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

FROM: http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/adfresources/faq.aspx?cid=3212

AND: http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=2912

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

Popular Myths

The Constitution calls for "strict separation of church and state."
America was founded on the pursuit of religious liberty, including the liberty to acknowledge God and to pray in the public square.

This liberty originates in higher law, or “the laws of nature and of nature’s God,” as the Declaration of Independence puts it. In the words of Rabbi Daniel Lapin, the founders modeled themselves “upon God’s ancient people” and “wrote what they considered to be a modern-day interpretation of the basic biblical principles of government.”

Those principles demand a place for religious expression in the public square. Unfortunately, radical advocates have long been trying to re-write the Constitution by making the First Amendment say something it doesn’t. The First Amendment plainly forbids the creation of a national denomination, because that would be an “establishment of religion.” It says nothing about the so-called “separation of church and state.”

The Declaration of Independence contains four references to God: God as the Creator and the source of liberty (“all men are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights”), God the law giver (“law of nature and of nature’s God”), God the ultimate judge (“the Supreme Judge of the World”), and God as the king above all earthly rulers, as the Sovereign (“Divine Providence”).

For more on this subject, read "Why Religion has a place in the public square.”
back to top
There is no "homosexual legal agenda" - all that activists desire is "tolerance" and "equality".
These terms often mean different things to activists than to ordinary Americans. The homosexual agenda was outlined by activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in a 1987 article titled “The Overhauling of Straight America,” and a 1989 book titled After the Ball.

These publications outlined a six-point strategy to dramatically change America’s perception of homosexual behavior.¹ The six points were:
1. Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and often as possible.
2. Portray gays as victims, not aggressive challengers.
3. Give homosexual protectors a “just” cause.
4. Make gays look good.
5. Make the victimizers look bad.
6. Solicit funds: the buck stops here (i.e., get corporate America and major foundations to financially support the homosexual cause.
And this strategic campaign is not concerned with truth. As Kirk and Madsen said, "It makes no difference [if portrayals of homosexuals] are lies, not to us...not to bigots. We're talking about propaganda."

"Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and often as possible"
In “The Overhauling of Straight America,” Kirk and Madsen noted, “The principle behind this advice is simple: almost all behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters and among your acquaintances.”

The media has been a willing participant in this strategy. Conservative media critic Michael Medved remarked, “A Martian gathering evidence about American society, simply by monitoring our television, would certainly assume that there were more gay people in America than there are evangelical Christians."

Episodes of Will & Grace, and recently, Law & Order: SVU, have mocked those who have overcome homosexual behavior. Far from neutral, these shows attempted to discredit the effectiveness of counseling men and women who desire to leave the homosexual lifestyle.

After one particularly disturbing episode of Will & Grace, Mike Haley, a former homosexual who works with Focus on the Family, sent a letter to Jon Kinnally, the executive story editor of the show. In his response, Kinnally said:
“…come on, Mike, even you’ve got to admit that fags trying to pretend they’re straight is pretty funny. In response to your request for a meeting, well, I think I can read between the lines on that one. I’m about 6’1”, brown hair, green eyes, and I’m into rollerblading, baking cookies, and cleaning up afterwards. My dislikes include game-playing, negative attitudes, and condoms.”²

"Portray gays as victims, not aggressive challengers"
Despite demographic statistics to the contrary, homosexual activists have skillfully portrayed themselves as a victimized class in need of special protections. Closer examination shows just the opposite. According to The Human Rights Campaign, 82 percent of the Fortune 50 offer sex-partner benefits. What's more, a Comm Group/G Society study released in October 2001 shows that the median household income of homosexual households is $65,000 - compared to the national average of $40,800. Also, 47 percent of homosexual men and 40 percent of lesbians hold professional or managerial jobs - more than twice the figure for the general population.

"Give homosexual protectors a 'just' cause"
Activists have repeatedly turned tragedies into opportunities to advance the homosexual agenda. Matthew Shepard's murder was horrible: two nonreligious thugs shamefully and brutally killed this young homosexual man by hanging him on a fence to die. However, homosexual activists blamed this senseless crime on conservative Christian organizations such as Focus on the Family .³ Appropriately, the media expressed outrage over this horrible killing.

Yet, the same media was virtually silent when 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising was raped and murdered by homosexuals. Dirkhising's attackers drugged him, strapped him to a bed, gagged him with his own underwear, sodomized him repeatedly, and tortured and strangled him. This gruesome crime received coverage totaling 46 stories. In contrast, the Shepard murder saw more than 3,000 stories published.⁴

"Make gays look good"
Kirk and Madsen were well aware of the potential problems inherent in revealing too much, too soon, saying, “In the early stages of the campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible.” They added, “First let the camel get his nose inside the tent – and only later his unsightly derriere!”

