Alliance Defense Fund & Michael Medved Talk About the "Constitutional" Challenges Ragarding the Banning of the National Day of Prayer (Plus, Atheist Call Taken)

Here is some background on the judge who ruled the National Day of Prayer as unconstitutional. Some discussion of Franklin Graham takes place as well as an atheists concern with the Day of Prayer -- who's case is shown to be vacuous when another proposition is offered.

 

Jeanine Pirro, Fill-In Guest for Joy Behar on CNN, Tries Her Apparent Best Against Bill Donohue, Catholic League president, Who Makes Short Workof Her With the Facts

(NewsBusters h/t)

Obama's Faith Based Czar Showing His Anti-Catholic Bias Again

"Santa Equals a Swastika" -- O'Reilly: Jesse Watters Visits Mass. School that Told Kids that Couldn't Celebrate Christmas

Ted Danson & Joy Behar on Rush Limbaugh, the Religious Right, and Ignorant People

"Desecrated Flag" Video Is DNC Finalist -- Disgusting, But, If the "Piss Christ" is Art....

One of the 20 finalists in health care video contest run by Barack Obama’s campaign arm features a mural of an America flag splattered with health care graffiti until it’s covered completely by black paint.

In the video (also below) – which is accompanied by the sound of a heart monitor pumping and then flat-lining – words such as “pre-existing conditions,” “homeless” and “death panel” ultimately obliterate the flag, which reappears on screen seconds later with the words “Health Will Bring Our Country Back to Life” on the blue field where the 50 stars usually are.

According to the Organizing for American Web site, the 20 finalists in the “Health Reform Video Challenge” were chosen by a panel of “qualified” Democratic National Committee “employee judges.”

A contestant whose video didn’t make the final-20 cut complains that a video “defacing the flag” won’t do much to help President Barack Obama or the Democrats sell health care reform.

“They should never pick that,” said the contestant, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “It makes the Democrats look really, really bad.”.... (Politico.com)....

Famous Los Angeles Street Artist, Saber, sends his message to the country on health care reform. This is his submission for President Barack Obama's Organizing For America Health Reform Video Challenge. This video was edited by Kevin Chapados. (From video site)

The NEA is the National Endowment for the Arts They are the largest funding resource for Art which is our 5th Largest Industry in the country.

Obama Through the NEA is paying the same people that brought us PISS CHRIST and film documentaries on Messed up sexual perversions ... Hey im not prude & I am a professional artist... BUT THOSE PEOPLE ARE MESSED UP IN THE HEAD.....

He is paying them to Twitter and Facebook Push Obama

Amazing so the next time you see some freak defending obama on Twitter when you are wondering if you are going to have health care in 6 months ... Those people are getting PAID to do it

THAT IS SICK
Using our Tax Dollars Against Us because they can Hire a bunch of IDIOTS that care nothing about our country.

Pauline Howe Visited by Police for Hate Crimes (Peacefully Proteting a Gay Parade In a Letter)

Chris Matthews -- "Religious Right Most Like the Taliban" (plus: "Your father would be ashamed of you")

Gaffney To Ronnie: Your Father Would Be Ashamed

Obama Czar Tied To “Radical” Homosexual Group

(OneNewsNow import-h/t)

A conservative organization says "safe schools czar" Kevin Jennings was once a member of a radical "bullying" homosexual activist group.

Calls are mounting for the removal of Kevin Jennings, President Obama's assistant deputy secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools in the Department of Education. Jennings' opponents contend that the founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) has no business being in that position after he publicly admitted that he was aware of the sexual abuse of an underage boy by an adult and did nothing to stop it many years ago. As a matter of fact, according to his book, Jennings encouraged the predatory sexual relationship.

According to Brian Camenker of the pro-family group MassResistance, another fact has surfaced regarding the GLSEN founder. Camenker says Jennings was once a member of Act Up -- a "radical homosexual group" he says "profaned churches, vandalized homes and businesses, and disrupted public events." In addition, he points out that Harvard University is thanking Jennings for providing a grant to help fund a recently opened Act Up exhibit on campus.

"[The exhibit] involves anti-Catholic bigotry, clear examples in anybody's opinion of child pornography...and various sexual perversions," says the Massachusetts family advocate.

Camenker notes it is hard to believe that Harvard is thanking Jennings for helping with the exhibit. He adds that Act Up has been known to participate in perverse activities in Catholic churches, and they have also been known to terrorize office buildings.

At least one member of Congress and several pro-family groups have called for Jennings' resignation. (See earlier article)

New York Times Has Decent Article About the Mojave Cross

Religion Largely Absent in Argument About Cross
October 8, 2009
By ADAM LIPTAK

WASHINGTON — A Supreme Court argument on Wednesday about the fate of a cross in a remote part of the Mojave National Preserve in southeastern California largely avoided the most interesting question in the case: whether the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion is violated by the display of a cross as a war memorial.

The cross in the desert was erected in the 1930s by the Veterans of Foreign Wars to honor fallen service members. Ten years ago, Frank Buono, a retired employee of the National Park Service, objected to the cross, saying it violated the establishment clause.

