In December 2007, the Alberta Human Rights Commission issued a ruthless decision against Mr. Boissoin which itself was an expression of hatred against Christianity. The provincial HRC essentially became a tool for a homosexualist inquisition whereby Mr. Boissoin was ordered to give a false apology for the substance of his letter. He was banned from ever criticizing homosexuality again in public or private communications, and even from the pulpit. The implications of the decision were stunning in terms of the imposition of the state over the church and the restrictions on religious liberty. Mr. Boissoin was also fined $5,000.

Needless to say, Mr. Boissoin filed an appeal of the decision. His legal counsel Gerry Chipeur was very confident that they would win the appeal because the historic principles of fundamental justice were on Mr. Boissoin’s side so, in a real court where such rules applied, the absurd HRC decision wasn’t expected to stand. The plaintiff Darren Lund, however, is reported in the Calgary Herald as not having made up his mind whether to appeal the decision.

Stephen Boissoin vindicated

In his decision, Justice Earl Wilson said that whatever one thinks about Mr. Boissoin’s comments, they didn’t violate Alberta’s human rights legislation which is to say, as the Edmonton Sun reported, that “there was nothing in the letter to suggest it was exhorting Albertans to discriminate against homosexuals in areas of employment, tenancy or goods and services which fall under provincial jurisdiction.” Justice Wilson said, ““Inferring some sort of call for discriminatory practices prohibited by provincial law is an unreasonable interpretation of the letter’s message.”

Of course, that wasn’t really the issue. Mr. Lund, who does not acknowledge being homosexual himself, but who thinks he has enough sensitivity to represent homosexuals, wanted Mr. Boissoin’s comments to be judged a hate crime and outside of free speech protections. Justice Wilson’s decision also rejected this spin on Mr. Boissoin’s comments.

But the references to discrimination aren’t unimportant. As Colby Cosh noted in an analysis posted on Macleans.ca today, “a province, Wilson observed, isn’t allowed to duplicate the Criminal Code provisions against hate speech. It’s only allowed to suppress hateful speech that can also be shown to encourage discrimination in the specific areas that lie within provincial powers and are enumerated in the statute - i.e., housing, employment, access to goods and services.”

Following the announcement of the decision, Stephen Boissoin expressed great joy over this victory for “freedom of speech and religious expression in Canada,” adding: “I am overjoyed that this malicious and frivolous process is over. It’s been seven and a half years of my life being run through the mud. I’ve been called a bigot and a hate-monger. What a waste of time.”

The Canadian Constitution Foundation, Canada’s freedom fighting legal defense organization, was also pleased that Justice Wilson threw out the Commission’s decision, but they remain concerned that the anti-freedom provision which was exploited in the complaint against Mr. Boissoin remains on the books. “Unfortunately, the law that was used against Reverend Boissoin to subject him to a expensive and stressful legal proceedings for more than seven years is still on the books,” said executive director John Carpay. That law forbids anyone from publishing a statement that is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt on the basis of several criteria including “sexual orientation.” “In spite of today’s court ruling, Albertans need to continue to exercise extreme caution when speaking about public policy issues, lest they offend someone who then files a human rights complaint,” said Mr. Carpay. “No citizen is safe from being subjected to a taxpayer-funded prosecution for having spoken or written something that a fellow citizen finds offensive.”

Canada’s hard-left media not interested

A stunning development from Thursday’s decision is the lack of development, which is to say, the total lack of interest in the ruling by Canada’s media. Alright, I admit it, I’m not stunned at all by this totally predictable result from Canada’s anti-Christian, pro-homosexual media.

Canada’s national media fawns over homosexuals, so any victories they receive in law, politics or the culture are widely reported. In a sharp shift from their traditional role, Canada’s news media almost universally despise the “little guy,” who today is often the Christian, especially when homosexualists are the aggressors.

Certainly when Alberta Christian Stephen Boissoin got strung up by the provincial HRC, acting on behalf of pro-homosexual Darren Lund, Canada’s passionately pro-homosexual media was on top of this story, providing lots of sympathetic coverage to the homosexualist agenda and the HRC.

