How the ACLU and International Law Threatens Our Sovereignty

The video above is from ADF, and is practically a commercial for them, but I don't see anything wrong with that at all. I urge you to go join and donate!

By the way, Kender inspired this post. He wanted to write the blogburst, but his rant inspired me and I wanted to add more. So, I'm gonna use Kender's quotes throughout.

It seems a German citizen claimed that the CIA abducted him, drugged him and sent him to a prison in a third world country where he was tortured and finally released on a hilltop in another country in a case of mistaken identity.

The Supreme Court yesterday dismissed the case without comment after the Bush Administration said that if the case were not dismissed it would threaten state secrets.

What I want to know is WHY a group that calls itself the AMERICAN Civil Liberties Union is so concerned with the civil liberties of a German citizen. The last time I checked our civil liberties did not apply to the citizens of other countries, and the ACLU is not the arbiter of international law.

Last March, the ACLU went crying to the U.N. about how 'evil' the U.S. is.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the U.S. Human Rights Network today urged the U.N. Human Rights Committee to hold the U.S. government accountable for flagrant and repeated violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

"Locally, nationally and globally, the United States has repeatedly failed in its responsibility to uphold basic human rights," said Ann Beeson, Associate Legal Director of the ACLU. "We are appealing to the international arbiters to hold the U.S. accountable to basic human rights standards."

As sickening as this is; it is only one step in the ACLU’s agenda to undermine America’s sovereignty and freedom that so many soldiers have sacrificed and died to preserve. The ACLU are obviously frustrated by their inability to advance their radical agenda more quickly under the U.S. Constitution, and are now determined not only to convince the American judiciary to look to international law, but also to use it as a means to their ends. They hold it as a higher authority than our own Constitution and are more than willing to sacrifice our sovereignty in their pursuit to radically force change on America to fit their own radical views.

The sad thing is that they don’t have to try very hard to convince our judiciary. While they lost ground in the case above, they win enough to make it scary. Last year, former ACLU lawyer, and current Supreme Court Justice, Ruth “Snoozer” Ginsburg gave a speech that argued explicitly for the relevance of foreign law and court decisions to interpretation of the American Constitution. She isn’t the only Justice that buys into this philosophy. FIVE Justices believe that international law should bear weight in interpreting our constitution.

The ACLU don’t hide this agenda, they are proud of it.

The ACLU sponsored a conference at the Carter Center in Atlanta, Georgia, October 9-11, 2003, to promote the use of international law in U.S. courts. The conference was titled “Human Rights at Home: International Law in U.S. Courts.” Publicist for the event stated, “The emphasis throughout the conference will be on using international law and human rights norms to advance justice in U.S. courts or on behalf of U.S. clients.” Some of the alleged human rights “injustices” cited were in the areas of “environmental justice,” “gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights,” and “children’s rights.”

ACLU publicity included comments from ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero and conference organizer Ann Beeson. Romero said, “Our goal is no less than to forge a new era of social justice where the principles of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights are recognized and enforced in the United States.”

Beeson added, “From the grassroots level all the way to the Supreme Court, international human rights law is beginning to emerge as a tool for the victims of discrimination here at home.”

The ACLU’s rhetoric and efforts to use international law to rewrite, undermine, and bypass the Constitution has already gone beyond academic debate into the realm of actual use. As stated earlier, there are plenty of judges that have already adopted the philosophy and the ACLU are already participating in court cases where the judge uses international law in their decisions. It isn’t only at the federal level, but has penetrated even into the state level.

All through the confirmation process of Justice Alito, the ACLU and leftards were screaming that Alito was a racist bigot that would undermine judicial precedent. However, this judicial philosophy has more potential to undermine judicial precedent than any current philosophy being espoused, and it has already proven to do so. The purpose of the judicial branch is to interpret the law and determine if laws are constitutional. There are several major flaws in the use of international law in our courts. Not only does it undermine the very authority of the Constitution deeming it impotent of any power, but it also gives the judicial branch a power that was never intended to be granted to it; the power to write law. Followers of this philosophy view the Constitution merely as a persuasive authority, equated with foreign law, to be relied upon if they are in line with her predetermined beliefs. It doesn’t really matter if their beliefs are inconsistent with the Constitution itself, they can simply find a foreign law that is.

