I'm not an overly religious person; I haven't been to church in a very long time. Does this mean I have no faith? No, I believe in God - a higher being. I think that all moral people have faith and that is what shapes a person's persona, how they live their life and mostly how they treat each other. There is a kind of moral apathy that has been weaving itself into the fabric of our great country. I think that the Christians have been targeted by the left because of the moral fiber that is prevalent in Catholics and other Christian faiths. This is a very scary prospect. Our country is based on Judeo Christianity. Without that standard, that base of morality, we face a great danger to this country. 

We see it everywhere, in the wholesale damming of the church for its views on gay marriage, and let’s face it; the church doesn't exactly have a clean history. But the groundwork in The Commandments still stands. Respect, for life and for others. When you start to go beyond the tenants of these basic rules, you fail as a human being. You see it more and more with the radical left and the absolute lack of even basic courtesy for someone else’s opinions.

There is a breaking of faith. And while as stated before, I’m not a holy roller, but the attacks on the Church is a dangerous precedent that will break down the structure of the very fabric of this country.

Arguments have moved to the appellate court level in a California case in which a man talking to two willing strangers in a shopping mall was arrested because the subject of the conversation was God.

The case developed several years ago when a youth pastor was arrested at the Galleria Mall in Roseville, Calif., for having a conversation about religion with two other people.

Matthew Snatchko, who works with youth at his church, was interrupted in the middle of a conversation by a security guard. A second guard joined the confrontation and told Snatchko he was being placed under citizen's arrest for "trespassing."

The pastor said he agreed to leave but instead, the guards grabbed him, roughly shoved him against a storefront window and handcuffed him tightly enough to draw blood. Snatchko later was taken to the police station where he was booked on charges of battery and trespassing.

A short time later the charges were dropped, but officials with the Pacific Justice Institute decided to pursue a case against the mall over the impact of the policy on free speech.

After a Placer County Superior Court judge in 2008 affirmed the mall's regulations, an appeal was launched to the 3rd Appellate District in Sacramento, and the briefs have just now been completed for that court's review.

"It's surprising that mall owners think they can arrest patrons for engaging in casual conservations," said PJI Staff Attorney Matthew McReynolds. "While a 'don't talk to strangers' rule may be good for kids, enforcing it against adults is absurd, and we think it violates California's free speech guarantees."

The case is being pursued under the state's constitutional provision for free speech, which extends protections to private locations, because the 1st Amendment to the Constitution deals directly with government restrictions.

McReynolds said had the case been argued in federal court, it would have had to focus on the discriminatory nature of the mall's restrictions.

"Singling out religious speech for punishment violates our most basic principles of free expression," said PJI President Brad Dacus. "If anyone can be arrested for wearing a Christian T-shirt or mentioning God in a shopping mall, we have lost not only our freedom, but our sanity as a society."

PJI affiliate attorney Timothy Smith, of the Sacramento firm McKinley & Smith, served pro bono as Snatchko's lead counsel in the trial court and continues to serve as part of the appellate team.

McReynolds told WND the case focuses on the "draconian" limits set by the mall that were used to arrest the youth pastor. While those charges were dropped, the result of that case wasn't a court-adjudicated precedent that could be used to protect others.

He said while reasonable regulations certainly are allowed, such as volume limits, targeting speech for banishment because of its subject is not.

"What they cannot do and did in this case [is target] political and religious speech," he said. "They originally chose to arrest the youth pastor for striking up a casual conversation. Since then, they've dug in their heels and are standing firm in their belief they can do whatever they want."

Oral arguments haven't been scheduled by the court in the case, and there's no time frame available yet for when a decision might be reached, McReynolds said.

But PJI's brief to the court explained the issue.

"The underlying interest of defendants clearly relates to content. While the act of speaking is not generally prohibited, the act of speaking a particular message without a permit is," the brief said. "Defendants argue that if they do not disagree with the message of the speech, and if the applications are accepted on a first come, first selected basis, the regulation is content neutral."

"Even if the defendants determined that the recipients of the speech might be uncomfortable due to the speech, such a basis for restricting plaintiffs speech is not content neutral."

The mall's regulations, besides disallowing commercial speech and speech about religion or politics, also include an exception for those subjects if a speaker knew the other person previously.

"Under the exemption, the plaintiff would have been allowed to have the same conversation in the same exact place if only he had previously met the people with whom he was speaking," the brief challenged.

"The notion that an individual is not allowed to speak with a stranger about a non-commercial topic without first having their speech examined is preposterous, and is truly silencing in every sense of the word," the brief said.

