The future of religious freedom depends on a free pulpit to communicate fundamental, biblical principles to congregations across America. Join a growing movement of bold pastors preaching biblical Truth about candidates and elections from their pulpits on October 7, 2012
MORE: http://bwcentral.org/2012/09/speak-up-pulpit-freedom-sunday-october-7-2012/
Everyone,
You may already know about this, but if not, please take the time to check this important initiative out. The time has certainly come to take a stand for religious liberty. In fact, it's been a long time coming. For all those who remember growing up in a school system where prayer was said or at least religion was respected and the Ten Commandments were displayed to remind us of certain fundamental limits on conduct and remember the safe, moral, family-orientated communities that were conducive to raising families... For all those who remember the consequences in our communities when the great Wall of Separation was erected and the ACLU became a legal force for the promotion of evil and immorality.... For all who are becoming increasingly frustrated over the fact that we are going from a "Nation Under God" to a "Nation Under the Control of the Federal Government"........ For all who were offended to the core when the Democratic delegates took God out of its platform at its Convention in Charlotte and then, even after an ordained Methodist minister made a motion to re-insert the language, they fought that motion with everything they had, in full view of the American people. They denied God three times, and even after that third vote, they expressed their collective will - to remove God from their ideological and political platform. The moderator may have declared that the motion to re-insert "God" had passed, but all those who heard the vote know that that it did not. The boo's that emerged after the moderator's decision was what sealed it and will be seered in our collective conscience for a long time....... We need it will be fresh in our minds on November 6th.
For all those who are frustrated, disappointed, disillusioned, and personally affected by the growing trend on the part of government to show hostility to religion, to promote immorality, to force Americans to choose between duty to government and their rights of conscience, to ignore the rights of the unborn, to promote the misuse of a woman's body, to erode traditional marriage, to fight against the rights of parents to raise their children with religious and other productive values, and to support such groups as the ACLU and the Southern Poverty Law Center and other groups that want "an America without God," then please, please, please take the time to help promote this Pulpit Freedom Initiative.
Contact your churches and see if they will be participating. If they haven't heard of it, please send them the information below. Help spread the word !!
I've pasted the email that I sent the priests at my church. Please feel free to cut and paste and use as you will to send to the leaders of your church.
Father,
I wanted to send you this information about the Pulpit Freedom Initiative on October 7th. It is an Alliance Defense Fund initiative.
I support the NC Family Policy Council and the organization helps to promote the work of the ADF, which is the counter-part to the ACLU, the un-American organization that works tirelessly to erode religion and conservative institutions from all aspects of society. The ADF is a non-profit legal group which takes on cases to advocate for religious liberty, the rights of conscience, the rights of the unborn, and traditional marriage. I'm an attorney and I try to keep up with religion cases here in the state and I know the ADF has been fighting over the years to protect the right of faithful Americans to say a prayer in school and to open public meetings and hearings with a prayer that does not exclude Jesus Christ.
There is a lot of information on the website: http://www.speakupmovement.org/church/LearnMore/details/4702
http://blog.speakupmovement.org/church/tag/pulpit-initiative/ (Why the Pulpit Initiative Movement)
From the website: "The future of religious freedom depends on a free pulpit to communicate fundamental, biblical principles to congregations across America. Join a growing movement of bold pastors preaching biblical Truth about candidates and elections from their pulpits on October 7, 2012."
Alliance Defense Fund, overview - http://www.alliancedefendingfreedom.org/about Alliance Defense Fund, on their mission to promote religious liberty - http://www.alliancedefendingfreedom.org/issues/religious-liberty
Showing posts with label Alliance Defense Fund. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alliance Defense Fund. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Hundreds of Pastors to IRS: We Must Obey God, Not State
Just the name Internal Revenue Service can strike fear in the hearts of consumers, business owners and business operations volunteers for churches alike. But this weekend, pastors have the opportunity to thumb their noses at the federal agency – and have the weight of one of the largest Christian and human rights defense teams at their backs.
It’s the weekend for the Alliance Defense Fund’s annual Pulpit Freedom Sunday, on Oct. 2.
That’s the Sunday each year when pastors are encouraged to “present biblical perspectives on the positions of electoral candidates” to “exercise their constitutionally protected right to free religious expression.”
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=350641
It’s the weekend for the Alliance Defense Fund’s annual Pulpit Freedom Sunday, on Oct. 2.