New rights, such as gay rights, or abortion should not be stretched from our Constitution that never granted them. If new rights like these are to be given, then the people should have some say in that. There is a process set in place by the founders to do just this. They should be granted through law or a constitutional amendment. They should not be granted via judicial fiat.

Besides the issues within our own judicial system and its decay, the ACLU is also turning to international sources to undermine our nation’s sovereignty and national security.

For instance, the ACLU filed a formal complaint with the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention against the United States, stating that the United States violated international law when it detained 765 Arab Americans and Muslims for security reasons after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on our nation. Eventually, 478 were deported. ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said, “With today’s action, we are sending a strong message of solidarity to advocates in other countries who have decried the impact of U.S. policies on the human rights of their citizens. We are filing this complaint before the United Nations to ensure that U.S. policies and practices reflect not just domestic constitutional standards, but accepted international human rights principles regarding liberty and its deprivations.” Source

Romero, of course, makes the United States sound like some rogue nation with no regard for human rights, not the beacon of liberty that so many have come to escaping from tyranny and the bonds of oppression.

Right now, Britain is practically banning freedom of speech and the Bible in the name of gay rights and tolerance.

“Inciting homophobic hatred will become illegal, the justice secretary, Jack Straw, announced last night, following a campaign by gay rights groups. The introduction of an offence of rallying hatred against gays and lesbians follows similar measures to tackle religious hate crime, which were passed earlier this year after lengthy rows over freedom of speech.

“It is a measure of how far we have come as a society in the last 10 years that we are now appalled by hatred and invective directed at people on the basis of their sexuality. It is time for the law to recognise this,” said Mr Straw, introducing the second reading of the criminal justice and immigration bill.

If you can't imagine the ACLU helping make the same thing happen here, you need to wake up. All of this should concern you. You may think that it doesn’t directly affect you in your everyday life, but it will eventually. The ACLU’s embrace of international law seeks to hypocritically do the opposite of what the ACLU claim to protect, and the Constitution forbids; prohibit the free exercise of religion.

In spring 2003, a group from the United Nations Human Rights Commission, of which former ACLU officials Paul Hoffman and John Shattuck are a part, met and discussed a resolution to add “sexual orientation” to the UNHRC’s discrimination list. Homosexual activists at the meeting called for a “showdown with religion,” clearly intending to use international law to silence religious speech that does not affirm homosexual behavior. Source

After the first amendment, the next thing you can kiss goodbye with international law is the second amendment.

It is a direct threat to our very freedom of speech, and religious exercise. In some countries, laws are being pushed, and in some cases, enacted that essentially criminalize forms of religious speech and activity that does not affirm homosexual behavior.

Another rant from Kender:

The ACLU, the NYT and other groups and organizations that fight against our government on the GWOT are basically attacking freedom and the safety and security of this nation, putting Americans in harms way in their misguided attacks on our governments attempt to track and deal with terrorists.

What I want to know is this;

When the islamists get control and impose sharia law, will the ACLU have the balls to stand up and say “no way achmed”, or do you think it more likely that they will realize that speaking against the caliphate is a death sentence?

I am betting they will shut up and become good little dhimmis.

If we are going to turn the interpretation of our laws to international jurisprudence, and decisions of foreign courts, judges, and legislatures, the question begs...why did we fight a war of independence? If the ACLU are successful in their agenda for international law, the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution will eventually become irrelevant documents. More and more of America's freedoms, and our very sovereignty will be sacrificed for international law. Our freedoms will vanish. The ACLU's vision of freedom that includes the public sale of child pornography, the silencing of churches and ministries, and unlimited abortion and euthanasia will replace them.

Get involved. Donate and support organizations like the Alliance Defense Fund and the ACLJ that are out there fighting the ACLU's agenda. Contact your representatives and Senators and tell them to support Constitution Restoration Act that would put an end to the use of foreign law in our courts. Tell them to support the The Public Expression of Religion Act which would put a stop to taxpayer funding of the ACLU in establishment clause case. Sign Our Petition To Stop Taxpayer Funding Of The ACLU. Pray that America wakes up before its too late.

