Separation of Church and Home

In a new low by those suffering from the belief that all things religious are like asbestos in the ceiling tiles of society, a senior living complex has denied an elderly widow the freedom to pray and talk about her faith in a common area.  Why? Because the complex accepts U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development funds.

This is a wrongheaded view of “separation of church and state” on steroids. The Constitution does not create a separation of church and home.

The left has long sought to remove religions—and especially Judeo-Christian religions—from any location outside of church.

They do this by equating that which is funded by government with government. They then try to use a twisted reading of the First Amendment to claim that those things which are governmental in nature must be religion-free. In truth, the First Amendment’s protection of religious expression does not disappear just because a government check shows up in your landlord’s mailbox.

Nonetheless, the First Amendment is frequently hijacked to say “no” to prayer at high school football games, “no” to invocations to start city council meetings, and “no” to religious speech at graduation ceremonies. Christmas parties become winter parties, Christmas break becomes winter break, and Easter becomes spring holiday.

And at Osborne Apartments in Minneapolis—a private apartment complex which accepts HUD funds—religious expression becomes a no-no.

Ruth Sweats found this out the hard way when she tried to read the Bible, pray, and have a private conversation about her faith with another resident in the commons area at the complex.

The property’s social worker told her to stop, claiming there are no First Amendment protections in the commons area because Osborne Apartments accepts HUD funds and HUD, subsequently, does not allow religious discussion to occur in the commons area.

Alliance Defending Freedom sent a letter to the complex and the company that owns it, reminding them that the First Amendment does not place limits on individuals, but on government:

The Establishment Clause is a restriction on government, not on private speakers. Because Osborne Apartments is a private, non-profit corporation—not a government controlled entity—it is not bound by the Establishment Clause’s prohibition on the government endorsement of religion. Osborne Apartments is free to allow the residents to engage in religious discussion and prayer.

The letter also explains that “HUD does not prohibit discussion about religion in the facilities to which it provides funding.” And federal courts have made it clear that “simply because the government provides a benefit with public funds does not mean that all ‘mention of religion or prayers’ must be whitewashed from the use of the benefit.”

As the letter states, senior-living complexes like Osborne Apartments are often full of people who fought valiantly for our liberties and freedoms—and their widows, too. And it’s more than a shame that in their golden years, these individuals are denied the very freedoms for which they or their spouses fought—and in some cases died.

Matthew Sharp

Matthew Sharp is litigation staff counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund.

http://townhall.com/columnists/matthewsharp/2012/10/31/separation_of_church_and_home/page/full/

‘Distinctly Christian’ Lord’s Prayer Banned in Del. Council Meetings By Stoyan Zaimov

A U.S. district court judge in Delaware ruled last week that members of a local city council who had been reciting the Lord’s Prayer at every meeting for six years must stop the “Christian” practice because it violates the Constitution.

The decision by Judge Leonard P. Stark comes in response to a lawsuit filed last year by four Sussex County residents who claimed that the prayer violates the First Amendment. The city council had argued that the Lord’s Prayer, though widely used by Catholics and Protestants, was not exclusive to Christianity as it does not make a specific reference to Jesus.

Judge Stark explained in his opinion that “the court is likely to conclude that the Council’s practice of opening each meeting with a recitation of this distinctly Christian Lord’s Prayer violates the Establishment Clause because it constitutes government endorsement of the Christian faith.”

“The fact that The Lord’s Prayer has been the only prayer recited at the beginning of Council meetings for over six years is likely to be found to demonstrate that the Council gives Christianity an unconstitutionally preferred status,” he added.

The county’s attorney, J. Scott Shannon, argued earlier this year that the prayer, introduced by Jesus in the Bible, was being misunderstood by the plaintiffs.

“[Jesus] was not offering a Christian prayer in the Christian tradition because no Christian tradition existed,” Shannon said. He also positioned that there was no specific mention of Jesus Christ in the prayer, and it contained language that was fitting to other faiths as well.

But the attorney for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Alex Luchenitser, insisted that the very opening lines of the prayer — “Our Father Who Art in Heaven Hallowed Be thy Name” — does indeed refer specifically to Christ.

