Veteran put on leave for saying “God Bless America”

A retired military veteran who now works in a hospital was stunned when supervisors called him into the office last week to demand that he remove “God Bless America” from his e-mail signature block.  What happened next was even more shocking—he complied with the directive but was placed on administrative leave for “insubordination” when he said he wanted to consult with legal counsel about his rights.  

Pacific Justice Institute now represents this veteran, Mr. Boots Hawks, and sent a strongly-worded letter to his supervisors at Dameron Hospital in Stockton, California, late Tuesday.  In the letter, PJI Staff Attorney Matthew McReynolds reminded the hospital that Mr. Hawks has been a dedicated employee for ten years, earning such distinctions as “Employee of the Year” for his work in quality assurance.  Prior to joining the hospital staff, Mr. Hawks spent twenty years in the U.S. Army, attaining the rank of Sergeant First Class.  PJI is demanding that supervisors rescind their disciplinary action and their censorship.

PJI President Brad Dacus, a frequent guest on Faith on Trial, commented, “Rarely do we see something as shocking as supervisors placing a hard-working military veteran on leave right before Veterans’ Day for saying something patriotic.  The hospital’s actions were outrageous and illegal.  We expect a swift apology and full restoration of Mr. Hawks’ rights.”  

Mr. Hawks returned to work on Wednesday to find that lock combinations had been changed and his computer password had been suspended.  The hospital had not yet responded to PJI’s letter as of Thursday morning.

Chaplains harassed for their faith sue VA

A lawsuit filed last week alleges that the leader of a San Diego-based Department of Veterans

John Wells

Affairs chaplain training program severely mocked two Christian participants because of their faith. One of the chaplains eventually left the program voluntarily because of the treatment; the program leader eventually ejected the other participant.

Military-Veterans Advocacy filed the suit against Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki on behalf of the Conservative Baptist Association of America, the organization that acted as an endorsing agent for the two chaplains.

“No American choosing to serve in the armed forces should be openly ridiculed for his Christian faith, and that is most obviously true for chaplains participating in a chaplain training program,” said Commander J.B. Wells, U. S. Navy (Ret.), executive director of Military-Veterans Advocacy. “Not only was the treatment these men received inappropriate, it was also a violation of federal law and the religious freedom guarantees of the First Amendment.”

[Commander Wells will be one of our guests next week on Faith on Trail.]

Chaplains Maj. Steven Firtko, U.S. Army (Ret.) and Lt. Cmdr. Dan Klender, U.S. Navy, entered the San Diego VA-DOD Clinical Pastoral Education Center program in August 2012. Shortly thereafter, the program’s supervisor, Nancy Dietsch, began to harass the two men for their beliefs. On various occasions and without provocation, she admonished them not to pray in Jesus’ name or cite Scripture, sometimes pounding her fists on her desk, accusing them of “not giving a rat’s ass” about VA patients and other members of the military, and threatening to fail them. She continued to openly ridicule them and their beliefs openly in class.

In February, Klender voluntarily withdrew from the program solely because of Dietsch’s harassment. Firtko, whom Dietsch placed on probation, received a letter dated Feb. 15 from the VA and Dietsch notifying him that he would be dismissed from the program March 1. Both Klender and Firtko filed formal complaints with the VA in July.

The lawsuit, Conservative Baptist Association of America v. Shinseki, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, explains that all administrative options have been exhausted and that the harassment that the chaplains endured violates the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Faith on Trial Tuesday topics:

Joel Oster

Justin Butterfield

Gina Noll and I are looking forward to an interesting program Tuesday:  First up will be Joel Oster, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom at its Kansas City Regional Service Center in Kansas, where he plays a significant role in litigation efforts defending church autonomy.  Joel will be visiting with us about attempts by the state to selectively exclude religious organizations from public service benefits. Then we will have Justin Butterfield, a Harvard Law School graduate, now serving with the Liberty Institute who practices in the field of religious liberty.  He will be discussing Liberty Institute’s latest report on religious hostilities.  Join Gina and me at 9 a.m. (Central) for the live broadcast, or at 9 p.m. for the re-broadcast Tuesday on Iowa Catholic Radio, 1150 AM, 88.5 & 94.5 FM and streaming live on IowaCatholicRadio.com.

Photographer asks Supreme Court: Is abandoning my freedom the ‘price of citizenship’?