Crossposted from Stop the ACLU

U.S. Christian Camp Loses Tax-Exempt Status over Same-Sex Civil-Union Ceremony

By John Jalsevac

OCEAN GROVE, N.J., September 19, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) -

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) announced on Monday that it was stripping the Methodist Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of its tax-exempt status for part of its property. The Methodist camp made the news earlier this year after it refused, for religious reasons, to allow a lesbian couple to hold a "civil-union" ceremony at a pavilion on the camp's property.

We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

Wow. That lasted all of 60 years before they decided to crap on it!

The pavilion, said Scott Hoffman, the camp's chief administrative officer to LifeSiteNews, "is a facility we have used exclusively for our camp meeting mission and worship celebrations since 1869."

Until recently the camp held tax-exempt status on its entire boardwalk property under a New Jersey program that gives tax-breaks to organizations that open up their property to the general public.

In June, however, Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Pester, a lesbian, filed a complaint with the state attorney general's office on the basis of sexual orientation discrimination, after Ocean Grove refused to allow them to hold their "civil-union" ceremony at the camp's pavilion. A second lesbian couple has also sued Ocean Grove. New Jersey's anti-discrimination laws currently forbid those who "offer goods, services, and facilities to the general public" from "directly or indirectly denying or withholding any accommodation, service, benefit, or privilege to an individual" on the basis of sexual orientation.

"It is clear that the pavilion is not open to all persons on an equal basis," DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson, wrote to the camp on Monday, in announcing the DEP's decision to revoke the camp's tax-exempt status.

"When people hear the words 'open space,' we want them to think not just of open air and land, but that it is open to all people," Jackson continued. "And when the public subsidizes it with tax breaks, it goes with the expectation that it is not going to be parsed out, whether it be by activity or any particular beliefs."

In otherwords, "all your church are belong to us."

Currently, however, there is some confusion over just how much of the camp's property no longer has tax-exempt status. As such, one homosexual advocacy group is threatening to appeal the DEP's decision, saying that it doesn't go far enough, reports the AP. "We're looking for a bigger victory here," said Steve Goldstein, the chairman of Garden State Equality. "We have the symbolic victory of the state telling Ocean Grove they're wrong, but there is a bigger victory to be had by having the entire tax-exemption removed. We're happy, but there's a lot more happiness to be had."

Any doubts that Steve Goldstein is a firm believer in so-called separation of church and state?

According to the Neptune Township tax assessor, the revocation of the tax-exempt status on the pavilion will only cost Ocean Grove about $175/year, although Scott Hoffman has reportedly issued a statement claiming that the DEP's decision in fact appears to revoke tax-exempt status for "over 99 percent of the land." Hoffman said that Ocean Grove's lawyers are currently reviewing the decision.

In August, the Christian camp preempted the complaints currently pending against it by itself suing New Jersey state officials. According to the Alliance Defense fund, which is representing the camp, the attorney general's office is violating First Amendment protections by investigating Ocean Grove. "Religious groups have the right to make their own decisions without government interference," said Brian Raum, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund. "The government can't force a private Christian organization to use its property in a way that would violate its own religious beliefs."

I seem to remember not all that long ago, the homosexual community claiming they have no intentions of attempting to force their agenda on the churches and that no religious organization would be coerced to recognize homosexual unions or perform such ceremonies if they conflicted with their religious beliefs.

I hope this is the case taken to SCOTUS. With the ADF involved, it just may be.


See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Methodist Camp Meeting Association Sues New Jersey for Civil Union Investigation
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/aug/07081501.html

Lesbian Couple Files Complaint against Church for Refusing Civil Union Ceremony
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jul/07071011.html


Crossposted at Stop the ACLU

Court Forces Michigan High School to Give Bible Club Same Benefits as Gay Club

FARMINGTON, September 12, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) -

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm today announced that United States District Judge Victoria A. Roberts has entered a permanent injunction granting equal rights to a Bible club and its members at Farmington High School in Farmington, Michigan.

