San Diego Follow-Up: City Officials Say Never Mind, We Won't Fine Home Bible Studies

After causing a firestorm of contraversy, San Diego county officials have backed down trying to restrict home Bible studies:

Chandra Wallar, the county's general manager of land use and environment, said the county has re-examined the situation and decided that the Joneses don't need a permit after all.

They folded like a cheap suit after given a 24-hr deadline by the pastor's lawyer.

She said the county was not targeting the Joneses because they were exercising their religion, but rather it was trying to address parking and traffic issues.

“We've advised the pastor he has the authority to continue to hold his meetings just as he's held them,” Wallar said. “My hope is we will be able to resolve the traffic concerns.”

I don't know what was in the minds of the county officials or the neighbor that complained about the amount of cars, but it sure reeks of an anti-Christian crusade. There was no legitimate reason for them to go after the couple in this way. If there really was 30-40 cars like the neighbor complained there were, the county could of approached them for a resolution before threatening them with fines.

Instead, they used a statute meant for churches to stop the peaceful religious assembling of a few people. They could of used other statutes that referenced residential parking issues, but they had to bring their religion into it. Why would they do that other than to show contempt for their beliefs?

San Diego Follow-Up: 24-Hour Deadline Given to the Officials That Sought End to Pastor's Home Bible Study

This is a follow-up of the story that broke yesterday of the San Diego officials that threatened a pastor and his wife with fines if they did not stop holding Bible studies in their house:

Code enforcement officials in San Diego who banned a pastor and his wife from holding Bible studies in their home or face fines have taken less than 24 hours to respond to a demand letter from a legal team representing the couple in what could be a major First Amendment dispute.

And now they have a deadline to withdraw statements that lawyers believe already have created an irreparable violation of the First Amendment.

This will be very interesting to watch. We'll probably see the officials issue a half-hearted attempt at an apology, and they will back off the couple.

I'll keep ya'll posted on this story.

San Diego: Freedom of Religion Attacked, Pastor & Wife Fined For Hosting Bible Study

Apparently, San Diego county is following Sotomayor's advice of choosing which of the Bill of Rights to follow because the Constitution doesn't apply to local governments:

A local pastor and his wife claim they were interrogated by a San Diego County official, who then threatened them with escalating fines if they continued to hold Bible studies in their home, 10News reported.

When did California cease to acknoledge the freedom of religious expression and assembly?

The attorney for the pastor and his wife that were hosting the Bible study was aghast at the audacity of the of San Diego county's actions:

(Attorney Dean) Broyles said, "The county asked, 'Do you have a regular meeting in your home?' She said, 'Yes.' 'Do you say amen?' 'Yes.' 'Do you pray?' 'Yes.' 'Do you say praise the Lord?' 'Yes.'"The county employee notified the couple that the small Bible study, with an average of 15 people attending, was in violation of County regulations, according to Broyles.

Broyles said a few days later the couple received a written warning that listed "unlawful use of land" and told them to "stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit" -- a process that could cost tens of thousands of dollars.

The county was refering to the law that was meant to pertain to churches not a small group of people. If they get away with this, what will stop them from stopping any group of 15 or more from assembling peacefully?

The First Amendment Gets Big Win, Teacher Found Liable For Making Anti-Christiam Remarks in Class

Score one for the First Amendment:

A federal judge ruled that a public high school history teacher violated the First Amendment when he called creationism "superstitious nonsense" during a classroom lecture.

The 20-year teaching veteran, James Corbett, has made many condescending comments to students who have religious beliefs. On this particular day, former student, Chad Farnan, recorded the teacher making 20 inflammatory statements against Chad for his belief in creation.

The one that the judge said violated Farnan's first amendment rights was when Mr. Corbett called creation "superstitious nonsense" in front of the class during a lecture.

There were other comments that somehow the judge didn't think was as bad as the "superstitious nonsense" comment. I don't see how they're any better:

Also dismissed in April were comments such as, "Conservatives don't want women to avoid pregnancies — that's interfering with God's work" and "When you pray for divine intervention, you're hoping that the spaghetti monster will help you get what you want."

On Friday, Selna also dismissed one of the two remaining statements, saying that Corbett may have been attempting to quote Mark Twain when he said religion was "invented when the first con man met the first fool."

One thing I'm a bit confused about is this. Why a European history teacher is talking about creation anyway? Wasn't creation just a little before the beginning of the European history?

Texas: Judge Upholds "Under God" In Pledge of Allegiance

Judge Rules 'Under God' May Stay in Texas Pledge of Allegiance
Saturday, March 28, 2009

DALLAS —  A federal judge has dismissed the claims of a parent who wanted to remove the words "under God" from the Texas pledge of allegiance recited each morning by public schoolchildren.

U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade ruled Thursday the state pledge may continue to reference God because the national pledge and four other states reference God or divine grace in their pledge, The Dallas Morning News reported Friday.