Homosexual activists are subtle in their public demands as well, insisting that they want only "equality." This statement is heard the loudest in their demands for homosexual "marriage." Yet their plans for the institution of marriage are much bigger, and much more ominous. Activist William Eskridge admits he hopes gay marriage "will dethrone the traditional family based on blood relationships in favor of families we choose."⁵ Michelangelo Signorile has told activists "to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely...to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.... The most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake...is to transform the notion of 'family' entirely."⁶ Others tell us the goal is the abolition of marriage entirely.

"Make the victimizers look bad"
Perhaps most alarming is the growing trend of intolerance toward any individual who does not express complete and unconditional support for homosexual behavior. Betty Sabatino, an employee for a San Antonio bank experienced this animosity first hand. During a mandatory session of "fair employment practices," Betty participated in the question-and-answer portion (billed as a "safe zone") by asking why the company provided special considerations for employees based on sexual behavior. Her boss expressed "concern" about her question following the session, and within a few weeks, Betty was fired due to "management's loss of confidence" in her. ⁷

The Boy Scouts have faced unrelenting pressure and attack for refusing to admit homosexual scoutmasters to help lead and form the character of young boys. Columnist Mike Thomas of the Orlando Sentinel offered this opinion to the world:
"If I were the United Way, and all the agencies that depend on it, I'd build a big pile of wood with a pole stuck in the middle of it. Then I'd tie the leaders of the Boy Scouts of America to the pole, using only the most secure half-hitches and square knots. Then I'd rub two sticks together and work on that campfire merit badge."⁸
So much for tolerance.

"Solicit funds: the buck stops here"
The Gill Foundation reports that donations to gay and lesbian groups have grown to $100 million.⁹ In stark contrast, many organizations lobbying for family values are constantly seeking cash just to keep the doors open.

For more on this subject, contact us about receiving a copy of The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today.

Footnotes
¹ Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill, "The Overhauling of Straight America," Guide, November 1987.
² Correspondence between Mike Haley of Focus on the Family and Jon Kinnally
³ Julia Duin, "NBC Flooded with Calls after Couric's Remarks: Family Groups Irked at Links to Death of Gay Man," Washington Times, October 16, 1998
⁴ Toby Harnden, "Liberal Media Ignores Rape-Killing of Boy, 13," The London Telegraph, March 30, 2001
⁵ William N. Eskridge, "The Case for Same-Sex Marriage," 1996.
⁶ Michaelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," OUT, December-January 1994.
⁷ Robert Knight and Kenneth L. Ervin II, "Can I question Homosexuality? Don't Bank on It," from The Other Side of Tolerance: Victims of Homosexual Activism, Family Research Council, 1997,8.
⁸ Mike Thomas, "United Way Makes Giving Not Easy," Orlando Sentinel, July 23, 2001
⁹ Jim Hopkins, "Gay Entrepreneurs Pour Tech Cash into Causes," GFN.com, June 19, 2001.
back to top
Churches and other religious organizations should have no access to public facilities.
There is simply no support for the claim that religious organizations and churches should not have equal access to public facilities. Equal access means just that – religious organizations have the same access to public facilities and funding as all other groups have.

Generally, if the government confers benefits on to a broad group of people, it cannot discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs of speech. There are three main sources that serve as the foundation for equal access.

First and foremost, the United States Constitution specifically puts forth several provisions for equal access in the Free Speech and Free Exercise of Religion clauses of the First Amendment, as well as the Equal Protection Clause found in the Fourteenth Amendment.

Secondly, in 1984, the United States Congress passed the “Equal Access Act.” This act states that when a public school district allows secondary school students to form extracurricular clubs, it cannot deny Bible or Christian clubs the same opportunity or access to facilities.

Thirdly, ADF-assisted and allied U.S. Supreme Court legal precedents have not only clarified equal access, but reinforced this right as well. One such victory came in 2001, in the case of Good News Club v. Milford Central School, in which the Supreme Court ruled that a “Good News” Bible club had the same access to school facilities for after-school programs as all other groups. This victory came on the heels of more than 20 years of Supreme Court decisions that affirmed equal access.

Like many of the battles to preserve religious freedom, there are still many fronts to be waged in the battle for equal access, but with perseverance, it is a battle that can be won.

