Posts on Alliance Defense Fund

It's the Holiday season, so inevitably that means that right-wing legislators and activists are launching their annual effort to save Christmas from the forces of secularism. 

Via AU's Wall of Separation, we learn that Sen. Chris Buttars of Utah is sponsoring a resolution calling on everyone to say "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays" and doing so, he insists, because he's "sick of the Christmas wars":

Sen. Chris Buttars wants Utah's Legislature to declare its opposition to the "war on Christmas."

The West Jordan Republican is sponsoring a resolution encouraging retailers to embrace Christmas in their promotions rather than the generic "holidays."

"It would encourage the use of 'Merry Christmas,'" Buttars said of the non-binding statement that is still being drafted. "I'm sick of the Christmas wars -- we're a Christian nation and ought to use the word."

Several fellow lawmakers he wouldn't yet name support his effort, added Buttars, who has a long history of championing the socially conservative agenda of the Utah Eagle Forum.

I too am sick of the Christmas wars, but it seems that the proper way of handling it is to let people decide for themselves what phrase they want to use instead of demanding that they say "Merry Christmas"  ... in fact, this is exactly the sort of effort that seems destined to simply prolong the "Christmas wars" Buttars is complaining about.

And speaking of the "war on Christmas," it looks Freedom From Religion Foundation is putting up their own holiday signs this year:

In the latest round of what's become almost a winter tradition — conflicts over religious symbols in public places — a group of atheists and agnostics have put up a sign in the state Capitol that says, in part: "Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

Freedom From Religion Foundation members put up the sign Monday, partly in response to a nearby Nativity scene. They also debuted a billboard in downtown Olympia that reads: "Reason's Greetings."

Of course, now people are unhappy about this:

[I]n 2006, Olympia real-estate agent Ron Wesselius saw a menorah displayed inside the Capitol and wanted to put up a Nativity scene. He was denied because he applied too late for the state to research the issues, according to the state Department of General Administration.

Wesselius, working with the Alliance Defense Fund, filed a lawsuit, the state settled, and he put up a Nativity scene in 2007. He put up another one Monday morning — a few steps from the Freedom From Religion Foundation's sign.

"I think people are losing track of what Christmas is," Wesselius said. "It's not about one religion against another religion."

Of the foundation's sign, Wesselius said: "I think they're being a little divisive there in their saying. But they have freedom of speech and equal access."

That's right - in 2006, Wesselius and the ADF sued the state of Washington because he saw a menorah in the Capitol and demanded to be allowed to put up a nativity scene and now he's complaining that other people are being "divisive" and pitting one religion against another and ultimately "losing track of what Christmas" is all about.

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal have a long history dating back to Perkins' days in the state legislature that continues to this day, with Perkins working closely with the Governor during the Hurricane Gustav recovery efforts earlier this year:

Governor Jindal is a friend of mine with whom I worked closely during my time in the legislature when he was the Secretary of the Department of Health and Hospitals. Having the opportunity to work alongside him and his staff in the last several days from sun-up to past sundown, I am greatly encouraged and impressed with his leadership and the dedication of his staff to getting essential relief to the citizens of the state and restoring critical infrastructure.

On Friday, Jindal announced his appointments to the Louisiana Commission on Marriage and Family, and guess who was among those he chose?

Tony Perkins, of Baton Rouge, is the president of Family Research Council, a family advocacy organization.. Perkins will serve as an individual with expertise in community programs and assistance, as required by statute.

As Bayou Buzz put it, "Jindal ran and was elected as a social conservative and a number of his appointments appear to reflect that political agenda" and that includes not only Perkins but also Mike Johnson, senior legal counsel for Alliance Defense Fund.

If Jindal is planning his own presidential run in 2012 should McCain-Palin lose, it is probably safe to assume that he'll have Perkins and the extremely influential Family Research Council in his corner from the get-go.   

For the last several years, the Religious Right has been complaining about GLSEN’s annual “Day of Silence” in which students pledge to “be quiet all day to protest the discrimination, harassment and abuse—in effect, the silencing—faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students and their allies in schools.”

Among those most active in fighting the “Day of Silence” has been the Alliance Defense Fund which launched its own counter mobilization effort called “The Day of Truth” because, as they see it, “the Day of Silence is a misnomer, because what is truly being silenced is the Truth.”

