In a recent article on Fox News, Christian student organizations may be forced to meet in secret at Vanderbilt University, as college officials are enforcing a nondiscrimination policy that bans organization leaders from holding specific beliefs.

So far, four Christian organizations on campus have been told by the university that they are in violation of the policy, and they are in danger of losing their registered student group status.  This comes after Vanderbilt University conducted an investigation of a Christian fraternity, Beta Upsilon Chi, and found the organization discriminated against a student based on sexual orientation.  Additionally, another group, the Christian Legal Society, was asked to remove Bible verses and the words, “Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior” from their constitution.

The real issue at stake here is religious liberty.  Denying an organization the right to worship freely or being able to stand up for what their faith teaches them is wrong, and it is persecution.  According to Professor Carol Swain, who advises the Christian Legal Society:

“There are people on campus who are very threatened by the idea of religious freedom and they would like to create an environment where no one hurts anyone else’s feelings – unless it’s Christians.”

What would our founding fathers think of what is happening at Vanderbilt?  They would probably think this is a travesty.  After all, they fled from the religious persecution in England by coming to America, where they could worship freely without being forced to attend the King’s church.

In fact, when our founding fathers drafted the Constitution, they made certain that religious liberty would be protected in our country.  The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (Bold, emphasis mine)

Vanderbilt’s decision to ban student religious organizations is a violation of the First Amendment, but it is limiting the group’s ability to worship freely, as our founding fathers envisioned.

Comments: - |

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 31, 2011
CONTACT: J.P. Duffy or Darin Miller, (866) FRC-NEWS or (866) 372-6397

FRC Blasts Supreme Court for Allowing Decision to Stand that Removes Roadside Crosses in Six States
October 31, 2011

SCOTUS Lets Stand One of Worst Religious Liberty Assaults in American History

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Family Research Council (FRC) strongly criticized the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision today to let stand one of the worst religious assaults in all of American history. The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear Davenport vs. American Atheists will now result in the removal of 14 crosses bearing the names of fallen Utah state troopers that have been placed at roadside locations. In addition to Utah, the cross removal order will affect five other states including Kansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Wyoming.

The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case could have significant implications for national memorials and monuments across the nation, including, but not limited to, the crosses on headstones in Arlington Cemetery.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins responded with these comments:

“The Supreme Court has failed to recognize that religious liberty is a fundamental right given to us by God and protected in the Constitution. I find it tragic that our freedoms are now at greater risk from our own courts than from the foreign or domestic enemies we’ve faced,” concluded Perkins.

Director of the Center for Religious Liberty at the Family Research Council Ken Klukowski co-authored FRC’s brief in the case with Professor Nelson Lund. Of the case, Klukowski said:

“The U.S. Supreme Court decided today to let stand one of the worst court decisions on religious liberty in American history. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered removal of roadside crosses in six states is the worst example yet of the Establishment Clause being turned on its head to sterilize the public square of references to faith.

“Freedom of religion means, in part, that no government should discriminate against those who, using their own funds, wish to erect a non-invasive religious display on public property,” concluded Klukowski.

To read FRC’s amicus brief, click here: http://www.frc.org/davenport

-30-

Comments: - |

Yesterday here at FRC headquarters, a sobering panel of religious freedom & foreign policy experts looked at the past, current, and potential impact of U.S. foreign policy upon religious freedom around the world.

Watch the panel below, or visit the event page for audio and embed code.

Participants included:

• Elyse Anderson, Foreign Policy Director for Congressman Frank Wolf (R-Va.)
• Ann Buwalda, Executive Director, Jubilee Campaign
• Dr. Thomas Farr, first Director of the State Department’s office of international religious freedom and Director of the Religious Freedom Project at the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs and Visiting Associate Professor of Religion and International Affairs at Georgetown’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service
• Emmanuel Ogebe, Nigerian attorney and human rights leader
• Tina Ramirez, Director of International and Government Relations, The Becket Fund

Comments: - |

On September 8, 2011, Cathy Ruse, Senior Fellow for Legal Studies at the Family Research Council joined New York City Councilman Fernando Cabrera on the steps of City Hall to deliver over 62,000 petitions urging Mayor Michael Bloomberg to allow first responders and clergy to participate in the September 11^th Memorial Service. Click here to read Cathy Ruse’s remarks at the press conference.

Comments: - |