God Squad Tries, Fails to Get Arrested at Holder’s Front Door
November 17, 2009

Lydia DePillis — The New Republic

“We will not be bullied!” cried Reverend Pat Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition, to a rank of cameras. “We will not be pressured! We will not go silently into the night!”

A black-clad traveling minister from Colorado Springs, Chaplain Klingenschmitt, upped the ante with a press release containing some choice anti-gay Bible verses and a challenge to arrest him for saying that homosexuals are “worthy of death.” “That does not mean that I am going to take action, or that I believe anyone should take action in that way,” he explained, calling the Matthew Shepard Act a “thought-crimes bill.” “My intention is the free exercise of religion. What other peoples’ intention is is up to them.”

Try as they might to pull a Cindy Sheehan, however, no federal sledgehammer descended. The police watched quietly from the perimeter as ministers decried homosexuality as an “abomination,” intervening only to clear gay rights activists off a concrete rise behind the podium (officers confirmed that there was not, in fact, anything the clergymen could have said to get themselves arrested—the act contains explicit protections for religious speech). Still, the ministers pressed on, undaunted by law enforcement’s refusal to persecute them. They hold tight to the belief that the anti-Christian crackdown is coming, because it’s happened before. Michael Marcavage, a young, green-eyed minister hugging a leatherbound Bible to his chest, has lived it.

“It was a public celebration of sin,” he started, referring to Philadelphia’s OutFest in 2004, which he and ten others protested with bullhorns and signs. “That’s exactly what was taking place in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in what they call the ‘gayborhood.’

“Yeeaah,” said a gay rights activist appreciatively.

“We ultimately were met by a militant group of homosexuals,” Marcavage continued. “And these homosexuals had locked arms. And as they locked arms, they prevented us from walking freely down the public sidewalk.” Then, he brought up a fellow crusader—a bowed, graying grandmother named Linda Beckman—to finish the story of how the “Philadelphia Eleven” were arrested, how cold the cell had been, how hard the concrete bench. They were charged with three felonies and five misdemeanors, all of which were dismissed. “We have to stand,” she said in a high, clear voice. “Christians, we have to stand.”

The ministers were there to defend the rights of those who would preach hate, and go to jail if necessary. At some point, they granted in a media Q&A, they might even seek a test case to challenge hate crimes legislation in court. But this, apparently, was not the time. What was billed as a challenge became something more benign: the ministers spent more time trying to convince the gathered gay rights activsts that anything they might say was only out of love—and, well, no one was ever going to arrest them for that.

“As pastors, we do not want people to self-destruct,” preached Pastor Jim Garlow of San Diego, a leader of the Proposition 8 campaign in California. “We care deeply about people, so consequently, we try to urge people not to make lifestyle choices that will ultimately bring them harm. Had people listened to our plea, there would be tens of thousands of people who would not have died of a dreaded disease.”

[…]

“They’re pretty set in their belief systems,” said Pastor Paul Blair of Reclaim Oklahoma for Christ, a towering former NFL player, of his discussion with a bisexual man and a girl holding a rainbow flag. “We had a pleasant conversation with them, but, different worldview.”

The press conference ended with prayer, during which the ministers joined hands and bowed their heads—but the case still had to be made. “Lord, we pray for the homosexual community today,” began Pierre Bynum of the Family Research Council, his eyes closed. “We pray that there will be fewer hate crimes. Lord, according to statistics, there are very very few, anyway there are more homosexual against homosexual crimes than there are crimes by heterosexuals against homosexuals.”

Following the prayer, the band of students had a few minutes of their own at the podium, rebutting the arguments of the last hour and a half by the grace of the podium’s owner (he had donated his profits to a local gay rights organization when he learned the nature of the group that had rented his equipment). The opponents parted amicably.

“What’s your name?” Pastor Rick Scarborough of Vision America asked their speaker, 22-year-old David Valk.

“David,” he replied.

“Well, God bless you David,” Scarborough said.

“God bless you!”

Can You Help Chaps Defend Prayers “In Jesus Name”? Donate Here.

Original Article

Lawyer Alleges Prayers Incite Followers to Commit Violence Against Him
October 14, 2009

Mary Alice Robbins — Law.com

Michael Weinstein, a former lawyer in the Reagan Administration and former general counsel for Ross Perot, alleges in the original petition in Weinstein v. Ammerman, et al. that defendant Gordon Klingenschmitt, on behalf of The Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches and its founder, Elmer Harmon “Jim” Ammerman, also defendants in the suit, issued a “fatwah” against Weinstein in April.

“In other words, Klingenschmitt called upon his followers to commit violence against, or even kill, Michael Weinstein, and even his family,” Weinstein alleges in the petition, filed Sept. 23 in Dallas’ 68th District Court. Weinstein’s wife, Bonnie, joined her husband in filing the suit.