The Law Center represents ALIVE, a voluntary student Bible club, its president and co-founder, Aaron Grider, and his parents. In 2006, Grider had requested that ALIVE be recognized by the school as a noncurriculum-related student group and receive the same treatment and benefits that other noncurriculum-related student groups receive at Farmington High School. In the past, Farmington High School has recognized several noncurriculum-related student groups, including the Gay Straight Alliance, R.E.A.C.H. (a diversity club), and S.A.D.D. (Students Against Drunk Driving).

School officials denied Aaron's request. Unlike recognized noncurriculum-related student clubs, school officials allowed ALIVE to meet informally before school, but did not allow ALIVE to advertise over the school's public address system, on the school's bulletin boards, on the school's website, in the school's yearbook, or over the school's internal television network, and they did not allow the club to use the school's photocopying machines.

The Law Center filed a lawsuit in federal court in Detroit, Michigan, and raised claims that school officials had violated plaintiffs' rights under the Federal Equal Access Act, the Michigan Equal Access Act, and the federal constitution.

Before the start of the school year, which began on September 4, 2007, plaintiffs filed motions seeking a court injunction to ensure that ALIVE and its members would be treated the same as other noncurriculum-related groups are treated at Farmington High School. Last week, Judge Roberts issued a permanent injunction in favor of plaintiffs and required school officials to provide ALIVE the same benefits, treatment, and privileges enjoyed by other noncurriculum-related student clubs.

According to Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, "The judge's order should highlight to all school officials in Michigan and in other states that once a public high school allows one noncurriculum-related student club to meet on campus, they cannot discriminate against a Bible club. A Bible club must be permitted the same rights as other student clubs."

Judge Roberts determined that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims under the Federal and Michigan Equal Access Acts, and, therefore, she did not need to consider the constitutional claims. Judge Roberts stated that "it appears clear that ALIVE has been treated differently than other student groups 'on the basis of' the religious content of their speech."

Judge Roberts also determined that because plaintiffs have been denied equal access to the school in violation of the Federal Equal Access Act, based on plaintiffs' religious viewpoint since at least October 2006, that the plaintiffs would be irreparably harmed this school year without an injunction to ensure that their rights as a club are protected.

Commented Edward L. White III, trial counsel for the Thomas More Law Center handling the case: "Judge Roberts's permanent injunction will protect the rights of ALIVE and its members this school year and thereafter. These students will be able to enjoy all the benefits that other noncurriculum-related student clubs enjoy at Farmington High School."

Iowa Gay Marriage Applications Halted

By DAVID PITT
^AP Associated Press

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) —

Same-sex marriage was legal here for less than 24 hours before the county won a stay of a judge's order on Friday, a tiny window of opportunity that allowed two men to make history but left dozens of other couples disappointed after a frantic rush to the altar.

At 2 p.m. Thursday, Judge Robert Hanson ordered Polk County officials to accept marriage license requests from same-sex couples, but he granted the stay at about 12:30 p.m. Friday. By then 27 same-sex couples had filed applications, but only Sean Fritz and Tim McQuillan of Ames had made it official by getting married and returning the signed license to the courthouse in time.

In the front yard of the Rev. Mark Stringer, pastor of the First Unitarian Church of Des Moines, they become the only same-sex couple wed in the U.S. outside of Massachusetts, where some 8,000 such couples have tied the knot.

Stringer concluded the ceremony by saying, "This is a legal document and you are married." The men then kissed and hugged.

"This is it. We're married. I love you," Fritz told McQuillan after the ceremony.

No more same-sex weddings will be recognized, and no more applications will be accepted, pending Polk County's appeal of Hanson's ruling to the Iowa Supreme Court, County Attorney John Sarcone said.

Hanson's order had applied only to the county, but because any Iowa couple could apply for a license, people from across the state rushed to Des Moines, only to see fluorescent green signs explaining the stay and adding, "Sorry for the inconvenience."

Lytishya Borglum and partner, Danielle Borglum, drove 2 1/2 hours from Cedar Falls, along with their 13-month-old daughter, Berlyn. They planned to apply in Polk County and told their pastor in Cedar Falls to be ready to marry them when they returned.