In the intervening decade, Congress and the courts have engaged in a legal tug of war. Congress passed measures forbidding removal of the cross, designating it as a national memorial and, finally, ordering the land under the cross to be transferred to private hands. Federal courts in California have insisted that the cross may not be displayed.

At Wednesday’s argument, only Justice Antonin Scalia appeared inclined to reach the establishment clause question.

Other justices were interested in the narrower issue of whether the land transfer would be proper.

Still others asked whether Mr. Buono had suffered an injury concrete and direct enough to give him standing to sue. Mr. Buono, who is a Roman Catholic, has said he objects to the display of any permanent religious symbol on government land.

Most of the argument in the case, Salazar v. Buono, No. 08-472, concerned the tangled history of Mr. Buono’s lawsuit. A federal judge in California in 2002 ordered the government to stop displaying the cross, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed that decision in 2004. The government chose not to appeal it to the Supreme Court.

The case before the court arose from a second round of litigation concerning whether the law transferring the land under the cross violated the original order. Much of the argument concerned which issues were still before the court.

The question of the meaning of a cross in the context of a war memorial did give rise to one heated exchange, between Justice Scalia and Peter J. Eliasberg, a lawyer for Mr. Buono with the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California.

Mr. Eliasberg said many Jewish war veterans would not wish to be honored by “the predominant symbol of Christianity,” one that “signifies that Jesus is the son of God and died to redeem mankind for our sins.”

Justice Scalia disagreed, saying, “The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of the dead.”

“What would you have them erect?” Justice Scalia asked. “Some conglomerate of a cross, a Star of David and, you know, a Muslim half moon and star?”

Mr. Eliasberg said he had visited Jewish cemeteries. “There is never a cross on the tombstone of a Jew,” he said, to laughter in the courtroom.

Justice Scalia grew visibly angry. “I don’t think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead that that cross honors are the Christian war dead,” he said. “I think that’s an outrageous conclusion.”

There was a second testy exchange, this one between Mr. Eliasberg and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Mr. Eliasberg said the veterans’ organization was unlikely ever to tear down the cross if the transfer called for by Congress went through, citing a plaque that Congress ordered to accompany the cross.

The chief justice asked for the text of the plaque.

“ ‘This cross’ — in big letters — ‘erected in honor of the dead of foreign wars,’ ” Mr. Eliasberg responded.

A couple of minutes later, Chief Justice Roberts returned to the subject and corrected Mr. Eliasberg. The actual text on the plaque, the chief justice said, was more elaborate: “The cross, erected in memory of the dead of all wars, erected 1934 by members of Veterans of Foreign Wars, Death Valley Post 2884.”

“That’s a big difference,” the chief justice said, explaining that the longer version made clear that the cross was not a government memorial.

Mr. Eliasberg apologized and said he had answered in the context of the question of whether the veterans’ group would “feel constrained to keep the cross up” in light of a plaque referring to a cross.

“The context of my question,” Chief Justice Roberts shot back, “was, ‘What does the plaque say?’ ”

Mr. Eliasberg apologized some more, saying he had not meant to mislead the court.

NewsMax on the Mojave Cross

High Court Hears Arguments About Mojave Cross
Thursday, October 8, 2009

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court appeared divided between conservatives and liberals Wednesday over whether a cross on federal park land in California violates the U.S. Constitution. Several conservative justices seemed open to the Obama administration's argument that Congress' decision to transfer to private ownership the land on which the cross sits in the Mojave National Preserve should take care of any constitutional questions. "Isn't that a sensible interpretation" of a court order prohibiting the cross's display on government property? Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked.

The liberal justices, on the other hand, indicated that they agree with a federal appeals court that ruled that the land transfer was a sort of end run around.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, often the decisive vote in these cases, said nothing to tip his hand.

The tenor of the discussion suggested that the justices might resolve this case narrowly, rather than use it to make an important statement about their view of the separation of church and state.

The cross, on an outcrop known as Sunrise Rock, has been covered in plywood for the past several years following federal court rulings that it violates the constitutional amendment on religion. Court papers describe the cross as being 5 feet to 8 feet tall.

A former National Park Service employee, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, sued to have the cross removed or covered after the agency refused to allow erection of a Buddhist memorial nearby. Frank Buono describes himself as a practicing Roman Catholic who has no objection to religious symbols, but he took issue with the government's decision to allow the display of only the Christian symbol.

Easter Sunrise services have been held at the site for decades.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco repeatedly has ruled in Mr. Buono's favor. Congress has intervened on behalf of the cross, prohibiting the Park Service from spending money to remove the cross, designating it a national memorial and ultimately transferring the land to private ownership.

The appeals court invalidated the 2004 land transfer, saying that "carving out a tiny parcel of property in the midst of this vast preserve -- like a doughnut hole with the cross atop it -- will do nothing to minimize the impermissible governmental endorsement" of the religious symbol. Veterans groups are on both sides of the case, with some worrying that other religious symbols that serve as war memorials could be threatened by a ruling in Mr. Buono's favor.

Jewish and Muslim veterans, by contrast, object that the Mojave cross honors Christian veterans and excludes others.The administration wants the court to rule that Mr. Buono had no right to file his lawsuit because, as a Christian, he suffers no harm from the cross. His main complaint is that others may feel excluded, the government says. Alternatively, the administration says the land transfer took care of any constitutional problem.