But, today (Friday), following the announcement of the decision throwing out the anti-democratic HRC ruling, how much media coverage did the story receive across Canada? Who wants to guess?? Based on the results of two media search engines we used, we discovered that the Canadian Press dutifully wrote up the decision. And four Alberta papers reported on it: the Calgary Herald, the Lethbridge Herald the Calgary Sun and the Edmonton Sun, but we could not find one single newspaper outside of Alberta which covered the story. Perhaps they were so amazed with the profundity of the decision that they wanted at least 24 hours to analyze it, so maybe on Saturday we’ll see the 35 or more cross-Canada media hits on the story that we would have seen today if the decision went against Mr. Boissoin. Even late this evening, a Google News search for “stephen boissoin” only produces 8 hits: One is Canoe which is the Sun Media article printed by the Edmonton and Calgary Sun papers, one is Xtra, another is the social conservative LifeSiteNews, one is CTV, another is Macleans.ca, another the Vancouver Sun and the last two are both from the Montreal Gazette.

Even if our media searches missed one or two articles, the point is still vivid in terms of how the media reflects a strong pro-homosexual advocacy agenda, working hard to self-censor any stories that undermine the march towards a homosexualist hegemony. They would deny it, but the evidence is before us for all to see. If it’s an unconscious bias, then that means that this anti-Christian bias is even more ingrained than many of us thought.

Ezra Levant has done a great deal of valuable work publicizing all the diverse people who have spoken out in defense of freedom and against the HRC agenda in the past few years. This includes many media outlets, journalists and editorial boards from across Canada. It’s great to emphasize and publicize these comments in the hope that it will pressure these media personnel to be consistent with their subsequent comments on liberty, but you don’t want to take these defenses of liberty too seriously or place too much hope in them. Most Canadian journalists are die-hard leftsts and most of the rest are left-leaning, and leftists will only defend freedom on a case-by-case basis if they see it as in their own best interests to do so. And secularists never seem to see it as in their best interests to defend liberty when the case involves a Christian defendant and a homosexualist complainant.

Despite the fact that Canada’s liberty tradition is rooted in the Judeo-Christian worldview, Christians have very few friends in today’s Canada, especially in positions of influence. Most people, including all special interest groups, are fighting for power and control, not for liberty. If Mr. Lund appeals this recent decision, we may have to rally the troops again on behalf of Mr. Boissoin and the fundamental constitutional principles of liberty which are at stake with this case.

Justice Wilson slams the Alberta government

By implication, Justice Wilson’s decision is a damning indictment of Alberta’s anti-liberty Conservative government. Many patriotic Canadians were shocked when the Stelmach government chose to intervene in the Boissoin HRC case - AGAINST Stephen Boissoin. Even the national homosexual activist group EGALE (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere) spoke out against this case, arguing that Darren Lund’s complaint went over the top with its censorship agenda. Despite the number of responsible people and organizations which condemned this complaint, the Stelmach Conservative government, with no obligation to do so, chose to intervene against freedom of speech, against religious liberty, against freedom of conscience, against Christianity.

Justice Wilson was more direct in his repudiation of phony experts. Mr. Cosh reported in his Macleans article: “Wilson thus ended up throwing several witnesses who testified against Boissoin overboard: the ex-cop who thought Boissoin’s anti-gay babblings might make teens ‘act out’, for example, and the shrink who warned that the Reverend’s letter might provoke a second Columbine. ... Wilson has thus made expert evidence in future tribunal proceedings a lot harder to come by: the logic of his decision suggests that complainants will no longer be able to round up every bleeding-heart social scientist or self-styled hate expert they can find, but will have to provide evidence of potential economic impacts from hate speech.”

Even the homosexual publication Xtra in an online article about the decision today declared: “Gays also stand to benefit from yesterday’s court decision. As we continue to face censorship - whether it be at the Canadian border or on major TV networks - it’s in our interest to promote free speech and expression. Censoring homophobes is an easy way to shut them up, but it does little to address the outrageousness of their arguments. Speech should be fought with speech.”

Justice Wilson’s decision to throw out the HRC decision against Mr. Boissoin by extension is also a decision against the Alberta government and its shockingly imprudent decision to intervene on the wrong side of that case. If the Stelmach government is not intelligent enough to realize this, the Wildrose Alliance is likely to benefit from such Conservative arrogance.

==============================

**Christians Say Hate Crimes Bill Is Not What You Think (Christian Post, 090626)

Attorney General Eric Holder urged Congress on Thursday to expand federal protections to gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals, a move conservatives say would criminalize those who simply speak against homosexuality.