Why are religious organizations still being denied their right to equal access?
Leftist advocacy groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union and its allies, have waged a war of misunderstanding and confusion which has created an environment that denies religious organizations their constitutional right to equal access. These groups state that policies which lock religious organizations out of public facilities are constitutional because the establishment clause of the First Amendment requires that the government must discriminate against religious organizations. They argue that if the government does not deny religious organizations access to governmental benefits, such as use of facilities or receiving of public funds, then the government is showing preference for a particular religion.

However, as stated earlier, this argument has been rejected numerous times by the United States Supreme Court. In addition, the most common argument for denying access – the so-called “separation of church and state” – appears no where in the United States Constitution. (Read more about this myth here.)

Unfortunately, even with the growing number of U.S. Supreme Court decisions that have affirmed equal access for religious organizations, unconstitutional policies remain in place that exclude religious organizations and individuals. There are still hundreds of laws on the books of city and county governments that prohibit religious organizations from access to government buildings that are open to all other groups.

The “Timothy Project” is an ongoing effort by ADF and its allies to research, discover, and pursue legal action against such discriminatory policies.

For more on this subject, please contact ADF.
back to top
The ACLU is not against religious liberty; on the contrary, they defend religious freedom for people of all faiths.
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and claims that, with the exception of the Justice Department, it has been involved in more cases before the Supreme Court than any other individual or organization. ¹

The ACLU has consistently shown contempt for public expression of religion - especially America's Judeo-Christian legacy. They have promoted an inaccurate representation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment and regularly invoke the so-called "separation of church and state" to justify their anti-religious stance.

For an example of the ACLU's hostility toward anything remotely touching on religion, please read the following article:

"Please Don't Blaine Us Again" - ACLU opposes school choice
Excerpt: An ACLU spokesman referred to school vouchers as a "money-laundering scheme" for religious people. By this ACLU logic, every artist who gets money from the National Endowment for the Arts (even for pornography) benefits from a government-sanctioned "money-laundering scheme." But that doesn't bother the ACLU. As long as it's not "money laundering" for solid American citizens who practice religion, but for "artists" who practice "free speech," it's okay.

The ACLU's own policy guide reveals much of their hostility toward religion. A quick glance through the 1992 edition of the guide reveals:

The ACLU opposes equal tax treatment for religious bodies with other charities.
The guide states, "The insertion of the words “under God” into the pledge of allegiance is a violation of the constitutional principle of separation of church and state." (This is not a new policy in light of the pending Supreme Court case. This refusal to acknowledge God is contained in board minutes from 1954!)
The guide states, “Freedom of religion does not extend so far that parents may withdraw children from classes which they feel conflict with their religious principles, even when they cannot practically avail themselves of the right to send their children to private schools." (In other words, they oppose an "opt out" for people of faith.)
While the ACLU states parents should be unable to remove their children from classes that are in direct conflict with their religious beliefs, they do believe anyone can "opt out" of patriotic displays: "Although a salute to the flag and oath of allegiance are commonly accepted practices in school assembly exercises, exemptions should be granted to a student whose religious scruples or other principled convictions lead him or her to refuse to participate in such exercises." (This double-standard reveals the ACLU's hostility toward religion.)
In other cases the ACLU, which claims to be a great advocate of free speech, in reality advocates censorship of free, open, and public expression of America's heritage, faith traditions, and holidays.

¹ "ACLU Supreme Court Summary: Justices 'Skeptical of Federal Authority,'" ACLU web site: http://archive.aclu.org/news/n062797b.html

Why Religion has a place in the public square

Sunday, August 17, 2003, 9:05 AM (MST) |

ADF Media Relations | 480-444-0020

Comments

by Alan Sears
(This viewpoint column originally appeared in the hard copy of The Arizona Republic, Sunday, August 17, 2003.)

Sears is president of the Scottsdale-based Alliance Defense Fund, America’s largest public interest religious liberty legal alliance. The alliance opposes all faith-based discrimination.

America was founded on the pursuit of religious liberty, including the liberty to acknowledge God and to pray in the public square.

This liberty originates in higher law, or "the laws of nature and of nature’s God," as the Declaration of Independence puts it. In the words of Rabbi Daniel Lapin, the founders modeled themselves "upon God’s ancient people" and "wrote what they considered to be a modern-day interpretation of the basic biblical principles of government."

Those principles demand a place for religious expression in the public square. Unfortunately, radical advocates have long been trying to re-write the Constitution by making the First Amendment say something it doesn’t. The First Amendment plainly forbids the creation of a national denomination, because that would be an "establishment of religion." It says nothing about the so-called "separation of church and state."

Even those who agitate to remove the Ten Commandments monument at the Arizona capitol and the now-famous Grand Canyon plaques with Hebrew Scriptures will admit – when pressed - that the so-called "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution.