As the ADF explained, their effort differed significantly from the “Day of Silence” because they have no intention to cause any sort of disruption:

“Unlike the Day of Silence, on which students are supposed to refuse to speak to teachers and school administrators, the Day of Truth does not call for students to engage in activities which are likely to disrupt the school’s academic mission,” Sears explained.  “It is a day to speak the truth in a polite, winsome, and attractive manner, not a day to cause hardship.”

Which brings us to this announcement regarding the upcoming Pro-life Day of Silent Solidarity:

On October 21st, people from all over this nation will give up their voices for a day in solidarity for these children. Red arm bands and duct tape will identify them as taking part in the Pro-life Day of Silent Solidarity. They will carry fliers explaining why they are silent and educate others about the plight of the innocent children we are losing every day.

Hmmm … a bunch of students with red tape over their mouths all day, refusing to speak? ADF is probably already organizing a “day of truth” type mobilization to counter this disruptive effort. Or maybe not:

If your school harasses you about participating in the Pro-life Day of Silent Solidarity we can help you.  The lawyers at the Alliance Defense Fund have put together a letter for you which explains your rights.

Make sure and contact the ADF if your school continues to deny your rights. The ADF works for free for you.

Phone: 1-800-TELL-ADF

Fax: 480-444-0025

Website: www.alliancedefensefund.org

Last week we wrote a few posts about the Alliance Defense Fund's "Pulpit Initiative," which took place over the weekend, and Pastor Wiley Drake's planned participation in the effort that so that he could endorse his own campaign. 

The event unfolded as planned and Drake was featured prominently in the press coverage but we've noticed something odd: the ADF has issued a press release trumpeting their efforts and accompanied it with a list of the 31 pastors [PDF] who took part and you'll notice that Drake's name is nowhere to be found.

Was Drake an official participant in the ADF's scheme or was he just using it as an opportunity to get some press coverage for himself? 

It doesn't really matter either way, because he and several of the other pastors who participated got what they wanted, now that Americans United has complaints filed against them.

As we've written about before, the Alliance Defense Fund is organizing a face-off between right-wing churches and the IRS over limits on politicking by churches:

"Christian ministers from California and 21 other states will use their pulpits Sunday to deliver political sermons or endorse presidential candidates – defying a federal ban on campaigning by nonprofit groups."

The ADF and its partners want to turn right-wing churches into one giant GOTV operation for anti-gay, anti-abortion Republicans – all the while remaining 100% tax-exempt. Here's a taste of what a partisan church would be like, courtesy an ADF ally:

"I'm going to talk about the un-biblical stands that Barack Obama takes. Nobody who follows the Bible can vote for him," said the Rev. Wiley S. Drake of First Southern Baptist Church of Buena Park. "We may not be politically correct, but we are going to be biblically correct. We are going to vote for those who follow the Bible.”

That’s the sort of ugly partisanship that Congress sought to avoid when in 1954 it restricted all tax-exempt groups from directly supporting or opposing candidates for public office. Tax-exempt status was created to support charitable, religious, and educational undertakings – not partisan warfare.

Churches and their leaders are of course free to address public policy and mobilize around the issues of the day, including directly supporting legislation. The ADF’s claim that churches are being muzzled is patently false.

This weekend’s publicity stunt by the ADF’s partisan pastors may just result in some of the churches losing their tax-exempt status. Perhaps they could save themselves the effort and be honest with the public by simply reincorporating as political action committees.

Back in July, it was announced that the European Court of Human Rights was going to be taking up the issue relating to Ireland and the right to choose:

The Irish Family Planning Association (IFPA) has today (28/07/08) confirmed that a case to challenge the current status quo on abortion – which it is supporting – has been accepted for consideration by the European Court of Human Rights.

The case, involving three women living in Ireland who travelled abroad for abortion services, was lodged in August 2005 with the Court.

The case centres around four Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. These include Article 8 with regard to the right of privacy in all family, home and personal interests, and entitlement to no public interference from any public authority in exercising this right; Article 3, which protects individuals from ‘inhuman or degrading treatment’; Article 2, which affords protection of the law to safeguard the life of an individual, and Article 14 which affords rights and freedoms without discrimination on any grounds.

According to an article that ran around that same time: “The three women, who said their rights were denied by being forced to seek terminations outside the State, are taking the case in Strasbourg … the three females involved include a woman who ran the risk of a pregnancy developing outside the womb, a woman who had chemotherapy for cancer and a woman who had her children placed in care.”