That’s the Sunday each year when pastors are encouraged to “present biblical perspectives on the positions of electoral candidates” to “exercise their constitutionally protected right to free religious expression.”
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=350641
Monday, September 26, 2011
Pastors Unite Against IRS Restrictions on Political Speech in the Pulpit
September 25, 2011
A regulation added to the IRS code back in 1954 (The Johnson Amendment) has muddied the waters for pastors, creating a scenario in which some leaders are too fearful of federal consequences to exercise their right to free speech from the pulpit.
The Speak Up campaign (launched by the Alliance Defense Fund) addresses this important issue, while working to “protect and promote” the rights of American churches. In addition to making faith leaders aware of their constitutional right to free speech, the movement encourages pastors to stop self-censoring and to start making their political voices heard.
But in addition to legal help, pastors can also join in on Pulpit Freedom Sunday, an annual event the coalition has launched to encourage pastors to preach sermons that to examine candidates’ stances. Aside from exploring candidate opinion, churches are encouraged to look at what Scripture says about each issue. Then, they will make specific recommendations about whether or not the congregation should vote for or against specific candidates.
Following the event, each pastor lets the IRS know about his or her sermon. The hope is that making the government aware of the code violation will spark an audit. Then, the constitutionality of the Johnson Amendment can be hashed out once and for all.
In 2008, only 33 pastors participated; this expanded to 80 faith leaders in 2009 and then nearly 100 in 2010. With the movement rapidly growing, even more leaders are poised to take part in this year’s
Pulpit Freedom Sunday on October 2, 2011.
http://patriotupdate.com/12556/pastors-unite-against-irs-restrictions-on-political-speech-in-the-pulpit
MORE ON THE BLAZE: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/pastors-unite-against-irs-tax-code-restrictions-on-political-speech-in-the-pulpit/
Note: LBJ said the amendment was not aimed at churches--rather it was retailiation by Johnson against two business men who had the gall to criticize him! More info on this on GBTV.COM--September 22, 2011 episode of the Glenn Beck Show.
A regulation added to the IRS code back in 1954 (The Johnson Amendment) has muddied the waters for pastors, creating a scenario in which some leaders are too fearful of federal consequences to exercise their right to free speech from the pulpit.
The Speak Up campaign (launched by the Alliance Defense Fund) addresses this important issue, while working to “protect and promote” the rights of American churches. In addition to making faith leaders aware of their constitutional right to free speech, the movement encourages pastors to stop self-censoring and to start making their political voices heard.
But in addition to legal help, pastors can also join in on Pulpit Freedom Sunday, an annual event the coalition has launched to encourage pastors to preach sermons that to examine candidates’ stances. Aside from exploring candidate opinion, churches are encouraged to look at what Scripture says about each issue. Then, they will make specific recommendations about whether or not the congregation should vote for or against specific candidates.
Following the event, each pastor lets the IRS know about his or her sermon. The hope is that making the government aware of the code violation will spark an audit. Then, the constitutionality of the Johnson Amendment can be hashed out once and for all.
In 2008, only 33 pastors participated; this expanded to 80 faith leaders in 2009 and then nearly 100 in 2010. With the movement rapidly growing, even more leaders are poised to take part in this year’s
Pulpit Freedom Sunday on October 2, 2011.
http://patriotupdate.com/12556/pastors-unite-against-irs-restrictions-on-political-speech-in-the-pulpit
MORE ON THE BLAZE: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/pastors-unite-against-irs-tax-code-restrictions-on-political-speech-in-the-pulpit/
Note: LBJ said the amendment was not aimed at churches--rather it was retailiation by Johnson against two business men who had the gall to criticize him! More info on this on GBTV.COM--September 22, 2011 episode of the Glenn Beck Show.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
CCTA Member Lou Call
A well deserved Defeat by CCTA Member Lou Call
September 23, 2010
The Senate attempted to bring the Defense Authorization Bill (S-3454) to the floor for discussion on Wednesday, September 22nd. . It was defeated. Normally the liberal democrats would be howling that Senate Republicans do not care about the men and women in our military prompting this defeat.
But then something interesting happened. After the motion failed, Senators Reid and Durbin took to the Senate floor to angrily denounce the Senators who voted no. They accused their colleagues of not having the courage to bring the DREAM Act to a vote and vowed that this would not end the fight to pass this amnesty legislation.