The defendants’ answer is due Oct. 19.

As alleged in the petition, retaliatory actions against the Weinsteins increased after Michael Weinstein founded the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) in 2005 and began questioning and ultimately challenging The Chaplaincy’s right to be an official endorser, or approver, of chaplains. [See the plaintiff’s original petition.]

According to The Chaplaincy’s Web site, the U.S. Department of Defense approved the organization to endorse military chaplains in 1984 and other federal, state and local agencies recognize the organization.

The Weinsteins, who are Jewish, allege in their petition that the MRFF, a nonprofit charitable organization, is devoted to protecting and preserving constitutional religious freedom for the nation’s fighting men and women. According to the petition, the majority of the MRFF’s work deals with the problems of individual members of the armed forces and their families who have been discriminated against in the military.

Dallas attorney Randal Mathis, who represents the couple, says the Weinsteins’ suit tests whether threats made in prayer are constitutionally protected.

“Of course, we think the answer to that is ‘no,’ ” says Mathis, a shareholder in Mathis & Donheiser. “We think these things called prayers cause violence.”

[…]

Klingenschmitt, who served as a U.S. Navy chaplain from 2002 until 2007, says, “My prayers never use the words ‘death’ or ‘violence.’ Those are his [Michael Weinstein’s] embellishments of my words. My words were simply to quote Psalm 109 verbatim.” Klingenschmitt says specifically he quoted from the psalm: “Let his days be few” and “Let his posterity be cut off.”

“My prayer to God is a prayer to God — nothing more,” says Klingenschmitt. who declines further comment. Klingenschmitt refers other questions to his attorney, Austin solo Stephen Casey.

Casey says, “I’m very, very certain the courts are going to recognize the protected nature of Mr. Klingenschmitt’s speech.”

In their petition, the Weinsteins recognize that imprecatory prayers are recognized as part of Judeo-Christian tradition, Casey says. The petition describes imprecatory prayers as “prayers for the Lord to protect the weak and faithful from the strong and wicked.” Courts do not intervene in an area of private communication with God, Casey says.

The Chaplaincy issued a written statement that reads: “Rev. Dr. Jim Ammerman and CFCG, upon advice of counsel, cannot comment on specific allegations raised in the suit against him filed by Mr. Michael Weinstein. Dr. Ammerman believes the allegations are unfounded.”

John Whitehead, president and founder of The Rutherford Institute, says his Virginia-based civil liberties organization is representing The Chaplaincy and Ammerman but plans to use Texas lawyers for the case. Whitehead says Weinstein involves an important free-speech issue.

“If you can stop people quoting Bible verses, you’re going to shut down half the churches, synagogues and mosques in this country,” Whitehead says.

Whitehead also says, “When Martin Luther King spoke, violence erupted in many places. He wasn’t inciting violence. Free speech is the last bastion we have in this country. You can’t shut down speech based on speculation.”

Mathis says his goal is to take Weinstein to the U.S. Supreme Court to find out whether a person enjoys First Amendment protection if he cloaks threats in a prayer.

Mathis says the Weinsteins filed their suit in state court because he thinks they will get to trial quicker there. “I think we’ll have a quicker route to discovery,” he says.

In their petition, the Weinsteins allege that the defendants have made terroristic threats against the Weinsteins and their family in violation of Texas Penal Code §22.07. “These threats were made with the intent to and did cause Plaintiffs to be in fear of imminent physical violence,” the Weinsteins allege.

Also in the petition, the Weinsteins allege causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and conspiracy. The Weinsteins are asking the court to enjoin the defendants from making “further terroristic threats” or from encouraging others to harm the Weinsteins. The petition includes an application for a temporary restraining order to prevent the defendants and others acting with them from “destroying, secreting, altering, amending or deleting documents, either in hard copy form or stored electronically, that would harm the Weinsteins’ ability to prove their case.

Doug Laycock, a religious liberty scholar the University of Michigan Law School and a former professor at the University of Texas School of Law, says he believes the Weinsteins will have difficulty proving their case.

“If the claim is they [the defendants] are praying for God to punish these people, that’s not a cause of action. They can pray for whatever they want,” Laycock says.

He cites the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1969 decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio, a case involving a Ku Klux Klan leader who was convicted under an Ohio criminal syndicalism law for a speech he made at a Klan rally. In its per curiam opinion, the high court held that the Ohio law violated Brandenburg’s right to free speech. Using a two-pronged test, the Supreme Court determined that speech is prohibited if it is directed at inciting imminent lawless action and it is likely to incite such action.

Laycock says a court is going to be skeptical that someone will act on a prayer. “I think it’s going to be hard to prove,” he says.

Can You Help Chaps Defend Prayers “In Jesus Name?” Please Pray About Donating to Our Cause.

Original Article