"(We) plan to take the application home and pray that things change. Even though it is a setback, it is a step in the right direction," Lytishya Borglum said.

She said they would like to get legal status to gain more rights but added, "As far as we're concerned, our marriage is between us and God. We've been married for three years — if you ask us."

Accepting marriage licenses from same-sex couples has been illegal under a 1998 state law that permitted only a man and a woman to marry.

Hanson, ruling in a case filed by six same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses in 2005, declared the law unconstitutional Thursday. He ruled that the marriage laws "must be read and applied in a gender neutral manner so as to permit same-sex couples to enter into a civil marriage."

The marriage license approval process normally takes three business days, but Fritz and McQuillan took advantage of a loophole that allows couples to skip the waiting period if they pay $5 and get a judge to sign a waiver.

Other couples, even those who got an early start Friday, were out of luck. Katy Farlow and Larissa Boeck, students at Iowa State University, said they got to the county recorder's office at 5 a.m., then sat in lawn chairs and ate snacks until the office opened at 7:30 a.m. They got their application in but didn't get their license.

"This might be our only chance," Farlow said. "We already knew we were spending the rest of our lives together."

Hanson granted the stay after Sarcone filed a motion saying his ruling should be put on hold because lifting the ban was far reaching and would likely be overturned by the Iowa Supreme Court.

Hanson wrote that Sarcone's arguments "do indeed constitute good cause for the issuance of the requested stay."

Plaintiff's attorney Dennis Johnson had argued that the county's appeal probably would not succeed and disputed its contention that a reversal would throw any licenses issued into legal doubt.

He said a marriage license is valid until one or both of the spouses seek to have it dissolved or one dies, "regardless of changes in the law that may occur after the couple marries."

It's obvious that the ACLU won this case if this lawyer can make such a stupid statement.

The Iowa Supreme Court can refer the case to the Iowa Court of Appeals, consider the matter itself or decide not to hear the case. The flurry of activity in the courts prompted a quick response from some lawmakers. House Republican leader Christopher Rants called on Democrats, who hold a majority of seats in the Legislature, to respond.

"The Democrats should call a special session immediately to take up such issues and to introduce a marriage amendment for Iowa's constitution," he said in a statement. "House Democrats need to start leading or get out of the way."

Language defining marriage as being between a man and a woman has been written into the constitutions of 27 states, according the National Conference of State Legislatures. Most other states have laws to the same effect; Iowa's was approved overwhelmingly by the Legislature in 1998.

Gov. Chet Culver on Thursday issued a statement stating his opposition to gay marriage and said he would wait for the court process to play out before considering any push for legislative action.

"While some Iowans may disagree on this issue, I personally believe marriage is between a man and a woman," Culver said.

Gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts, and nine other states have approved spousal rights in some form for same-sex couples.

Associated Press writers Henry C. Jackson, Amy Lorentzen and Nafeesa Syeed contributed to this report.

Polk judge rules against (Iowa) gay marriage ban

Crossposted from STOP the ACLU


I don't even want to get into the gay marriage debate here, except to note that most of the time when this kind of thing is "ordered" and forced on the people by the judicial branch it only results in backlash, new legislation, and making it even more difficult down the road for their advocates. Anyway...here is the news thats sure to make the primary explosive!

A Polk County judge on Thursday struck down Iowa’s law banning gay marriage.

The ruling by Judge Robert Hanson concluded that the state’s prohibition on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and he ordered Polk County Recorder Tim Brien to issue marriage licenses to several gay couples.

“It’s a moral victory for equal rights,” said Des Moines lawyer Dennis Johnson, who represented six gay couples who filed suit after they were denied marriage licenses.

Camilla Taylor, an attorney with Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization, said the ruling requires “full equality for all Iowans including gay and lesbian Iowans and their families.”

“The Iowa Constitution has lived up to its promises of equality for everyone,” she said.

The county is expected to appeal the ruling to the Iowa Supreme Court.

Brian at Liberty Pundit:

Obviously, this will eventually wind up in the Iowa Supreme Court…it might even go beyond that. Eventually there will be an amendment offered to the Iowa Constitution, but I highly doubt it will pass. Stranger things have happened, though.

