Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
FRC's latest fear doc (focused almost exclusively on LGBT)

FRC's latest fear doc (focused almost exclusively on LGBT)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 4,939|Likes:
Published by G-A-Y
"Religious freedom" or anti-gay? You decide.
"Religious freedom" or anti-gay? You decide.

More info:

Published by: G-A-Y on Jul 14, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





 Hostility to Religion: The Growing Threat to Religious Liberty in the United States
Many of the first European settlers on American shores sought freedom from religious persecution. Decades later, the Founding Fathers considered religious liberty to be a paramount principle in the new United States. Religious liberty is our first freedom,! not only because it is listed first in the "ill of Rights but because without it, all other freedoms are impossible# $he Founders affirmed that allegiance to %od precedes allegiance to the state, and that our rights come from our &reator, not the go'ernment. $his is the essential assumption upon which our entire system of go'ernment has been built. Religious liberty was so important to the Framers of the new United States &onstitution that they included it in the First Amendment# &ongress shall ma(e no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free e)ercise thereof . . . .! Fast forward three hundred years, and hostility to religious e)pression in the public s*uare is reaching le'els unprecedented in the history of the United States. Militant atheists target long+e)isting crosses and historical mar(ers of Americas religious heritage in public places. $eachers tell young school+children they cant read their "ible in school. -ri'ate citiens and the go'ernment ali(e are attac(ing religious e)pression by other citiens. /hether its a media bac(lash to merely e)pressing a faith position on se)uality, or the use of nondiscrimination laws to punish religious business owners for their decisions, threats to free speech and free e)ercise are heating up both in the courts and the public s*uare. $his publication contains a list of documented accounts of hostility toward faith in the United States today, bro(en down in the following four definable types of incidents# Section 0# Suppression of Religious E)pression in the -ublic S*uare1 Section 00# Suppression of Religious E)pression in Schools and Uni'ersities1 Section 000# &ensure of Religious 2iewpoints Regarding Se)uality1 and Section 02# Suppression of Religious E)pression on Se)uality Using 3ondiscrimination 4aws. Most of the documented accounts here ha'e occurred within the past se'eral years. $his, in and of itself, is troubling. "ut in some areas, particularly with regard to statements and positions on se)uality 5many of which are documented in Sections 000 and 02 below6, hostility toward religion has increased at an e)ponential rate. $his trend should cause any freedom+lo'ing indi'idual to be truly alarmed. Americans urgently need to be aware of the suppression of religion in this regard. 7et this should not 8ust concern those whose rights are most immediately affected, for the principles underlying suppression of rights in this area will 'ery *uic(ly and easily lead to the restriction and suppression of free in*uiry and critical thin(ing. All should be concerned that suppression
 9uly :;<= 0ssue Analysis 0S<=%;<
>;< % S$REE$ 3/, /AS?03%$@3, D.&. :;;;< :;:+B+:<;; C
 :;:+B+:<= C 5>;;6 ::+=;;>
order line
: of rights, particularly as outlined in Sections 000 and 02 of this publication, is the product of more insidious forces which ultimately will erode liberties for all Americans, regardless of 'iewpoint or le'el of concern with these immediate issues. As Americans awareness grows, we can focus our attention on the public debate and the state of the law. 4iberty does not maintain itself, and in a democracy, many 'oices are constantly clamoring for desired protections and pri'ileges to be enshrined in law. As we become more fully aware of and engaged on the issue of hostility toward religion, we can more effecti'ely defend ci'il liberties and restore religious liberty to its proper place in American society.
Se#tion I: Atta#$s on Religious E%&ression in the 'ubli# S(uare
Attac(s on the e)pression of religion in the public s*uare! of go'ernment and public property, land, and buildings are not recent. For many years, those opposed to crosses and monuments in public places ha'e attempted to use the courts to ha'e these displays declared unconstitutional, often under Establishment &lause grounds. ?owe'er, ealous atheist groups increasingly ha'e focused their hostility on pri'ate religious e)pression which is only 'ery tenuously connected to go'ernment. $hey ha'e continued to harass small towns and localities which merely maintain the traditions handed to them in'ol'ing years of public prayer, displays of religious history on public buildings, or crosses on 'eterans memorials. @ften, not (nowing any better and lac(ing proper counsel, localities capitulate to the demands of those hostile to any public e)pression of faith. ?owe'er, capitulation is not necessary, as attorneys and ad'ocates are ready to help. Following are documented incidents of hostility to religious e)pression in the public s*uare.
Girl )arred *ro+ Singing ,-u+baya. )e#ause It /as a ,Religious. Song 0 August 112 34445
 Samantha Schul, an eight+year+old girl from -ort &harlotte, Florida, was barred from singing umbaya! at a "oys  %irls &lub talent show because the song included the words @h, 4ord.! "ill Sadlo, the clubs Director of @perations, worried parents would complain if children went home and said they heard a religious song at the nonsectarian camp.! ?e said, GwHe dont want to ta(e the chance of a child offending another childs religion.! Randy "ouc(, the clubs local director, chimed in# /e 8ust cant allow any religious songs. . . . 7ou ha'e to chec( your religion at the door.! Samanthas parents were li'id at not being gi'en notice that their daughters song would be barred. ?er mother said, 0 learned that song in %irl Scouts, not in church. . . . 0ts a campfire song, for goodness sa(e.! Mr. Sadlo agreed the club should ha'e notified the girls parents earlier that the song would not be allowed, and apologied to the family.
Seniors )anned *ro+ Singing hrist+as arols in Their Ho+es 0 6e#e+ber 34475
Seniors li'ing in facilities owned by the ?ousing Resource De'elopment &orporation were told they could not sing &hristmas carols. Following an attorneys demand letter, the facility re'ersed its decision.
8oluntary A*ter9'rison Rehab enter losed )e#ause o* Its Faith9)ased Te#hni(ue 0 May 3445
$he "ristol &ounty, Massachusetts, sheriffs department funded a rehabilitation program to help recently released prisoners deal with drug addiction and reintegrate into society. Americans United for Separation of &hurch and State threatened legal action against the county for funding a faith+based organiation. $he sheriff ga'e in to the pressure and e)pelled the group from the facility.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->