The mall's rules require "a submission of the subject matter of the spoken or written speech," the brief continued. "Defendants' licensing process as a whole has a great deal to do with speakers' message. Not only does the application process require an examination of the subject matter, but plaintiff was actually referred to the licensing application process only after the security guard listened to the content of plaintiff's speech."

Officials with Westfield Group, the corporation that owns the mall, did not respond to a WND message requesting comment.

The company's website says it entered the U.S. market in 1977 by purchasing a single shopping center, and today has 55 centers across the U.S. in key markets such as northern California, Chicago, southern Florida, Los Angeles, New Jersey, New York, San Diego and Washington.

"The Westfield Group is the world's largest listed retail property group by equity market capitalization. The Group has interests in and operates a global portfolio of 119 high-quality regional shopping centers in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, valued at more than $62 billion. Westfield works with over 23,600 retailers across more than 10 million square meters of retail space," it boasts.

Pacific Justice said Snatchko originally was confronted during a casual conversation with two other shoppers about faith when a store employee listened to the conversation and alerted mall security guards.

Besides the ban on conversations with strangers about religion or politics, the mall also bans any clothing with religious or political messages. 

Martha Coakley on the Ken Pittman Show January 14, 2010

Furor Erupts Over Atheist Display At State Capitol

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (CBS) ― A conservative activist and Illinois comptroller candidate was escorted from the Illinois State Capitol building Wednesday when he tried to remove a sign put up by an atheist group.

William J. Kelly announced Tuesday that he planned to take down the sign put up by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, and on Wednesday, he tried to make good on his plan.

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

Illinois Secretary of State's office spokeswoman Henry Haupt said Kelly was escorted from the rotunda by state Capitol police, who briefly detained him, wrote an incident report, and directed him to leave the building.

"It doesn't matter how we feel about the message on a display," Haupt said. "Our obligation is to protect the property within the state Capitol building, and we would do the same for any other display."

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

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

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

The sign was also on display at the Capitol at this time last year. The group says it filed for a permit to post the display in response to the state's decision to put up the nativity.

But Kelly said he believes the problem is not only the verbiage of the sign, but also its proximity to the Christmas tree.

"The fact that sign was immediately in front of the tree, I found that to be disturbing because any family and any child would run up to that tree with a smile on their face, and they would immediately see that sign," Kelly said.

Haupt said Kelly had been advised not to return to the state Capitol for the rest of the day on Wednesday. 

The Madison, Wis.-based Freedom from Religion Foundation has placed the sign in several state Capitol buildings across the country.

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

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

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

Signs in other states have been targets of vandals, Barker said.

In Wisconsin, someone threw acid on it one year, and some people turned it around and hid it in the back rooms of the state Capitol, and in Washington state, someone walked it out of the Capitol and threw it away, Barker said. The Washington state sign was later found in a ditch near a country radio station and returned to the capitol in Olympia.

This is the second year the Freedom from Religion sign has been at the Illinois State Capitol.

Haupt said in addition to the sign, the Nativity Scene and the Christmas tree, there is also a Soldiers' Angels wreath, and a tabletop display from the American Civil Liberties Union that says the group "defends freedom of religion." A Hanukkah menorah had also been on display until the Jewish Festival of Lights ended on Saturday.

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

Americans remain overwhelmingly in favor of allowing religious symbols to be displayed on public land and feel even more strongly that public schools should celebrate at least some religious holidays.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 76% of adults believe religious symbols like Christmas Nativity scenes, Hanukkah menorahs and Muslim crescents should be allowed on public land. Just 13% disagree, and another 10% are undecided.

Eighty-three percent (83%) believe public schools should celebrate religious holidays. This figure includes 47% who think the schools should celebrate all religious holidays and another 36% who believe they should only celebrate some. The question did not single out which holidays should be celebrated and which should be excluded.

Only 14% think the public schools should not celebrate any religious holidays.

Adults across all demographic categories strongly believe that religious symbols should be allowed on public property. Adults ages 18 to 29, for example, are less supportive of the idea than their elders, but even in that age group, 69% are in favor of religious displays on public land.

Those who work for the public, government workers, are less likely to support permitting religious symbols on public land than are those who work in the private sector - 68% to 84%.

Forty-nine percent (49%) of women and 45% of men feel all religious holidays should be honored in the public schools.

Most Democrats (51%) and a plurality (48%) of adults not affiliated with either major political party favor celebrating all religious holidays in the schools. Republicans are more evenly divided between celebrating some and celebrating all.