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing a Christian photographer asked the

Elaine & Jonathan Huguenin
 

U.S. Supreme Court Friday to reverse a New Mexico Supreme Court decision that required her to abandon her freedom as the “price of citizenship.”

On Aug. 22, the New Mexico high court upheld a decision against Elane Photography after its co-owner, Elaine Huguenin, declined to use her artistic expression to communicate the story of a same-sex ceremony. A concurrence accompanying the opinion concluded that Huguenin and her co-owner husband Jonathan “now are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives,” adding “it is the price of citizenship.”

“The idea that free people can be ‘compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives’ as the ‘price of citizenship’ is a chilling and unprecedented attack on freedom,” said Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence. “We are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to make it clear that no American has to abandon their constitutionally protected freedoms just to make a living. No American should be punished or put out of business simply for disagreeing with the government’s opinion on a moral issue.”

“Every artist must be free to create work that expresses what he or she believes and not be forced by the government to express opposing views,” added Legal Counsel Jim Campbell. “Should the government force an African-American photographer to take pictures of a KKK rally? A government that can force anyone to promote messages against his or her will is a government out of control.”

In 2006, Huguenin declined Vanessa Willock’s request to photograph a commitment ceremony between Willock and another woman. Huguenin declined the request because her and her husband’s Christian beliefs conflict with the message communicated by the expressive event, which Willock asked Huguenin to help her “celebrate.”

Willock easily found another photographer for her ceremony, and for less money, but nevertheless filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission against Elane Photography. After a one-day trial, the commission ruled against the Huguenins and ordered them to pay $6,637.94 in attorneys’ fees to Willock. The case then made its way through the New Mexico state court system as Elane Photography v. Willock.

Freedom of Conscience in Hawaii; Army says Christian organization “hate group”

The Center for Religious Freedom is reporting:

Altering Marriage Will Impact Freedom of Conscience in Hawaii: Since the 2012 elections, the number of states sanctioning same-sex marriage has doubled, but in the rush to appease some outspoken and politically-connected citizens, are the religious liberties of others being trampled?  

That’s the worry in Hawaii, where the State Senate recently voted 20-4 to legalize same-sex “marriage,” repealing a constitutional amendment passed by popular vote in 1998 that defined marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Army Needs To Address the Root of this Problem:  Two weeks ago, at Camp Shelby in Mississippi, counter-intelligence officers presented a briefing that identified the American Family Association – a non-profit Christian organization – as a “domestic hate group.” This was not the first time something bizarre like this had happened. On another army base, evangelical Christians and Catholics were listed as prime examples of religious extremism. On yet another, the Founding Fathers were portrayed as extreme.

Then, last week, a similar report came out about a briefing at Fort Hood in Texas where Tea Party supporters, in addition to evangelical Christians, were labeled as extremists.   

Each time, senior military officials downplayed the shocking classifications as isolated incidents. But a string of incidents reflect a pattern.

Read more on the organization’s blog.

New NY mayor: City needs more abortions, fewer pro-life clinics

New York, in which 41 percent of pregnancies end in abortion has elected a new mayor who is pledging to partner with Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers to expand their businesses even further by providing them with “city-sponsored” space to set up shop.

Bill de Blasio, who was elected Tuesday with 73 percent of the vote, also pledged to help abortionists wipe out their main competition – pro-life crisis pregnancy centers – which he refers to as “sham” clinics. These centers offer women financial and logistical assistance to either keep their babies or place them with adoptive families.

Read the entire Breitbart article here.

The problems Christians face in today’s military

On our program this week we had Col. Ron Crews, Chaplain, U. S. Army Retired, executive director of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty. This video echoes the message Col. Crews gave us.

Open restrooms? Watch this and you decide

We’ve had Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute on our program several times.  The last time he joined us was October 22 when he shared this story with us.  Watch the video, it is eye opening and you’ll know why Brad is one of our favorite and most informative guests.

This week on Faith on Trial …

Peter Sprigg, senior fellow at the Family Research Council on the effects of the pending Employment Non Discrimination Act; and Col. Ron Crews, retired army chaplain and executive director of the Chaplain’s Alliance for Religious Liberty on the problems Christians and Christian chaplains are facing in the military.  Live Tuesday morning at 9 (Central) and re-broadcast in the evening at 9 on Iowa Catholic Radio, 1150 AM; 88.5 & 94.5 FM and streaming live on IowaCatholicRadio.com. Gina Noll from St. Augustin parish will join me in the studio.