Though the case seems to have garnered little attention here in the United States, anti-abortion activists have been paying close attention to it and now it looks like two big-name Religious Right groups will be heading across the pond in order to defend Ireland’s restrictive laws in a case they are billing as “the Roe v. Wade of Europe”:

The Family Research Council announced today that that the European Court of Human Rights has granted permission for the organization to defend Ireland's ban on the practice of abortion. FRC will be represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and organizations.

"Family Research Council is proud to be working with the Alliance Defense Fund in this important battle," said Bill Saunders, FRC's Human Rights Counsel and Senior Fellow of the Center for Human Life and Bioethics, "Ireland has wisely chosen to protect its most vulnerable citizens and we will work tirelessly to ensure that unborn children remain protected in Ireland."

"No one should be allowed to decide that an innocent life is worthless.  ADF and FRC are looking forward to defending Ireland's abortion ban so that scores of pre-born children are guaranteed the protection the Irish people gave them," said ADF Chief Counsel Benjamin Bull.  "This case is not only pivotal to Europe; it's pivotal to America.  With greater frequency, the U.S. Supreme Court looks across the ocean to see what other countries are doing when considering its own cases.  This case could be the Roe v. Wade of Europe."

We noted yesterday that the Alliance Defense Fund is moving ahead with its “Pulpit Initiative” effort whereby dozens of pastors and churches will risk their tax-exempt status by openly defying IRS rules against explicitly endorsing candidates from the pulpit – but it looks like at least one high-profile pastor won’t be joining them:

The Rev. Rod Parsley's 12,000-member World Harvest Church in Columbus won't be participating, said Debbie Stacy, director of Parsley's Center for Moral Clarity.

Considering that the church has already had its own run-ins with the IRS and Parsley has already been humiliated on the national stage, it’s not very surprising that he decided to sit this one out.

It looks like the Alliance Defense Fund is moving ahead with its efforts to potentially get dozens of churches stripped of their tax-exempt status: 

Declaring that clergy have a constitutional right to endorse political candidates from their pulpits, the socially conservative Alliance Defense Fund is recruiting several dozen pastors to do just that on Sept. 28, in defiance of Internal Revenue Service rules.

The effort by the Arizona-based legal consortium is designed to trigger an IRS investigation that ADF lawyers would then challenge in federal court. The ultimate goal is to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to throw out a 54-year-old ban on political endorsements by tax-exempt houses of worship.

"For so long, there has been this cloud of intimidation over the church," ADF attorney Erik Stanley said. "It is the job of the pastors of America to debate the proper role of church in society. It's not for the government to mandate the role of church in society."

…

Rather than wait for the IRS to investigate an alleged violation, the organization intends to create dozens of violations and take the U.S. government to court on First Amendment grounds.

"We're looking for churches that are serious-minded about this, churches that understand both the risks and the benefits," Stanley said, referring to the chance that they could lose their coveted tax-exempt status or could set a precedent.

Stanley said three dozen church leaders from more than 20 states have agreed to deliver a political sermon, naming political names.

"The sermon will be an evaluation of conditions for office in light of scripture and doctrine. They will make a specific recommendation from the pulpit about how the congregation would vote," he said.

"They could oppose a candidate. They could oppose both candidates. They could endorse a candidate. They could focus on a federal, state or local election."

Fortunately, the good folks at Americans United are all over this and have already released a brochure debunking ADF’s bogus line of argument:  

The free speech rights of religious leaders are already broadly protected by the U.S. Constitution. Clergy can and do address public policy concerns, ranging from abortion, gay rights and gun control to poverty, civil rights and the death penalty. They may support legislation pending in Congress or the state legislatures, or call for its defeat. They may endorse or oppose ballot referenda. Indeed, discussion of public issues is a common practice in religious institutions all over America.

The only thing houses of worship may not do is endorse or oppose candidates for public office or use their resources in partisan campaigns. This restriction, which is found in federal tax law, is not limited to churches and other religious ministries. In fact, it is applied to every non-profit organization in the country that holds a tax exemption under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contrary to the claims of many in the Religious Right, the IRS is not singling out houses of worship for special regulation. Thousands of educational, scientific, charitable and literary organizations hold the 501(c)(3) status, and all must abide by the legal requirement barring involvement in elections.