Addressing the Senate Judiciary Committee, Holder argued for the passage of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, saying “the time is now” to protect communities from violence based on bigotry and prejudice.

Named after a gay man killed in 1998, the bill would add violence against individuals based on sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability to the list of federal hate crimes.

Opponents of the bill say expanding the federal hate crime law is unnecessary considering state and local governments already prosecute violent crimes. But Holder argued that there are instances where the federal government needs to come in.

He also insisted that the bill would be used only to prosecute violent acts and not speech.

“It is the person who commits the actual act of violence, who would be subject to this legislation, not the person who is simply expressing an opinion,” he said, responding to concerns from clergy and other religious leaders who say they could face prosecution just for expressing their religious views on homosexuality because their teachings could be blamed for inciting violence.

Holder’s assertion, however, does not convince Christians that the bill will not lead to an abridgment of free speech.

Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon, associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, points out that the explicit mention of “the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment” was removed from the version that was passed by the House in April.

“There is nothing in this bill that explicitly prevents any homosexualist-activist judge, of which there are many, from ruling that calling homosexual acts a grave ‘abomination’ by appeal to Levitical prohibitions constitutes an inducement to violence,” Gagnon states in an article series arguing against the hate crimes legislation.

The Pittsburgh Seminary professor views the bill as “the Trojan horse of an aggressive gay/transgender lobby.”

He argues that it offers “to the public the ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ law least likely to meet with massive public resistance.” And once the horse is within the city walls, then passing other laws on sexual orientation and gender identity will be relatively easy.

Moreover, he contends that placing “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” alongside “race,” “color” or “national origin” “ensconces in federal law the principle that homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality are as benign as race, gender, and disability – an aspect of human diversity that must be affirmed and celebrated.”

“Those who refuse to go along with this principle then become encoded in law as hateful, discriminatory bigots,” he notes.

On that note, Gagnon says the hate crimes bill is not primarily about protecting homosexual and transgendered persons from violence, as they are already protected by existing state laws. Instead, the bill is really a hate-promotion bill, he argues.

“[S]upport for this bill does not mean that you oppose hateful, violent acts against persons who self-identify as homosexuals, transsexuals, and cross-dressers,” he says. “Rather, it means that you support stigmatizing, marginalizing, and penalizing people who, lovingly or not, oppose homosexual practice and transgenderism.”

Christian groups and religious broadcasters have persistently spoken out and urged followers and listeners to contact their senators to reject the pending hate crimes legislation. A letter signed by more than 60 conservative leaders, including James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Tony Perkins of Family Research Council and Don Wildmon of American Family Association, was reportedly hand-delivered to every member of the Senate last week.

==============================

**San Diego County Formally Apologizes to Local Pastor (Christian Post, 090604)

A San Diego pastor received a formal apology from the county after he was cited for holding a home Bible study without a permit.

County Chief Administrative Officer Walt Ekard sent a letter, dated Wednesday, to Pastor David Jones rescinding the citation and stating that a permit is not required to hold Bible studies at home.

“Christians should not be punished simply for holding a Bible study in their home, so we are very encouraged by the county’s response and their commitment to immediate corrective action,” said Dean Broyles, president of the Western Center for Law & Policy and Jones’ attorney.

“We are confident that, as a result of the county’s statements, Bible studies and prayer meetings held in homes throughout San Diego County will be free from government regulation, as is guaranteed by the First Amendment,” he added.

In April, a code enforcement officer issued Jones a citation, ordering him to stop hosting the weekly Bible study – which the officer considered a “religious assembly” – or face fines upwards of $1,000. Jones was told that he needed to obtain a major use permit in order to continue the religious gathering.

When the news was revealed across several major media outlets, the San Diego County was flooded with complaints and accused of attempting to “muzzle religious expression.”

Last week, Ekard expressed regret over the situation and stressed that religious intolerance is not and never will be allowed in San Diego County government. He further underscored his own commitment to the freedom of religious expression and said the Bible studies in Jones’ home may continue while he reviews the matter.

Jones, however, wanted something more concrete than a public statement.

“We don’t have anything in writing. We want something very clearly that states people can pray in homes and have friends over and read Bible together and study a bit,” Jones, pastor of South Bay Community Church, told the local 10News, which first reported the incident.

According to 10News, Jones is satisfied with Wednesday’s letter.