“That’s a Christian way of referring to Jesus. This is not something reasonable people disagree over,” said Luchenitser, who spoke on behalf of plaintiffs Barbara Mullin, Julie Jackson, John Steinbruck and William O’Connor.

Judge Stark’s injunction to stop the prayer takes effect on June 15, meaning that any council meetings after that date that begin with the Lord’s Prayer would be in violation of the order.

Some council members made aware of the decision have expressed disappointment, Delmarvanow.com reported.

“Whatever happened to freedom of speech,” asked Councilman Sam Wilson. “I don’t know how we’re gonna get around it, but we’re gonna have to find a way.”

Judge Stark elaborated, however, that many other council meetings begin with prayers that are not specific to one religion, and so do not go against the Constitution. He reportedly invited the plaintiffs to think about how to “preserve the Council’s practice of opening its meetings with a prayer but to do so in a manner that is consistent with the United States and Delaware Constitutions.”

http://www.christianpost.com/news/distinctly-christian-lords-prayer-banned-in-del-council-meetings-75337/

Who Would Jesus Tax?

This past Thursday at the National Prayer Breakfast, Obama said that his Christian faith crafts his domestic policies—particularly his desire to rob from the rich and give to the poor. In my humble opinion, I think the president is getting Jesus and His disciples confused with Robin Hood and his Merry Men.

I don’t know which White House wizard crafted that speech for him, but the verse he or she gave to our Spender in Chief to back his socialism was more twisted out of joint than a Gumby doll being worked over by a frustrated Gary Busey.

I can’t believe that hot coffee didn’t spew from hundreds of Christians’ mouths when Obama took a text that refers directly to believers’ judgment and contorted it to be interpreted as a ratcheted-up government imposed higher tax rate upon those who already bear the brunt of the tax burden.

From a theological standpoint it appears as if the president takes more of an eisegetical approach to Luke 12:48 than and exegetical one—which is convenient. But who are we to judge? Judge not.

Now … before I plow on with the topic of Obama’s Christian faith influencing his policies, I thought that in our current culture of sassy secularism elected officials, especially the president, are forbidden to merge biblical beliefs and public policy. Hell, GW couldn’t even tell Cheney “God bless ya” after Dick phlegmed his tie without Media Matters, Maddow and Matthews calling him a theocratic dominionist Nazi who was violating the Establishment Clause and who, left to his own devices, would be hanging homosexuals and burning Harry Potter books. Does Obama get a pass when he parlays his faith-based policies? Shucks … that ain’t fair, is it MSNBC?

I wish Christianity did influence Obama’s politics; if it truly did then there would be an end to abortion, bearing false witness, and obtrusive government and would allow for more liberty than ever before. In addition:

• The entitlement mentality would be history; • We’d yield up a solid Protestant work ethic; • We’d enforce a tougher immigration policy; • Our military would be stronger; • We’d have a balanced budget; • We’d see a decrease in national debt and an end to prodigal spending; • We’d have a defense of traditional marriage; • And we’d revisit worshipping God rather than feckless humans and their stilted and stymied worldviews.Lastly, with just a cursory glance at the gospels, the honest reader will note that Christ Jesus never commanded Caesar or Herod to collect taxes in order to take care of the poor. He told his disciples to give to the needy, of their own volition, as worship to God and in service to mankind, and only—only—when it’s done by these means and motivations is it deemed virtuous and Christian.

Oh, and by the way, the Scripture has a lot to say about taxes.  Progressives might want to put on a cup before they click thishyperlink to see what “God” thinks about Obama’s tax plan.

Amen.

Tags:                 Christianity            ,                                    Faith            ,                                    Barack Obama            ,                                    Taxes

Doug Giles

Doug Giles is the author of Raising Righteous & Rowdy Girls. Follow him on Twitter @Doug_Giles and on Facebook. You can see and hear Doug’s video blog and talk show at ClashRadio.com.

TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.

http://townhall.com/columnists/douggiles/2012/02/05/who_would_jesus_tax/page/full/