Sixty-three percent (63%) of African-Americans and 56% of those of other races think all religious holidays should be celebrated in the schools, compared to 43% of whites. Thirty-nine percent (39%) of whites think only some religious holidays should be honored in the public schools, but just 29% of blacks and 28% of those of other races agree.

Last year at this time, 74% of Americans supported allowing religious displays on public property.

While out shopping, 72% of all Americans prefer signs that say "Merry Christmas" to ones with "Happy Holidays."

Forty-seven percent (47%) of voters consider a political candidate’s religion important in determining how they vote. Fifty-two percent (52%) do not.

Seventy-nine percent (79%) say most politicians put their reelection ahead of their religious faith or doing what is right.

Students, teachers and local pastors are protesting over a court case involving a northern Florida school principal and an athletic director who are facing criminal charges and up to six months in jail over their offer of a mealtime prayer.

There have been yard signs, T-shirts and a mass student protest during graduation ceremonies this spring on behalf of Pace High School Principal Frank Lay and school athletic director Robert Freeman, who will go on trial Sept. 17 at a federal district court in Pensacola for breaching the conditions of a lawsuit settlement reached last year with the American Civil Liberties Union. "I have been defending religious freedom issues for 22 years, and I've never had to defend somebody who has been charged criminally for praying," said Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, the Orlando-based legal group that is defending the two school officials.

PHILADELPHIA (AP) ― A kindergartner's mother cannot read Scripture during show and tell, even if the Bible is the boy's favorite book, a U.S. appeals court said Monday in the latest challenge over religion in public schools. The Marple Newtown School District in suburban Philadelphia told plaintiff Donna Kay Busch in October 2004 that she could not read the Bible passages during her son's "All About Me" program. The school did permit the boy to discuss a poster that included references to his church as well as his family, pet and best friend.
"Parents of public school kindergarten students may reasonably expect their children will not become captive audiences to an adult's reading of religious texts," Chief Judge Anthony J. Scirica of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in the split 2-1 opinion, which upheld a lower court decision.

Schools can more tightly control speech presented to younger students, who may not distinguish a parent from their teacher, the ruling said. Busch argued that the class heard stories related to Passover, Christmas and other religious holidays, but the court concluded there was a "significant difference" between identifying such holidays and reading from Scripture. Principal Thomas Cook of Culbertson Elementary School believed such a reading would "proselytize ... a specific religious point of view," the opinion stated.

Busch, who describes herself as an evangelical Christian, is contemplating an appeal, according to lawyer Jason Gosselin. He said he took the case pro bono after a request from The Rutherford Institute, which focuses on First Amendment and religious freedom issues. Busch had contacted the group. Gosselin argued that the school districts can restrict content but must remain "viewpoint neutral" once they invite parents in to celebrate their child.

"What Donna Busch wanted to do was well within that restriction. She wanted to come in and share something that was special to her son, something that they did every day," Gosselin said. A lawyer for the school district, Mark A. Sereni, declined immediate comment. But in its brief, the district said the case was more about the mother's interests and motives than her son's. A family baby sitter described the boy's favorite book that year as the children's book "Brown Bear, Brown Bear," the district said.

"This case is not at all about Wesley -- it is all about Busch (and) Busch's (religious) mission," the brief said. School officials have to make similar decisions nearly every day in public schools across Pennsylvania and the U.S., according to a lawyer for the Pennsylvania School Boards Association, which filed an amicus brief in the case. "This particular situation may not come up every day, but some version of it comes up often," said Emily J. Leader, the association's deputy chief counsel. She believes the ruling strikes a balance between a student's right to express religious beliefs, the need to maintain a church-state separation and the need for schools to control curriculum.

"It's probably not inherently harmful for children to hear a passage from the Bible, but it is going to be inherently harmful for kids to hear other things, something violent perhaps, that would be extremely disturbing to a 5-year-old," she said.

Almost two months after the announcement of President Barack Obama's commencement schedule, Notre Dame's campus will be flooded with visitors, graduates and Secret Service agents and South Bend's streets will be lined with protesters Sunday when Obama visits campus. When the president addresses the over 2,900 graduates in the Class of 2009, commentators predict the packed Joyce Center will be the calm at the center of a protest storm. Bishops, student groups and anti-abortion activists have spoken out against University President Fr. John Jenkins' decision to invite Obama to speak at Commencement and award him an honorary degree. Hundreds of protesters plan to stand or walk along Angela Blvd. and Indiana 933 Sunday; busloads of protestors are expected to arrive in South Bend - at least three buses are expected from Chicago - to join those who have already descended on South Bend. Anti-abortion activists Randall Terry and Alan Keyes have led dozens of protesters on to campus the past few weeks, pushing baby carriages with bloody baby dolls and bearing graphic images; over 20 of these protesters have been arrested for trespass on University property.