What did the founders do and say to make us think religion has a place in the public square?

Let us consider General George Washington. When Washington received a copy of the Declaration of Independence from the Continental Congress, he immediately issued orders that "The Colonels or commanding officers of each regiment are directed to procure Chaplains accordingly; persons of good Characters and exemplary lives."

The Declaration which motivated Washington’s appointment of chaplains contains four references to God: God as the Creator and the source of liberty ("all men are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights"), God the law giver ("law of nature and of nature’s God"), God the ultimate judge ("the Supreme Judge of the World"), and God as the king above all earthly rulers, as the Sovereign ("Divine Providence").

After he led the army to victory, Washington presided over the Constitutional Convention, and was then elected our first president under the Constitution.

At Washington’s first inauguration in New York City, Washington took the oath of office on a Bible opened to Genesis 49 and 50, and added the words repeated by every president since, "So help me God." He told his audience at Federal Hall that, "It would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations."

Washington then went very publicly to pray at St. Paul’s Chapel before he attended inaugural festivities. Eight years later, in his farewell address, Washington said "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports."

Washington, as perhaps the leading founding father, demonstrated repeatedly that religion has a legitimate place in the public square. The hue and cry over the Ten Commandments monument and the plaques would seem ludicrous to him and to all who served with him.

In light of that history, why would anyone object to posting "Sing to God, sing praises to his name; lift up a song to him who rides upon the clouds his name is the Lord, exult before him," at the Grand Canyon?

If religion in general is the thing that keeps radicals up worrying late at night, then why haven’t they also demanded that the Hindu names for canyon locations - Brahma Temple, Vishnu Temple, Siva Temple - be changed? Maybe for the same reason they want to banish the Ten Commandments from the capitol grounds - they hate orthodox religious expressions in the public square.

Remember, the monument is one of 20 similar monuments that celebrate Arizona’s history, culture, and diversity. Surely, the Ten Commandments monument adds diversity. And what about the Arizona state motto, "Ditat Deus," or "God Enriches." No doubt the demand to change the motto will come soon.

Why would any irreligious person care about the monument on Wesley-Bolin Plaza? Perhaps they should follow the advice so freely doled out by the radicals like the ACLU, who want child pornography protected as free speech, to "just change the channel" and turn away from the monument.

Perhaps we need a little more accurate history about the so-called "separation of church and state." In the early 1800s, many of the original states had churches sanctioned by state governments. These were "established churches," and because they were a state matter they were not forbidden in the U.S. Constitution.

It took a former Ku Klux Klansman turned Supreme Court Justice, Hugo Black, to move the so-called "separation of church and state" into common jurisprudence, which he accomplished in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education. As a committed Klansman, Black surely must have participated in the Klan’s oath of allegiance, to "most zealously … shield and preserve … (the) separation of church and state …" Klan doctrine is not a good way to interpret the U.S. Constitution.

A free and just society recognizes that freedom of speech and religion applies to public religious expression as well as to private. Our founding fathers knew this, as did most previous generations. Forgetting the hard-won lessons of the past is, in our time, freedom’s greatest threat.

We will lose our liberties if we don’t fight. We’ll lose when we give into all the ACLU’s demands. We’ll lose when we quit singing God Bless America, or when we take In God We Trust off our currency. We’ll lose when we return to morally and legally repugnant practice of issuing governmental licenses to clergymen and their printers, as the English did here in the 1700s and as totalitarian regimes still do.

Religion should be booted from the public square only if we prefer tyranny to liberty.

Sears has been chief of the criminal section for a United States Attorneys office, the U.S. Department of Interior, and has trained and assisted hundreds of law enforcement and government personnel.

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

FROM: http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/adfresources/faq.aspx?cid=3212

AND: http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=2912

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

Version:

Thetard FAQ	Sep 11
Catholic Doctrine regarding the Priest Pedophile Scandal and Related Issues	Jul 30
Communion.jpg	May 9
n17920648935_877189_5239.jpg	Apr 16
Zombieism	Apr 10
a bit OT: radical islam by prof. zylstra	Apr 4
The true history of the World!	Apr 4
Who's up for AvC Bingo!	Mar 26
A Black Tie Affair (AvC has a ball) Comedy	Mar 23
to be deleted Prof. Myers photo	Mar 20

"Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and often as possible"

"Portray gays as victims, not aggressive challengers"

"Give homosexual protectors a 'just' cause"

"Make gays look good"

"Make the victimizers look bad"

"Solicit funds: the buck stops here"

Footnotes

Why are religious organizations still being denied their right to equal access?

Why Religion has a place in the public square