While many saw the incident as an issue of religious expression, the county said this was a land issue. The county had received complaints from a neighbor about traffic and parking issues resulting from the weekly Bible studies.

Hoping to improve the policies and procedures the county uses to deal with such complaints, Ekard said the county will conduct a thorough review of its assembly ordinances and code enforcement officer training.

Welcoming the county’s efforts, Broyles stated, “We look forward to working with the county to ensure that the clarification of its ordinances and training of its personnel are implemented promptly and efficiently so that all citizens of San Diego can be assured that their constitutional rights are protected, whether they’re holding Bible studies or hosting Boy Scout meetings.”

==============================

**San Diego withdraws Bible study warning (WorldNetToday, 090604)

‘The weekly activity is within the scope of the residential use’

San Diego County has withdrawn a warning letter and cease and desist order it had issued against a pastor against a weekly Bible study held in his home, and the chief administrative officer for the governmental body has added his own personal apology to the pastor over the accusations.

“I want to offer my apology to you, your wife and your congregation for the unfortunate events of the past several weeks,” said the letter from Walter F. Ekard, chief officer of the county. “My review of the situation shows that no administrative citation warning should have been issued and that a major use permit is not required for the Bible study you have in your home.”

WND first broke the news of Pastor David Jones and his wife Mary, who was confronted by a San Diego County official, grilled over what is said at the couple’s Tuesday night Bible studies and then later issued a citation barring the couple from hosting further studies until they obtain a major use permit, the costs of which can escalate into the thousands. Mrs. Jones further reported the county official warned her that hosting the study – deemed a “religious assembly” subject to county codes – without the permit could result in fines escalating from $100 to $1,000.

Under a deluge of public response and a demand letter from the Western Center for Law & Policy, the county backed off its demand and told the couple that they may resume their studies. The written notification of the county’s action was received at the law firm’s office earlier this afternoon.

“Our Code Enforcement Officer incorrectly made the finding based in no small measure on unclear language in the zoning ordinance,” Ekard continued. “I have already issued several directives to county staff. First, I have asked the Department of Planning and Land Use and our county counsel to conduct a thorough review of ordinances regarding all assemblies to clarify that meetings such as you are holding in your home may continue without regulation.”

He said he also wants improved internal code enforcement procedures and a supervisor’s review of assembly related cases before any notices are issued.

“Training will be updated and conducted for all code enforcement officers,” he wrote.

He noted this was “in no way an attempt by San Diego County to infringe upon your religious freedoms.”

In a separate letter signed by a deputy on behalf of county lawyer John J. Sansone, the formal notification was provided that the case against the pastor was rescinded.

“The County has determined that the weekly activity is within the scope of the residential use and the Joneses are willing and able to accommodate any concerns that may arise with respect to parking,” the letter said.

After WND first broke the story, it spread to California television and newspapers and from there to CNN, Fox News and the Associated Press. The San Diego Union-Tribune reported County Supervisor Greg Cox’s office received hundreds of e-mail messages from concerned people as the news spread and Chandra Wallar, county land use officer, said her department received hundreds of e-mails and phone calls as well.

According to a letter issued by WCLP demanding the county retract its citation, the sequence of events developed this way:

“On April 10, 2009, Good Friday, a female county employee came to the Joneses’ residence. The county employee appeared in the front yard and proceeded to take pictures of our clients’ home,” the letter said. “She noticed the Joneses’ daughters in the front yard and asked to speak with their mother. Although she did not provide any paper work or identification, subsequent information obtained by the WCLP leads us to believe that the county employee who went to the Joneses’ residence was Code Enforcement Officer Cherie Cham.”

“Do you have a regular weekly meeting in your home? Do you sing? Do you say ‘amen’?” the official reportedly asked. “Do you say, ‘Praise the Lord’?”

The pastor’s wife answered yes.

She says she was then told, however, that she must stop holding “religious assemblies” until she and her husband obtain a major use permit from the county, a permit that often involves traffic and environmental studies, compliance with parking and sidewalk regulations and costs that top tens of thousands of dollars.

If they fail to pay for the MUP, the county official reportedly warned, the couple would be charged escalating fines beginning at $100, then $200, $500, $1000, “and then it will get ugly.”

The WCLP letter said a Bible study clearly is not a “religious assembly” and the county’s order violated the First Amendment protections to exercise religion and assemble.

==============================

Supplemental Articles in a separate file (click here to read)