Why does this rule exist? The answer is obvious upon a moment's reflection: Non-profit organizations receive tax exemption because their work is charitable, educational or religious. That tax benefit comes with conditions. One requirement is that tax-exempt organizations refrain from involvement in partisan politics. This is a reasonable rule, since tax-exempt groups are supposed to work for the public good, not spend their time and money trying to elect or defeat candidates.

The Rocky Mountain News reports that John McCain and Sarah Palin are heading to Colorado Springs, home of James Dobson and Focus on the Family, for a rally on Saturday and that a long-sought-after meeting between the two just might be a possibility now that McCain has sublimated himself to the Right’s demands:

[Tom Minnery, senior vice president of Focus Action] said Dobson's evolution from being anti-McCain to adamantly supportive of the Republican ticket can be attributed to three things — McCain's "strong responses" at Pastor Rick Warren's summit in Orange County, "the pro-life, pro-family platform adopted by the party," and the selection of Palin.

But despite the change of heart, Minnery said Dobson has not had a meeting with McCain since he became a presidential candidate last year and that he hasn't met personally with Palin .

That could change Saturday when McCain and Palin arrive in Colorado Springs for a rally.

While the McCain campaign and Minnery said no meeting is scheduled, neither left the option off the table.

"Who knows what may happen?" Minnery said. "So far nothing has been planned. But we're happy to see political leaders of any and all stripes."

[UPDATE: Dan Gilgoff reports that there's no meeting planned and Dobson will be out of town.]

The article also relates a rather odd anecdote from Alliance Defense Fund attorney Kevin Clarkson explaining how he got a call from Focus on the Family back in 2006 about concerns that Palin may not have been anti-gay enough and how he assured that that indeed she was:

It was when [Palin] beat Republican Gov. Frank Murkowski in the 2006 primary that Clarkson got a call from Focus on the Family asking him questions about the strength of her social conservative credentials.

"There had been some entries made under her name in Wikipedia that were of concern to them (Focus on the Family)," Clarkson said. "The main one cited in Wikipedia was her veto of a bill that would've limited marriage benefits to married couples."

Clarkson explained that it was a convoluted process that led to the veto. Acting as legal counsel, Clarkson advised Palin to veto the bill that he said, because of confusing legislative machinations and existing court challenges, would've had the opposite effect and locked in benefits for all couples.

Clarkson said he had to explain the whole decision to Focus on the Family to put minds at ease.

Presumably, the veto in question was of HB4001, a bill designed to block a state Supreme Court ruling “giving public employee benefits such as health insurance to same-sex couples.”  In her veto statement, Palin said that the bill was “unconstitutional given the recent Court order … mandating same-sex benefits” and that “signing this bill would be in direct violation of my oath of office.”

How exactly would a bill “prohibiting the commissioner of administration from adopting, allowing to become law, or implementing regulations that grant or extend employment-related benefits to same-sex partners of state employees” really end up locking in “benefits for all couples”?

The only thing “convoluted” about this is Clarkson’s explanation.

It is no secret that, heading into the 2008 election, the Republican Party’s right-wing base is anything but energized about having to vote for John McCain.  Facing dim prospects, the McCain campaign is doing what it can to court the Right, as is the RNC, while Religious Right power-brokers are working overtime to get pastors involved all over the country. 

For instance, a few weeks ago, Kenyn Cureton, the Family Research Council’s Vice President for Church Ministries, appeared on Janet Folger’s “Faith2Action” radio program where he revealed their plans to encourage pastors to speak out leading up to the election and, in his words, “cross the line”:

 “The pastors need to speak clearly about it. I’ll tell you we are working with the Alliance Defense Fund on a series of sermons this fall for pastors to preach, so that they educate their people on the issues.

“We’re gonna be talking about the value of life, the value of family and the value of freedom, basically talking about abortion and stem-cell research,” he continued, “and then also about the gay agenda and then finally about our Christian heritage and how it’s being stripped from every corner of society. And then finally we’re gonna be doing a candidate comparison message that is going to ask pastors to cross the line.”

At the time, it wasn’t know exactly what FRC and the Alliance Defense Fund were planning, but today the ADF revealed that it intends to find preachers who are willing to defy the current tax laws and openly challenge the IRS:

A conservative legal-advocacy group is enlisting ministers to use their pulpits to preach about election candidates this September, defying a tax law that bars churches from engaging in politics.