Amnesty legislation?? Just how did amnesty get into the Defense Authorization Act?
Actually Reid slipped in the Dream Act, Amendment S-729; a back door attempt (again) to get passage for one of many amnesty resolutions hanging around Washington. I say again because this was tried back in 2008 by Senator Durbin
The Amendment S-729 was considered, by its sponsors, to be ‘a little amnesty bill’ for just a handful of kids. The estimate was put at 2.1 million illegal aliens; just a handful. It would also encompass the parents of these children as well bringing that number much higher.
The purpose of the Defense Authorization bill meant nothing to Senators Reid and Durbin for their comments after the motion failed proved their real intentions. You can add Kay Hagan to the list of those that voted in favor of the bill.
It should be clear by now what the true agenda of the progressive socialists in Washington are. There are many fine democrats across this Nation who believed in Obama and the people behind him. Unfortunately, they have been betrayed.
We all care about the men and women serving our Country. The out pouring of people who attended the Honor Flight that same evening shows the true spirit of caring for those who served our Nation in a time of war. It is a disgrace that Senators Reid, Durbin and Hagan played politics with this Bill. November is coming; time to clean house.
September 23, 2010
The Senate attempted to bring the Defense Authorization Bill (S-3454) to the floor for discussion on Wednesday, September 22nd. . It was defeated. Normally the liberal democrats would be howling that Senate Republicans do not care about the men and women in our military prompting this defeat.
But then something interesting happened. After the motion failed, Senators Reid and Durbin took to the Senate floor to angrily denounce the Senators who voted no. They accused their colleagues of not having the courage to bring the DREAM Act to a vote and vowed that this would not end the fight to pass this amnesty legislation.
Amnesty legislation?? Just how did amnesty get into the Defense Authorization Act?
Actually Reid slipped in the Dream Act, Amendment S-729; a back door attempt (again) to get passage for one of many amnesty resolutions hanging around Washington. I say again because this was tried back in 2008 by Senator Durbin
The Amendment S-729 was considered, by its sponsors, to be ‘a little amnesty bill’ for just a handful of kids. The estimate was put at 2.1 million illegal aliens; just a handful. It would also encompass the parents of these children as well bringing that number much higher.
The purpose of the Defense Authorization bill meant nothing to Senators Reid and Durbin for their comments after the motion failed proved their real intentions. You can add Kay Hagan to the list of those that voted in favor of the bill.
It should be clear by now what the true agenda of the progressive socialists in Washington are. There are many fine democrats across this Nation who believed in Obama and the people behind him. Unfortunately, they have been betrayed.
We all care about the men and women serving our Country. The out pouring of people who attended the Honor Flight that same evening shows the true spirit of caring for those who served our Nation in a time of war. It is a disgrace that Senators Reid, Durbin and Hagan played politics with this Bill. November is coming; time to clean house.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Democrat: Let's have mandatory national service
Measure orders U.S. citizens to perform duties under Obama for 2 years
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
A bill introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., would reinstate a compulsory military draft during war time and require U.S. citizens not selected for military duty to perform a "national service obligation" – as defined by President Obama – for a minimum of two years.
Rangel introduced the Universal National Service Act, or H.R. 5741 on July 15. The measure was referred to the House Armed Services' Subcommittee on Military Personnel on July 23.
Rangel introduced similar bills in 2003, 2006 and 2007. His current bill does not have a co-sponsor.
Rangel took to the floor of the House to reintroduce HR 5741, stating, "I have introduced legislation to reinstate the draft and to make it permanent during time of war. It is HR 5741, and what this does is to make everyone between the ages of 18 and 42 – whether they're men or women, whether they're straight or gay – to have the opportunity to defend this great country whenever the president truly believes that our national security is threatened."
According to an announcement released by Rangel's office, the bill provides for:
•A national service obligation – either military or civilian – for every citizen and permanent resident, male and female, of the U.S., aged 18 to 42.
•Persons may be inducted to perform military service only if a declaration of war is in effect, or if the president declares a national emergency necessitating the induction of persons to perform military service and immediately informs Congress of the reasons for the declaration.
•Defines "national service" as either military or civilian service as defined by the president that promotes national or homeland security.
•Gives the president the authority to establish the numbers of persons to be selected for military service and the means of selection.