Click here for more on Friday's arrests.

A plane sponsored by the Center for Bioethical Reform has circled the campus since April 28, alternating images of an aborted fetus with messages to Jenkins to change his mind, and trucks from the group are driving the streets in South Bend bearing graphic images protesting the decision. As local police are coordinating with Secret Service to prepare for the president's visit, those living around campus are preparing for an estimated 20,000 protesters to come to their neighborhood. Reports by WNDU and WSBT indicate residents of the neighborhoods around the campus' main gates, who are used to crowds from football weekends, have growing concerns related to damage to personal property if the protests are not peaceful.

The Pro-Life Action League and Citizens for a Pro-Life Society are joining in protest Sunday, according to the Web site notredameprotest.com; their day's activities will include two parts: walking in the neighborhood leading up to the ceremony and joining the scheduled prayer services on campus during Commencement. Another group - ND Affirm Life - will be protesting around campus today until Sunday, according to its Web site. The events will include prayer rallies, speakers and acting in solidarity with ND Response on Sunday.

Captain Phil Trent of the South Bend Police Department (SBPD) told The Observer the police are prepared for any disturbance before Commencement day. "We have numerous officers on call should we need them on Friday or Saturday," he said. And when Sunday arrives, law enforcement will be monitoring the situation closely. "All the local enforcement will have fairly large [presence], with man power in the area," Trent said, stating that various state units and local law enforcement agencies will be assisting SBPD.

He said the police haven't made exact estimates as to the numbers that will flock to Notre Dame in protest. "It's hard to put a number to that. We've heard multiple thousands, which we're kind of skeptical of," Trent said. "We're prepared for whoever comes." Trent said he knows that at least one group has filed for a permit for a protest walk, and that the city approved that request.

"If past behavior is a predictor, we see what's happened in the last week on campus, and we're just preparing for a magnified [situation]," he said. This weekend's events will be different from past protests because the groups have made media and law enforcement aware of their plans, he said. "We've received word from protest groups themselves that suggest that they're going to be very vocal and some of the groups that we're expecting can be problematic when they come together," Trent said. SBPD will also be assisting with the presidential visit itself, both on and off campus, Trent said. "If everybody does this peacefully, then it will be just a day of complete standing, monitoring the situation," he said of police activity during Commencement. "We're there just as much to protect everyone's 1st Amendment rights just as much as everyone's right to private property is enforced."

University spokesperson Dennis Brown said the University is not commenting on specific actions Notre Dame Security Police (NDSP) is taking in preparation for Commencement. Construction on local roads, specifically on Indiana 933, will cause traffic blocks, police said, and officers will be on hand for traffic and crowd control Sunday.

Obama’s abortion lies

There’s a newly uncovered paper trail demonstrating Barack Obama’s abortion militancy you can believe in (hat tip - Jill Stanek):

Newly obtained documents prove that in 2003, Barack Obama, as chairman of an IL state Senate committee, voted down a bill to protect live-born survivors of abortion - even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language, copied from a federal bill passed by Congress without objection in 2002, explicitly foreclosing any impact on abortion. Obama’s legislative actions in 2003 - denying effective protection even to babies born alive during abortions - were contrary to the position taken on the same language by even the most liberal members of Congress. The bill Obama killed was virtually identical to the federal bill that even NARAL ultimately did not oppose.

The NRLC’s Obama paper trail index is here.

***
And here’s a related howler about the Party of Planned Parenthood:

ABC NEWS: Are Democrats Now Pro-Life? As Convention Draws Near, New Talk of a Pro-Life Presence

 See even more HERE

When President Obama gave his economics speech at Georgetown University on Tuesday, several folks noticed something was missing. That "something" was an ancient monogram -- the letters IHS -- that symbolizes the name of Jesus. It was missing from a wooden archway above the dais in Gaston Hall where the president delivered his 45-minute speech. The gold-lettered monogram appeared near a painting of three female figures -- symbolizing morality, faith and patriotism -- and decorative edging along the wall that spelled out the Jesuit motto "Ad majorem Dei gloriam"—"To the greater glory of God." Georgetown was founded by the Jesuits.

Some of them may have been turning in their graves in the cemetery across campus at the sight of the missing monogram which looked like a blacked-out space above a blue backdrop and a row of American flags flanking the nation's chief executive. Was Georgetown selling short its Catholic heritage, we wondered. I contacted the university this morning to ask why the monogram -- in this post-Easter season -- was hidden as its absence had been noted by several bloggers, including Dawn Eden -- formerly of the New York Post -- on her dawn patrol blog. 