"A voluntary recitation of the Texas Pledge of Allegiance simply does not coerce students in the same way a school-sponsored prayer might," Kinkeade wrote in his opinion.

David Croft had argued that inserting the words were unconstitutional and amounted to a violation of separation of church and state. He and his wife, Shannon, sued on behalf of their three children who are enrolled at the Carrollton-Farmers Branch Independent School District.

Previously, the Crofts unsuccessfully sued after an elementary teacher told one of their children to keep quiet because a minute for silence after the pledge was a "time for prayer."

A provision that took effect September 2003 changed the way schools start their days in Texas. Children are now allowed to "reflect, pray, meditate or engage in any other silent activities" for one minute after the state and national pledges of allegiance have been recited. A federal appeals court ruled last week that the law is constitutional.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,511196,00.html
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

As this is my hometown of Carrollton, Texas, I was very interested in this story. I'm glad to see that the childrens' freedom of religious expression was held up in this case.

Although, I don't agree with the judge that the school sponsored prayer wouldn't be voluntary or would coerce anyone to pray. That didn't make sense.

Our freedoms our under fire by liberals and judicial activists. We must stand up and fight to make sure that we get the freedoms that we have lost and keep them from taking more freedoms away.

Atheist Group Files Lawsuit Against Prayer at Presidential Inauguration

By Mike Majchrowitz FOXNews.com Tuesday, December 30, 2008

The head of an atheist group told FOX News Radio on Tuesday that by allowing a prayer at President-elect Obama's inauguration, the government is subjecting atheists and agnostics to someone else's religious beliefs.

The head of an atheist group that has filed a lawsuit against prayer at Barack Obama's presidential inauguration says the government is picking a winner between "believers" and "those who don't believe" and subjecting atheists and agnostics to someone else's religious beliefs.

Dan Barker, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, has joined with Michael Newdow, who fought to have the words "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, in a federal lawsuit seeking to enjoin the Presidential Inaugural Committee from sponsoring prayers at the official inauguration. The 34-page legal complaint similarly seeks to enjoin Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., from adding the phrase "So help me God" to the presidential oath of office.

"We're hoping to stop prayer and religious rituals at governmental functions, especially at the inauguration," Barker told FOX News Radio.

"The inauguration is not a religious event. It is a secular event of a secular country that includes all Americans, including those of us who are not Christians, including those of us who are not believers," he continued.

Barker, who said government's not picking sides on the issue of religion is "hard wired into our Constitution," called the 29 members of the suit all atheists and agnostics who love their country and participating in the inauguration. "Yet we are subjected to someone else's religious views with the endorsement of the government, which makes us feel like second class outsiders," he said.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is the same group that fought to have atheist displays next to holiday displays, most notably in Washington state this year.

He said if Obama wants to hold a private religious ceremony, that would be more appropriate than having religious figures up on stage at his swearing in ceremony.

Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council, said it's Obama's decision whether to include a prayer, not the government's.

"The atheists, while they have every right to practice their atheism, they do not have an absolute right not to be exposed to viewpoints they don't agree with. So I think this lawsuit has no merit whatsoever," Sprigg said.

Barker argued that by allowing religious phrases to be used in the ceremony as well as inviting Revs. Rick Warren and Joe Lowery, who are named as defendants in the suit, to participate in the inaugural festivities, the government is picking a winner in the dispute over religion and atheism."

Those people who do pray do believe in God and they are in fact trying to use the government to pick sides. In America we are free to disagree. We can disagree with Rev. Rick Warren but we're not free to ask our government to settle the argument," Barker said, adding that government causes harm when it takes on "the mantel of religion and expresses religion as an official governmental function.

"Sprigg said he thinks the case has no merit and, like previous attempts to block inaugural prayer, this too will fail. "These atheists who are suing to prevent prayer at the inauguration are showing a fundamental misunderstanding of what the First Amendment is all about. The establishment of religion that is forbidden by the First Amendment means the official declaration of an official national church. It doesn't mean that public ceremonies can not include prayers or acknowledgment of the existence of God," he told FOX News Radio.

Asked if prayer is excluded, wouldn't that mean government is choosing atheists as the winner, Barker replied, "There is a difference between neutrality and hostility. "If the government were to invite me as a national atheist leader to get up and give an invocation that curses the name of God and that encourages people to stop believing and stop being so childish and divisive then that would be wrong because the government would be taking a pro-atheist position," he said.

Sprigg said he doubts that Roberts being named in the suit will affect the outcome or that Roberts would have to recuse himself if the case came before the high court.

"That's intriguing but I don't think even the liberals on the court would go so far as to prevent prayer at the inauguration," he said.

My Thoughts

Just like the Olympics, this is another attack on prayer that happens every four years when a president is sworn in. Every inauguration a prayer is said, and every time here come the atheists trying to take our freedom of religion and the free expression thereof. When will they learn to shut up and stop being so sensitive? Our prayers are not hurting them. We're not forcing them to pray with us under the threat of imprisonment or death. This country was founded as a religious nation. Get over it Dan Barker and company.