•Requires those not selected for military service to perform their national service obligation in a civilian capacity for a period of two years.
•Directs the president to prescribe the regulations necessary to carry out the act.
•Deferments for education are only permitted through completion of high school, to a maximum age of 20.
•Deferments may be made for physical or mental disability, or under claims of conscientious objector.
"What troubles me most about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is the total indifference to the suffering and loss of life among our brave young soldiers on the battlefield," Rep. Rangel said. "The reason is that so few families have a stake in the war which is being fought by other people's children.
"The test for Congress, particularly for those members who support the war, is to require all who enjoy the benefits of our democracy to contribute to the defense of the country. All of America's children should share the risk of being placed in harm's way."
Prison Planet writer Rob Dew referenced the following video posted on YouTube and noted, "This echoes the sentiment of President Obama who asked Congress in February 2009 to send him a bipartisan bill in the spirit of national service." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6cdCcqeTyk&feature=player_embedded
Likewise, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel advocated for similar universal civilian service in a 2006 book, "The Plan: Big Ideas for America," he co-authored with Bruce Reed. The following is an excerpt from Pages 61-62 of that book:
As first reported by WND during Obama's presidential campaign, Obama himself called for a "civilian national security force" July 2, 2008, in Colorado Springs, Colo.
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," he said. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
A bill introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., would reinstate a compulsory military draft during war time and require U.S. citizens not selected for military duty to perform a "national service obligation" – as defined by President Obama – for a minimum of two years.
Rangel introduced the Universal National Service Act, or H.R. 5741 on July 15. The measure was referred to the House Armed Services' Subcommittee on Military Personnel on July 23.
Rangel introduced similar bills in 2003, 2006 and 2007. His current bill does not have a co-sponsor.
Rangel took to the floor of the House to reintroduce HR 5741, stating, "I have introduced legislation to reinstate the draft and to make it permanent during time of war. It is HR 5741, and what this does is to make everyone between the ages of 18 and 42 – whether they're men or women, whether they're straight or gay – to have the opportunity to defend this great country whenever the president truly believes that our national security is threatened."
According to an announcement released by Rangel's office, the bill provides for:
•A national service obligation – either military or civilian – for every citizen and permanent resident, male and female, of the U.S., aged 18 to 42.
•Persons may be inducted to perform military service only if a declaration of war is in effect, or if the president declares a national emergency necessitating the induction of persons to perform military service and immediately informs Congress of the reasons for the declaration.
•Defines "national service" as either military or civilian service as defined by the president that promotes national or homeland security.
•Gives the president the authority to establish the numbers of persons to be selected for military service and the means of selection.
•Requires those not selected for military service to perform their national service obligation in a civilian capacity for a period of two years.
•Directs the president to prescribe the regulations necessary to carry out the act.
•Deferments for education are only permitted through completion of high school, to a maximum age of 20.
•Deferments may be made for physical or mental disability, or under claims of conscientious objector.
"What troubles me most about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is the total indifference to the suffering and loss of life among our brave young soldiers on the battlefield," Rep. Rangel said. "The reason is that so few families have a stake in the war which is being fought by other people's children.
"The test for Congress, particularly for those members who support the war, is to require all who enjoy the benefits of our democracy to contribute to the defense of the country. All of America's children should share the risk of being placed in harm's way."
Prison Planet writer Rob Dew referenced the following video posted on YouTube and noted, "This echoes the sentiment of President Obama who asked Congress in February 2009 to send him a bipartisan bill in the spirit of national service." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6cdCcqeTyk&feature=player_embedded
Likewise, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel advocated for similar universal civilian service in a 2006 book, "The Plan: Big Ideas for America," he co-authored with Bruce Reed. The following is an excerpt from Pages 61-62 of that book:
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," he said. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
Friday, July 23, 2010
'Lose Christianity or face expulsion'
BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
A lawsuit against Augusta State University in Georgia alleges school officials essentially gave a graduate student in counseling the choice of giving up her Christian beliefs or being expelled from the graduate program.
School officials Mary Jane Anderson-Wiley, Paulette Schenck and Richard Deaner demanded student Jen Keeton, 24, go through a "remediation" program after she asserted homosexuality is a behavioral choice, not a "state of being" as a professor said, according to the complaint.
Also named as defendants in the case that developed in May and June are other administrators and the university system's board of regents.