Julie Bataille from the university's press office e-mailed me that the White House had asked that all university signage and symbols behind the stage in Gaston Hall be covered. "The White House wanted a simple backdrop of flags and pipe and drape for the speech, consistent with what they've done for other policy speeches," she wrote. "Frankly, the pipe and drape wasn't high enough by itself to fully cover the IHS and cross above the GU seal and it seemed most respectful to have them covered so as not to be seen out of context." I also noticed the Free Republic blog had photos comparing "before" and "after" depictions of the unfortunate monogram, which the university covered with what looks like a black cloth. 

Not every Catholic institution would have caved to quite this extent. Victor Nakas, spokesman for Catholic University, e-mailed me to say several presidents have visited CUA and the most recent administration official to speak there was then-Vice President Dick Cheney. "I can’t imagine, as the bishops’ university and the national university of the Catholic Church, that we would ever cover up our religious art or signage for any reason," Mr. Nakas wrote. "Our Catholic faith is integral to our identity as an institution of higher education. I called the Rev. Thomas Reese, a senior fellow at the Woodstock Institute at Georgetown University, who was at the speech, as to what he thought.

"It is more for camera quality than anything else," he surmised. "They don't want distractions that would make the eye wander. I don't think this is motivated by theology, but by communications strategy." Students "were dying to get into the hall," he added. "There is this great enthusiasm for Obama especially among Catholic young people. The conservatives don't know how to deal with this.  "The audience wanted to cheer and cheer this very professorial address. He played Professor Obama. He's a damn good professor but not even he could make economics a barnraiser."

Conservative Black Woman: Jesus, The Name Above Every Name…Except Barack Obama’s.

Conservative Black Woman has your must read for the morning.  On Tuesday, Obama spoke at Georgetown University, the nation’s oldest Catholic university:

But there was one thing missing: Jesus’ name.

I’m not just talking about Obama’s failing to mention Jesus—though he did pointedly fail to mention the name of the One—that is, for him, the other “One”—who first told the “parable” he shared.

No, Jesus’ very name, in the form of the ancient monogram IHS, which had been in gold lettering on the wooden archway above Gaston Hall’s dais, was painted over (or otherwise expertly camouflaged) prior to Obama’s arrival. Apparently, the Name that is above every other name is not permitted to be above Obama.

This past Thursday, March 5, the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut State Legislature, which is chaired by Sen. Andrew McDonald of Stamford and Rep. Michael Lawlor of East Haven, introduced a bill that directly attacks the Roman Catholic Church and our Faith.

This bill violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. It forces a radical reorganization of the legal, financial, and administrative structure of our parishes. This is contrary to the Apostolic nature of the Catholic Church because it disconnects parishes from their Pastors and their Bishop. Parishes would be run by boards from which Pastors and the Bishop would be effectively excluded. This bill, moreover, is a thinly-veiled attempt to silence the Catholic Church on the important issues of the day, such as same-sex marriage.

The State has no right to interfere in the internal affairs and structure of the Catholic Church. This bill is directed only at the Catholic Church but could someday be forced on other denominations. The State has no business controlling religion. The Pastors of our Diocese are doing an exemplary job of sound stewardship and financial accountability, in full cooperation with their parishioners.

For the State Legislature — which has not reversed a $1 billion deficit in this fiscal year — to try to manage the Catholic Church makes no sense. The Catholic Church not only lives within her means but stretches her resources to provide more social, charitable, and educational services than any other private institution in the State. This bill threatens those services at a time when the State is cutting services. The Catholic Church is needed now more than ever.

We reject this irrational, unlawful, and bigoted bill that jeopardizes the religious liberty of our Church.

We urge you to call and e-mail Sen. McDonald and Rep. Lawlor:

Senator Andrew McDonald:
Capitol phone: (800) 842-1420; Home phone: (203) 348-7439
E-mail: McDonald@senatedems.ct.gov

Representative Michael Lawlor:
Capitol phone: (800) 842-8267; Home phone: (203) 469-9725
E-mail: MLawlor99@juno.com

We also ask you to come to Hartford this Wednesday, March 11, to be present at the public hearing. Details on bus transportation will be available on Monday. If you would like to attend, contact your Pastor.

It is up to us to stop this unbridled abuse of governmental power.

It is time for us to defend our First Amendment rights.

It is time for us to defend our Church!