 

ADF brining religious freedom cases to the Supreme Court

By Alan Sears

The opening of another session of the U.S. Supreme Court brings to the forefront several key cases being litigated or funded by Alliance Defending Freedom – cases with profound implications for the future of your life and your religious freedom. I want to give you a glimpse of what’s coming, in the hope that you and your family will pray specifically for these cases and for how they will be reviewed by our nation’s most influential legal tribunal.

Town of Greece v. Galloway – On November 6, the high court will hear oral arguments in this case, which involves a lawsuit accusing local officials in Greece of violating the Establishment Clause of the Constitution by allowing members of the community to pray aloud before town council meetings. Our attorneys are representing Greece, and the court’s ruling in this case could have far-reaching consequences for public expressions of faith, in everything from the Pledge of Allegiance to “In God We Trust” on our nation’s currency.

McCullen v. Coakley – During the third week of January, the court will hear oral arguments debating the constitutionality of a 35-foot “buffer zone” created by the Massachusetts legislature to keep pro-life activists and counselors from approaching abortion clinics (and their customers) in that state. Alliance Defending Freedom is funding this case.
Isaacson v. Horne – We are awaiting word on whether the high court will hear this case, which involves an Arizona law that restricts non-emergency abortions after 20 weeks.  Our attorneys are serving as co-counsel.  If the court upholds this law, it will affirm that the government has an interest in restricting abortion that goes beyond even preserving the baby’s life and the mother’s health … and that interest could open the way to substantial erosions of the Roe v. Wade decision.

Reed v. Town of Gilbert – We are representing a small Arizona church whose temporary signs inviting people to its worship services are regulated far more heavily than temporary signs used to promote political, ideological, and other messages.

Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius – We are representing the Hahns, a practicing Mennonite family whose company manufactures custom wood cabinets, in this federal lawsuit challenging the Obama administration’s abortion pill mandate. (The mandate forces employers, regardless of their religious convictions, to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception or face heavy financial penalties from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.)

In addition, Alliance Defending Freedom lawyers are currently completing cert petitions (which ask the court to review and hear arguments in a case) for two other major cases:

Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock – in which we are defending a New Mexico artist penalized for “sexual orientation” discrimination because she gracefully declined to use her talents as a photographer to celebrate a same-sex “commitment ceremony.”

Planned Parenthood v. Betlach – in which we are defending an Arizona law (written by one of our own attorneys) that prohibits providers of elective abortions from participating in Medicaid family planning.

Proverbs 21:1 tells us that “The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes.” Please join me in praying that the heart of each judge of the highest court in our nation will be sensitive to the directives of the Lord – and expand religious freedom and protections for life for the sake of our children and grandchildren.

D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rules against HHS mandate for Catholic business owners

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 1, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In the newest victory for religious freedom in the U.S. judicial system, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of two Catholic business owners who are fighting the Health & Human Services (HHS) contraceptive, abortifacient, and sterilization mandate on Friday.

The case involved two Ohio brothers, Frank and Phil Gilardi, whom the mandate would force to either violate their consciences or face over $14 million in fines as they run their two businesses in the town of Sidney.

Justice Janice Rogers Brown wrote in the decision that “the burden of the HHS mandate “becomes substantial because the government commands compliance by giving the Gilardis a Hobson’s choice. They can either abide by the sacred tenets of their faith, pay a penalty of over $14 million, and cripple the companies they have spent a lifetime building, or they become complicit in a grave moral wrong.”

“If that is not 'substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs,' we fail to see how the standard could be met,” she wrote.

Read the rest of the story here.

Belgium considering euthanasia for children, dementia patients

The Washington Post is reporting:

In Belgium, where euthanasia is now legal for people over the age of 18, the government is considering extending it to children — something that no other country has done. The same bill would offer the right to die to adults with early dementia.

Advocates argue that euthanasia for children, with the consent of their parents, is necessary to give families an option in a desperately painful situation. Belgium is already a euthanasia pioneer; it legalized the practice for adults in 2002. In the last decade, the number of reported cases per year has risen from 235 deaths in 2003 to 1,432 in 2012, the last year for which statistics are available. Doctors typically give patients a powerful sedative before injecting another drug to stop their heart.

Read the entire story here.