The remediation program was to include "sensitivity training" on homosexual issues, additional outside study on literature promoting homosexuality and the plan that she attend a "gay pride parade" and report on it.
Where has higher education in America gone? Find out in "Freefall of the American University"
The lawsuit, filed by attorneys working with the Alliance Defense Fund, asserted the school cannot violate the Constitution by demanding that a person's beliefs be changed.
"ASU faculty have promised to expel Miss Keeton from the graduate Counselor Education program, not because of poor academic showing or demonstrated deficiencies in clinical performance, but simply because she has communicated both inside and outside the classroom that she holds to Christian ethical convictions on matters of human sexuality and gender identity," the law firm explained.
School spokeswoman Kathy Schose today declined to address the allegations in the case but agreed to discuss the counselor teaching program in general.
She cited the American Counseling Association's code of ethics and said students would be required to adopt its provisions.
"There is a code of ethics that govern counselors," she said. "They have to abide by the code of the profession."
Ethics codes generally govern behavior, and Schose denied the school was attempting to alter any student's beliefs or moral values.
But the lawsuit specifically charges the faculty members targeted Keeton's biblically based belief system and values, not her behavior regarding the treatment of any clients, which had not yet happened.
"Schenck told Miss Keeton that it was unethical for her to believe that her convictions should also be shared by other persons. … Schenck explained that while Miss Keeton was free to have points of view about how she personally should conduct and define herself, she may not believe that others should adopt the standards she personally is convinced are true," the lawsuit said.
Anderson-Wiley confirmed that Miss Keeton will not be able to successfully complete the remediation plan and thus complete the ASU counseling program unless she commits to affirming the propriety of gay and lesbian relationships if such an opportunity arises in her future professional efforts," it continued.
ADF Senior Counsel David French contended 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."
"Simply put, the university is imposing thought reform," he said. "Abandoning one's own religious beliefs should not be a precondition at a public university for obtaining a degree. 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."
Keeton's own e-mail response to the faculty members who allegedly were pressuring her to adopt a pro-homosexual belief system defines the dispute.
"At times you said that I must alter my beliefs because they are unethical. … other times you said that I can keep my beliefs so long as they are only personal and I don't believe that anyone else should believe like me. But that is just another way of saying that I must alter my beliefs, because my beliefs are about absolute truth. ….. in order to finish the counseling program you are requiring me to alter my objective beliefs and also to commit now that if I ever may have a client who wants me to affirm their decision to have an abortion or engage in gay, lesbian, or transgender behavior, I will do that. I can't alter my biblical beliefs, and I will not affirm the morality of those behaviors in a counseling situation," she wrote.
Faculty members had demanded she "attend at least three workshops … which emphasize … diversity training sensitive toward working with GLBTQ populations." They also wanted her to "develop" her knowledge of homosexuality by reading 10 articles and increasing her exposure to homosexuals and lesbians by attending "the Gay Pride Parade."
According to the complaint documentation, which also seeks a preliminary injunction in the case, Keeton asked Anderson-Wiley how her Christian convictions are any less acceptable than those of a Buddhist or Muslim student. Anderson-Wiley responded, "Christians see this population as sinners."
The complaint alleges Anderson-Wiley specifically told Keeton she was being asked to alter some of her beliefs. The "remediation" program included a statement that Keeton would be dismissed from the program if she chose not to comply, the lawsuit said.
"Unless and until defendant's unconstitutional speech-regulating policies and threatened … actions against Miss Keeton are enjoined, Miss Keeton will suffer and continue to suffer irreparable injury to her constitutional rights," the lawsuit said.
Among the alleged violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments are viewpoint discrimination, compelled speech, equal protection and freedom of speech, it said.
"By conditioning Miss Keeton's continued enrollment in the ASU school counselor masters degree program on her waiver of rights to speech and free exercise of religion … by requiring that she alter her beliefs and speech, and that she … commit to affirm in a hypothetical future context the ethical propriety of transgender and homosexual identification and behavior by others, as well as other values and behaviors she now disapproves, and which violate her religion convictions, defendants have imposed an unconstitutional condition on Miss Keeton," the complaint alleges.
"The First Amendment never permits the government to penalize beliefs in this manner," the complaint said.
The ADF said it also is litigating a case involving a Georgia counselor fired by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention because she would not agree to affirm homosexual behavior. While an earlier similar case at Missouri State has been resolved, there is another in which Eastern Michigan University is defendant on similar allegations.