Alliance Defense Fund, a Scottsdale, Ariz., nonprofit, is hoping at least one sermon will prompt the Internal Revenue Service to investigate, sparking a court battle that could get the tax provision declared unconstitutional. Alliance lawyers represent churches in disputes with the IRS over alleged partisan activity.

The action marks the latest attempt by a conservative organization to help clergy harness their congregations to sway elections. The protest is scheduled for Sunday, Sept. 28, a little more than a month before the general election, in a year when religious concerns and preachers have been a regular part of the political debate.

As Americans United’s Rob Boston put it, “If a few misguided churches want to become cogs in a political machine, they can simply give up their tax exemptions and play by the same tax and election-law rules as everybody else.”   But the Right refuses to do that and has decided, instead, to challenge the constitutionality of the law in the court.

And given the current make-up of the Supreme Court and the likelihood that the next president will be placing one or more justices on the Court, it is quite possible that the outcome of this right-wing legal challenge, should it make it to the high court, will rest heavily on the outcome of the very election they are seeking to influence.

On Saturday, Coral Ridge Ministries—the televangelism empire of the late D. James Kennedy—broadcast a special program to encourage pastors to involve their churches in this year’s elections. While the panelists—Tony Perkins of Family Research Council, Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel, Jordan Lorence of Alliance Defense Fund, and Gary DeMar of American Vision—offered the usual admonishments that there’s no such thing as separation of church and state, the theme of the evening was that Christianity is being “suppressed” in this country by liberals and the “militant homosexual agenda.” Watch "Pastors, Pulpits, and Politics":

This is the persecuted majority syndrome: the idea that it’s a whole lot simpler to convince people to join your political program if you convince them that their faith is “under attack.” This has been one of the Religious Right’s dominant themes over the last few years through campaigns such as FRC’s “Justice Sunday,” a series of televised, church-based rallies to support President Bush’s most radical judicial nominees, who the Right claimed were being opposed because of their religion. Perkins picked up on that theme on Saturday:

The idea that there should be no religious test ... that has been turned on its head to say that if you have a particular faith or denomination in which you actually believe it and apply it to your lives, therefore, if that's the case, you can't serve in government. You have to somehow choose between actually believing in what you believe and serving in government. That's how this is being applied today and it's totally wrong.

And we're losing the Christian foundation of our nation. And if you want to see a totalitarian government, you want to see rights that are lost and freedoms abused, then you lose the Christian heritage of this nation and you go down the path that the liberals are taking us. And that's where it'll be found.

"Shame on Oprah!" cries Alliance Defense Fund lawyer, calling show supposedly featuring porn and adultery "anti-Christian" and "sinful."

D. James Kennedy, who built up Fort Lauderdale, Florida megachurch and television empire over the last half-century, has officially retired, eight months after he was first hospitalized following a heart attack. Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church has nearly 10,000 members, and his broadcast ministry claims 3.5 million listeners and viewers, but he is best known as one of the founding figures of the Religious Right in the early 1980s, known as the “Ivy League Jerry Falwell.”

Kennedy, who once said that “the diabolical mission” of People For the American Way was “to crush the influence of the Christian religion in American society,” became active in political issues from battling pornography, “secularized” education, abortion, and civil rights for gays to supporting Reagan administration policies like SDI, Iran-Contra, and the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. His involvement grew in the 1990s and 2000s, as he organized national conferences for religious-right activism and expanded his influence in Washington.

The 76-year-old Kennedy’s retirement comes just a few months after the death of Jerry Falwell, and again heralds the inevitable passing of the older generation of religious-right leaders -- Falwell, Kennedy, 71-year-old James Dobson, 69-year-old Don Wildmon, and others who built the infrastructure and set the pattern for fundamentalism-charged politics.

Much more on D. James Kennedy’s political career below.

With the retirement of D. James Kennedy, Coral Ridge's "emphasis [on politics] will diminish short term for sure" while it focuses on "increasing its worldwide audience to 30 million by 2012, mainly by expanding its Internet, TV and print presence." Also, FRC and ADF send their regards.

The Alliance Defense Fund reports that "Missouri Governor Matt Blunt’s administration has retained attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund for legal representation after Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit against a new state law" and that ADF considers "it a privilege to legally represent Governor Blunt’s administration in this matter free of charge.”