Men giving away Bibles cleared of charges

© 2007
WorldNetDaily.com

A Florida judge has dismissed all counts against two members of The Gideons International who were arrested while handing out Bibles on a public sidewalk outside a school, officials with the Alliance Defense Fund said.

"Christians cannot be treated as second-class citizens," said ADF senior legal counsel David Cortman. "These two men have the same constitutional rights as everyone else to pass out literature on a public sidewalk.

"We are pleased that the court agrees that these men should not have been arrested and dismissed the charges against them," he said.


The case has been handled by the legal alliance, which defends the right to hear and speak the truth through strategy, training, funding and litigation, since shortly after Ernest Simpson and Anthony Mirto were arrested.

They had been charged with trespassing after the principal complained that they were handing out Bibles.

The initial counts were dismissed at the request of the ADF shortly after the law firm got involved, but then authorities filed a second round of counts, under a different law that prohibits anyone from being within 500 feet of any school property, including on public sidewalks and streets, without having either "legitimate business" or permission.

"Why is Florida so interested in prosecuting people who hand out Bibles?" the ADF had wondered at the time. "Does the state now believe that its citizens will be safer if 'protected' from Bibles? In a country founded on religious freedom, the actions of the State are a disgrace."

As WND originally reported, Mirto and Simpson of Monroe County were arrested, charged with trespassing, and booked into jail after the school principal, Annette Martinson, called police.

They were verbally assaulted and badgered by the arresting officer, according to court filings in the case, and sustained injury to their wrists when he handcuffed them with their hands behind their backs and detained them in a closed, un-air conditioned car for nearly an hour in 90-degree heat.

"The distribution of Bibles on a public sidewalk is not a criminal offense," Cortman said then. "The attempts by Florida officials to continue pressing for the prosecution of Mr. Mirto and Mr. Simpson is not only blatantly unconstitutional, it borders on religious persecution."

The incident Jan. 19 developed as the two men were distributing Bibles outside Key Largo School.

While the original trespassing counts were unreasonable, the second round put the state of Florida in the "untenable position of trying to justify the punishment of fundamental First Amendment activities in a quintessential traditional public forum," the ADF described.

On the face of the statute cited by the prosecutor, people driving by the school on the highway technically are in violation of the law, unless they have an exemption, and if the same exemption doesn't apply to the two members of Gideons International, then that creates a content-based speech restriction, which also isn't proper, Cortman said.

In fact, if anyone may have stepped beyond the law, the filing suggests, it was the arresting officer from the Monroe County sheriff's office.

"There was no call for Officer [John] Perez's angry demeanor, his inappropriate handling of the situation, his abusive treatment of the Gideons, his stopping and arresting them while they were in the process of leaving, his unnecessary towing of the car (parked where many other cars were parked), his handcuffing the men behind their backs, his leaving them cramped in a hot car for nearly an hour (which should never be done to animals, never mind to human beings), nor his mocking the Gideons' religious beliefs stating 'now you can pray to Jesus all the way to jail,'" the ADF said.

In a statement at the outset of the case to WND, Becky Herrin, of the public information office in the Monroe County sheriff's office, stated as a fact that the defendants in the case did trespass. She later declined additional comment.

"A copy of our police report (see attached) clearly states that the people in question were arrested for trespassing on school property – not on a public sidewalk In fact, they were given the opportunity to step off school property and onto public property, and they could have continued with their activities if they had done so. They chose instead to remain, against repeated warnings, on school property so deputies were forced to arrest them," Herrin said in a statement to WND.

But the report forwarded to WND revealed the two were arrested while in their vehicle parked near, but not on, school property.

I posted on this back in February



Glib Fortuna posted about the charges being dropped and re-filed in April



Burn the U.S. flag and it's protected "free speech"



submersing a Crucifix in a jar of 'piss' is considered "freedom of expression"



Flush a Koran and be charged with a "hate crime".



Teaching the 'gay agenda' to Christian students is ordered by the court


But passing out free Bibles will get you arrested.


I keep hearing that Christianity is being targeted in our society... where do they get ideas like that?