In the Missouri State case, a social work professor, Frank Kauffman, eventually was placed on leave as part of a settlement of the lawsuit brought on behalf of student Emily Brooker. The student had refused his assignment to lobby on behalf of homosexual adoptions because it violated her religious beliefs. She then was brought up on ethics charges in the school.
The settlement also included monetary damages and the removal of the charges against her from her record. The school's own commissioned conclusion in the case found "many students and faculty stated a fear of voicing differing opinions. … In fact, 'bullying' was used by both students and faculty to characterize specific faculty."
In the still-pending case involving Eastern Michigan, lawmakers there considered calling top school officials on the carpet after they expelled from a counseling program a Christian student who refused to argue in support of the homosexual lifestyle.
As WND reported, trouble began for master's program student Julea Ward when she refused to accept a client whose issue concerned a homosexual relationship.
The school expelled her from the counseling program March 12, 2009, for refusing to abrogate her own personal religious beliefs and support the homosexual lifestyle.
Since then, Ward has brought a lawsuit through the Alliance Defense Fund Center for Academic Freedom.
Members of the Michigan Senate shortly later approved legislation that includes a provision calling on university counseling programs to evaluate and affirm how they can accommodate the religious beliefs of students.
State Rep. Tom McMillin told WND at the time the case was "extremely alarming," and there was growing support for an effort to penalize universities that don't accommodate religious beliefs.
"This is a state-taxpayer-supported university," he said. "She's got a court case. Hopefully that will be resolved."
In the case, the judge refused to dismiss the complaint, determining there were "genuine issues of material fact" about the school's "true motivations" for dismissing Ward from the program. Further, the judge concluded, the student's actions to avoid in advance a counseling session for which she had reservations probably followed professional ethical guidelines.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=182441
'Lose Christianity or face expulsion' -- Georgia student told to read 'gay' lit, attend 'pride parade,' change beliefs
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
A lawsuit against Augusta State University in Georgia alleges school officials essentially gave a graduate student in counseling the choice of giving up her Christian beliefs or being expelled from the graduate program.
School officials Mary Jane Anderson-Wiley, Paulette Schenck and Richard Deaner demanded student Jen Keeton, 24, go through a "remediation" program after she asserted homosexuality is a behavioral choice, not a "state of being" as a professor said, according to the complaint.
Also named as defendants in the case that developed in May and June are other administrators and the university system's board of regents.
The remediation program was to include "sensitivity training" on homosexual issues, additional outside study on literature promoting homosexuality and the plan that she attend a "gay pride parade" and report on it.
Where has higher education in America gone? Find out in "Freefall of the American University"
The lawsuit, filed by attorneys working with the Alliance Defense Fund, asserted the school cannot violate the Constitution by demanding that a person's beliefs be changed.
"ASU faculty have promised to expel Miss Keeton from the graduate Counselor Education program, not because of poor academic showing or demonstrated deficiencies in clinical performance, but simply because she has communicated both inside and outside the classroom that she holds to Christian ethical convictions on matters of human sexuality and gender identity," the law firm explained.
School spokeswoman Kathy Schose today declined to address the allegations in the case but agreed to discuss the counselor teaching program in general.
She cited the American Counseling Association's code of ethics and said students would be required to adopt its provisions.
"There is a code of ethics that govern counselors," she said. "They have to abide by the code of the profession."
Ethics codes generally govern behavior, and Schose denied the school was attempting to alter any student's beliefs or moral values.
But the lawsuit specifically charges the faculty members targeted Keeton's biblically based belief system and values, not her behavior regarding the treatment of any clients, which had not yet happened.
"Schenck told Miss Keeton that it was unethical for her to believe that her convictions should also be shared by other persons. … Schenck explained that while Miss Keeton was free to have points of view about how she personally should conduct and define herself, she may not believe that others should adopt the standards she personally is convinced are true," the lawsuit said.
Anderson-Wiley confirmed that Miss Keeton will not be able to successfully complete the remediation plan and thus complete the ASU counseling program unless she commits to affirming the propriety of gay and lesbian relationships if such an opportunity arises in her future professional efforts," it continued.
ADF Senior Counsel David French contended 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."
"Simply put, the university is imposing thought reform," he said. "Abandoning one's own religious beliefs should not be a precondition at a public university for obtaining a degree. 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."
Keeton's own e-mail response to the faculty members who allegedly were pressuring her to adopt a pro-homosexual belief system defines the dispute.
"At times you said that I must alter my beliefs because they are unethical. … other times you said that I can keep my beliefs so long as they are only personal and I don't believe that anyone else should believe like me. But that is just another way of saying that I must alter my beliefs, because my beliefs are about absolute truth. ….. in order to finish the counseling program you are requiring me to alter my objective beliefs and also to commit now that if I ever may have a client who wants me to affirm their decision to have an abortion or engage in gay, lesbian, or transgender behavior, I will do that. I can't alter my biblical beliefs, and I will not affirm the morality of those behaviors in a counseling situation," she wrote.
Faculty members had demanded she "attend at least three workshops … which emphasize … diversity training sensitive toward working with GLBTQ populations." They also wanted her to "develop" her knowledge of homosexuality by reading 10 articles and increasing her exposure to homosexuals and lesbians by attending "the Gay Pride Parade."
According to the complaint documentation, which also seeks a preliminary injunction in the case, Keeton asked Anderson-Wiley how her Christian convictions are any less acceptable than those of a Buddhist or Muslim student. Anderson-Wiley responded, "Christians see this population as sinners."
The complaint alleges Anderson-Wiley specifically told Keeton she was being asked to alter some of her beliefs. The "remediation" program included a statement that Keeton would be dismissed from the program if she chose not to comply, the lawsuit said.
"Unless and until defendant's unconstitutional speech-regulating policies and threatened … actions against Miss Keeton are enjoined, Miss Keeton will suffer and continue to suffer irreparable injury to her constitutional rights," the lawsuit said.
Among the alleged violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments are viewpoint discrimination, compelled speech, equal protection and freedom of speech, it said.
"By conditioning Miss Keeton's continued enrollment in the ASU school counselor masters degree program on her waiver of rights to speech and free exercise of religion … by requiring that she alter her beliefs and speech, and that she … commit to affirm in a hypothetical future context the ethical propriety of transgender and homosexual identification and behavior by others, as well as other values and behaviors she now disapproves, and which violate her religion convictions, defendants have imposed an unconstitutional condition on Miss Keeton," the complaint alleges.
"The First Amendment never permits the government to penalize beliefs in this manner," the complaint said.
The ADF said it also is litigating a case involving a Georgia counselor fired by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention because she would not agree to affirm homosexual behavior. While an earlier similar case at Missouri State has been resolved, there is another in which Eastern Michigan University is defendant on similar allegations.
In the Missouri State case, a social work professor, Frank Kauffman, eventually was placed on leave as part of a settlement of the lawsuit brought on behalf of student Emily Brooker. The student had refused his assignment to lobby on behalf of homosexual adoptions because it violated her religious beliefs. She then was brought up on ethics charges in the school.
The settlement also included monetary damages and the removal of the charges against her from her record. The school's own commissioned conclusion in the case found "many students and faculty stated a fear of voicing differing opinions. … In fact, 'bullying' was used by both students and faculty to characterize specific faculty."
In the still-pending case involving Eastern Michigan, lawmakers there considered calling top school officials on the carpet after they expelled from a counseling program a Christian student who refused to argue in support of the homosexual lifestyle.
As WND reported, trouble began for master's program student Julea Ward when she refused to accept a client whose issue concerned a homosexual relationship.
The school expelled her from the counseling program March 12, 2009, for refusing to abrogate her own personal religious beliefs and support the homosexual lifestyle.
Since then, Ward has brought a lawsuit through the Alliance Defense Fund Center for Academic Freedom.
Members of the Michigan Senate shortly later approved legislation that includes a provision calling on university counseling programs to evaluate and affirm how they can accommodate the religious beliefs of students.
State Rep. Tom McMillin told WND at the time the case was "extremely alarming," and there was growing support for an effort to penalize universities that don't accommodate religious beliefs.
"This is a state-taxpayer-supported university," he said. "She's got a court case. Hopefully that will be resolved."
In the case, the judge refused to dismiss the complaint, determining there were "genuine issues of material fact" about the school's "true motivations" for dismissing Ward from the program. Further, the judge concluded, the student's actions to avoid in advance a counseling session for which she had reservations probably followed professional ethical guidelines.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=182441
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