FRC says: Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA): A threat to freedom of conscience and religion

As reported by the Family Research Council

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) would prohibit employers from making employment decisions on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. It is misleadingly labeled as a logical extension of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. While the Civil Rights Act was enacted primarily to protect the rights of racial minorities, ENDA is aimed at providing special protections for "sexual orientation" (which includes voluntary homosexual conduct) and "gender identity" (referring not to one's biological sex, but to "the gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual's designated sex at birth").

The "gender identity" provision would protect anyone who is "transgendered," a broad umbrella term that includes transsexuals (people who have had sex-change surgery), anyone who has changed or is changing their public "gender identity" (regardless of whether they have had surgery or hormone treatments), transvestites (people who dress as the opposite sex on an occasional basis for emotional or sexual gratification), and drag queens and drag kings (people who dress as the opposite sex for the purpose of entertaining others).

Among other problems with ENDA, as reported by the Family Research Council:

“Sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are unlike most other characteristics protected in civil rights laws. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars discrimination based on “race, color, national origin, sex, and religion.” The first four of these are included largely because they are inborn, involuntary and immutable. (Religion, while voluntary, is explicitly protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.) While sexual attractions may be involuntary, neither sexual conduct nor transgender behavior meets any of these criteria.

ENDA’s “gender identity” provisions would undermine the ability of employers to impose reasonable dress and grooming standards. The bill requires that such standards be consistent with the employee’s chosen and variable “gender identity.” This effectively forbids employers from using the most fundamental standard of all—that people be dressed and groomed in a way that is culturally appropriate for their biological sex.

ENDA’s “gender identity” provisions would violate the privacy of others. Because transgender status is not dependent on having “sex-change surgery,” ENDA would allow some biological males (who claim to be female) to appear nude before females (and vice versa) in bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers.

ENDA would mandate the employment of homosexual, bisexual, and “transgendered” individuals in inappropriate occupations. For example, under ENDA, employers in the area of education and childcare would be denied the right to refuse to hire homosexuals or transgendered individuals, even if they consider such persons to be inappropriate role models for children and young people.

ENDA’s “religious exemption” is inadequate to protect people of faith. ENDA contains an exemption for certain “religious organizations,” such as houses of worship or religious schools. However, the exemption fails to protect individual Christians, Jews, Muslims and others who have objections to certain sexual behaviors from making employment decisions consistent with their faith. In fact, it is questionable whether any profit-making corporations would qualify for the exemption, meaning that Christian bookstores, religious publishing houses, and religious television and radio stations could all be forced to compromise their principles in mandated hiring practices.

ENDA would pave the way for further redefinition of marriage. State courts which have redefined “marriage” to include homosexual couples in Massachusetts, California, Iowa, and Connecticut cited the existence of “non-discrimination” laws like ENDA at the state level as establishing a principle regarding the legal irrelevance of “sexual orientation,” which they have then applied to the institution of marriage.7 Passage of ENDA at the national level could give fuel for a similar decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, forcing the redefinition of marriage in every state in the union, at some time in the future.

 

 

My talk at Man-up’s October meeting

I had a wonderful time with the guys from Man-up on the 24th at their monthly meeting at St. Pius parish in Urbandale.  I was honored to be the featured speaker that evening.  The event was taped and below is my address.  The Man-up crew posted it in two sections and that is how I am posting it here.  If you have the time, listen and take note.  I welcome your comments either here or at my e-mail: DeaconMike@q.com.

Part 1:




Part  2:

Faith on Trial for Tuesday …

Michael Donnelly 

We have another interesting program planned.  First up is Dana Cody, president and chief legal counsel for Life Legal Defense Foundation.  By my count this will be Dana’s third guest appearance with us and she will be discussing some of the new abortion laws in California that allow non-physicians to perform abortions in that state.  Time allowing, she will tell us about a very strong young lady who was enrolled as a surgical technician student and balked at assisting with abortions, a decision that almost got her terminated from the program. 

Dana Cody

After Dana we will have a first-time guest, Michael Donnelly, staff attorney with the Home School Legal Defense Association.  Michael and the Association represent a German family that came to the United States to home school their children – to instill in them Christian values – because home schooling is illegal in Germany.  Initially granted asylum, the Obama Administration has balked and is now trying to deport the family and that case is headed to the Supreme Court.  Join us Tuesday at 9 a.m. (Central) or on our rebroadcast at 9 p.m. on Iowa Catholic Radio, 1150 AM; 88.5 & 94.5 FM and streaming live at IowaCatholicRadio.com.