Should Christian clubs or oganizations be forced to accept non-Christian members?  That's essentially the question that the US Supreme Court is about to take up.

And it's a question that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals gave the wrong answer to recently... ruling that Christian clubs at universities could not be officially recognized by those schools unless they open up to non-Christian voting members - and even leaders.

Go figure.

The Washington Examiner puts it this way:

Think of it this way: Should a Young Democrats club on a university
campus be compelled to elect Republican officers? Should a student
chapter of PETA be forced to be led by an ardent hunter and taxidermist?

The case revolves around that fact that the group Christian Legal Society has rules that require that its officers and members sign a statement attesting to their Christian faith.  (Imagine!)  Hastings University says they can't do that.  And the Ninth Circuit agreed.  But in a similar case from Chicago, a federal court took the side of the local branch of the same group.  Which brings us to an important test of the 1st Amendment.

I smell another five to four decision in the offing.

A 3rd grade student in New Jersey was recently admonished by her teacher for reading her Bible during class quiet time.  The teacher told the girl that the Bible was not "appropriate reading material" and ordered her to put it away.  The girl then put it in her desk, but the teacher told her she had to put it "in her backpack", (to take it back home).

And, if that weren't bad enough, when the girls mother found out about it, she went to the teacher to complain and, getting no where), went to the school's principal - who backed up the teacher in saying that was "school policy".

The mother finally found someone with some sense when she went to the school district, where she was told the school was wrong and it's fine for her child to bring (and read) the Bible at school.  (The mother wants something in writing...and who can blame her).

And from Massachusetts we have a similar issue where the father of an eight year old boy says his son was sent home from school after he drew a picture showing Jesus on a cross.  After complaining about it and the story became public, the father, who works for the school district as a custodian, has had his hours cut.  And before the kid was "cleared" to go back to school, he was "evaluated" to make sure he wasn't a "threat" to himself or others.  From the story:

A nurse in New York has filed a lawsuit against Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York, after being forced to assist in a late second-trimester abortion.  The hospital knew of her objections and essentially told her she would be fired otherwise.  Specifically, she would be charged with "insubordination and patient abandonment", leading to a possible loss of her job and her license as a nurse.

The woman's attorney stated:

"We're seeing more and more cases where pro-life health workers are facing requirements to assist in abortions against their rights of conscience."

Of course, this comes against the backdrop of the Democrats' attempt to have the federal government take over much of the health care industry in America, which, by definition, includes the people who actually practice medicine.  What kind of protection will those individuals be afforded to avoid doing things that violate their conscious or religious beliefs?  Such as, in this case, abortion, or even doctor assisted suicide - or straight out Euthanasia?

The short answer seems to be little.  Obama himself promised a "robust conscious clause", but this is the same President who used his authority to rescind such protections for medical practitioners that was put in place buy the Bush administration.

And Congress has already had an opportunity to extends such protection as part of the ongoing heath care debate and chose not to.  Specifically, the House rejected an amendment which would have done just that.

In a preview of what a stronger European Union government will look like when it comes to religious freedom, Italians were stunned to hear that the European Court of Human Rights ruled that they had been violating the "religious and educational rights" of their children for generations by forcing them to attend school in classrooms with crucifixes hanging on their walls.

The court's decision came about as a result of a 2002 complaint:

...a Finnish-born mother of two children in the Italian school system objected to the crucifixes in their classrooms. The school principal was unmoved. Italy's Constitutional Court dismissed her complaint. So she filed a case in Strasbourg, France, and now she's won.

The Euro court's ruling hasn't exactly had the intended effect.  In fact, quite the opposite.

The response? Outrage, a swelling popular rebellion, even, against the prospect that because of one woman's agitation, the entire country may have to rid its schools of a treasured symbol that as much bespeaks Italian cultural identity as it does Christ's sacrifice on the cross.

Mayors and town councils across Italy are not only refusing to remove crucifixes from their schools, but are buying new ones and putting them up in places where they don't already hang.

Left-wing judicial activism is running amuck in Obamaland.  Nothing illustrates this more than the decision by a left-wing activist judge in New Hampshire who forced a girl home-schooled by her mother into the public school system.   

In the top story on the front page of "The Washington Times" on September 4th, it was reported that New Hampshire District Judge Lucinda V. Sadler dictated to the mother of a 10-year-old home-schooled girl that her daughter was to attend public schools because of the "rigidity" of the mother's religious views.   The New Hampshire judicial tyrant in her ruling said that the little girl needed to consider other worldviews as she matures.   

As if the fear of big-brother needed to be underlined any further among conservative Christians, we have just that by way of  New Hampshire judge ruling ordering a home-schooled girl to spend some time attending a public school due to the "rigidity" of her mother's religious beliefs.  He suggested that the girl needed to broaden her horizons and consider other worldviews.

Excuse me, but it seems to me that the instruction of children when it comes to beliefs and a "worldview" is the sole prerogative of parents and has nothing whatsoever to do with government.  Or at least that's the way it used to be...and that Americans expect it to be.

But here you go...

The girl's mother, Brenda Voydatch, has engaged the Alliance
Defense Fund, a Christian legal group based in Scottsdale, Ariz., to
contest the ruling, in which the judge granted a request by the girl's
father, Martin Kurowski, that the girl go to a public school.

I have e-mailed all of the government and state senators and represenatives (via PA. for Marriage web site) asking them to protect marriage between a husband and a wife . I received one personal response from Daylin Leach (PA. State Represenative) as follows:

Thank you for your E-mail. Unfortunately, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I believe that we should do for gay couples what we do for straight couples, namely encourage them to enter permanent, stable, monogamous and legally-recognized relationships. It is only by allowing gay and lesbian couples full and equal marriage rights will we begin to erase the stain of discrimination they have lived under. Thank you again for taking the time to E-mail me.... Daylin

Please take hold of this prayer and stand in the gap for America now!

Taking dominion in Prayer for our Nation!

Thus saith the Lord: