Update: I have modified this blog in two spots since it has been posted. The title use to read Washington Post Hypocrisy.....and I have modified it to Washington Post Demonize Christians.....and the first subheading had "Hypocrisy" after Washington Post but since the article wasn't that which was hypocritical but rather the liberal media in general I have since revised for pointed out accuracy. I was on a forum and in a discussion over this issue and the one I was arguing with pointed this out. So I thought it needed correction with explanation with all due apology and documentation for future readers and returning readers.-08/14/2008

Unitarian Church Shooting and the Washington Post

Washington Post Uses Unitarian Shooting to Demonize Conservative Christians, Talk Radio-"Given the Post’s one-sided account, could the paper be contributing to a climate of hate against conservative talkers and orthodox religious believers?....Salmon moved on to report about a gathering on July 28 at a Unitarian Congregation of Fairfax in Oakton, Va.: “Bill Welch, the congregation’s minister for programs, talked about how isolating it can be to be a liberal in today’s world of right-wing talk radio and conservative Christians ‘that talk about liberals as if we are bad people.’” Salmon did not bother to quote a talk radio host or Christian conservative in response to the minister’s broad-brushed charge. Nor did Salmon bother to acknowledge that the shooter at the Unitarian church, Jim Adkisson, had also rejected conservative Christianity....Conservative Christians have been the targets of murderous shooters more often than liberals, but the media have not shown the same zeal in identifying possible ideological motives for the murders....A gunman killed four people on December 9, 2007 at New Life Christian Church in Colorado Springs and at the Youth With a Mission center in Arvada, Col. After the shootings, a letter surfaced from the gunman in which he said Christianity was “"hate, abuse (sexual, physical, psychological, and emotional), hypocrisy, and lies." Nevertheless, media speculation about the gunman’s motives centered on his personal problems and the scandal of former New Life pastor Ted Haggard, who had stepped down after an accusation that he used a male prostitute. No ink or airwaves were wasted investigating the impact of relentlessly negative depictions of evangelical Christians or devout Catholics on primetime sitcoms and in films....A gunman yelling anti-Christian epithets massacred seven people at a youth gathering in Wedgwood Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas, on Sept. 15, 1999. The media did not immediately report the killings as a “hate crime,” nor did major media speculate as to whether negative depictions of Christians by the news media, movies and television had anything to do with the mindset of the shooter. No headlines such as “Christian Dedication in the Face of Hatred” graced the front pages of newspaper sections."

Washington Post Spins CDC AIDS Blunder-"What would you call it when a government agency discovers that a major epidemic is spreading 40 percent faster than it previously believed? For The Washington Post, it’s a victory for AIDS prevention. The Centers for Disease Control announced August 2 at a conference in Mexico City that America’s annual HIV infection rate is 40 percent higher than previously reported, 56,300 new cases each year compared to 40,000. As an illustration of media bias, compare the coverage of the two major papers in the nation’s capital. The Washington Times reported the story with a straightforward headline: “CDC underestimated new HIV cases in U.S.” The Post? "AIDS Prevention Having an Effect."

Nancy Pelosi and Obama vs DOMA and since the Media won't tell yah

Media Silent on Pelosi Intent to Kill DOMA -"If Obama becomes President, the Speaker of the House will support his efforts to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, opening the door to same-sex marriage throughout the nation....The Defense of Marriage Act upholds the traditional and centuries-long understanding of marriage – the union of one man and one woman – by freeing federal and state governments of any obligation to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Pelosi’s statement means that if Obama wins the presidency, the two most powerful politicians in the country will be collaborating to radically transform marriage as we know it. Pelosi’s position ought to be big news in an election year, but the media elite have been completely silent. The only report on the subject came from CNSNews.com, one of the divisions of the Media Research Center, the parent organization of the Culture and Media Institute....Pelosi made the statement in response to a question asked by CNSNews.com reporter Josiah Ryan at a press conference on July 31. He asked, “Senator Obama has called for the forward repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and I’m wondering, if Senator Obama is elected President, if you’ll support him in repealing that in the next Congress.” Pelosi responded with a firm “yes.” (For video click here.) Nexis and Google News searches reveal that no major media outlets have reported Pelosi’s comments. In other words, the editors and producers for the networks, national newspapers and weekly magazines have decided that the declaration by America’s leading lawmaker that she will help repeal the Defense of Marriage Act – and thereby force the federal government and states around the country to recognize (by way of expensive litigation no doubt) same-sex “marriage” – is not important. DOMA was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in 1996 under President Bill Clinton."-See Marriage Amendment/African-Americans were determining factor for Bush in 2004? Is this why liberal media silent about this issue? for why media is not reporting on this issue.

Religious Freedom Supreme Court Victories this last week

Florida

Fla. court: Voters should get sayon ending discrimination against faith-based charities-"A Florida court ruled Monday that voters have a right to decide whether to end public funding discrimination against religious individuals and groups for non-religious social services and programs. Alliance Defense Fund allied attorneys represent five religious charities in the Sunshine State. “It’s wrong to deny funding for non-religious purposes to non-profit groups or individuals simply because they are religious,” said ADF Senior Counsel Joe Infranco. “The court made the correct decision when it ruled that Florida voters should have a voice in determining whether the state constitution will continue to allow religious discrimination in public programs.” If approved, Amendment 7 would repeal a section of the Florida Constitution barring individuals and other entities from participating in public programs solely because of their religious nature, while Amendment 9 would amend the constitution to allow limited state support for private education costs. The American Civil Liberties Union and other groups filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent Floridians from voting on either amendment....A copy of the order issued by the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in and for Leon County in Ford v. Browning is available at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/BrowningWin.pdf."-See Obama's Divisive Faith Based Initiative/Update on NM Photography case/www.BoycottMcDonalds.com/Arizona Marriage Amendment and McCain for Obama contrast.

Pennsylvania

3rd Circuit upholds rulingagainst Temple University “speech code”-"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit Monday upheld a federal judge’s ruling against Temple University’s former “speech code,” which prevented a graduate student from expressing his beliefs and opinions in class discussions and campus conversations, violating his First Amendment right to free speech. Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund Center for Academic Freedom represent the student, Christian DeJohn. “Christian and conservative students shouldn’t fear discrimination or censorship by university officials simply for expressing their beliefs. The university is a ‘marketplace of ideas’ where all viewpoints are welcomed, and this significant ruling makes that clear,” said ADF Senior Counsel Nate Kellum. “Universities cannot use vague and overbroad policies to stifle student speech. The 3rd Circuit was right to conclude, as the district court did, that the old ‘speech code’ at Temple University is unconstitutional,” added ADF Litigation Staff Counsel David Hacker. In February 2006, ADF attorneys filed a lawsuit on behalf of DeJohn, who is a sergeant in the Pennsylvania Army National Guard. The lawsuit charged that Temple University’s “speech code” was vague and overbroad, and stifled student speech on campus, such as DeJohn’s religious and conservative views. A federal judge ruled in DeJohn’s favor and issued a permanent injunction against the policy in March 2007 (www.telladf.org/news/story.aspx?cid=4104)....The full text of the 3rd Circuit’s opinion in DeJohn v. Temple University is available at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/DeJohnDecision.pdf."

Colorado

10th Circuit: CLS, ADF attorneys secure victory in Colo. student funding case-"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit held Wednesday that Colorado officials violated the U.S. Constitution by excluding Colorado Christian University and its students from state tuition assistance programs on the ground that the school is “pervasively sectarian.” Attorneys with the Christian Legal Society and the Alliance Defense Fund are on the legal team representing CCU. “Christian schools should not be discriminated against because of their beliefs. Although Colorado argued that the Constitution gives governments a green light to discriminate against religion in the funding context, the 10th Circuit placed a stop sign in their path. The court affirmed that such discrimination is virtually never allowed,” said CLS Center for Law & Religious Freedom Director Gregory S. Baylor. “Religious discrimination has no place under the First Amendment, and the court rightly struck down this discriminatory law,” added ADF Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb....A copy of the 10th Circuit’s opinion in Colorado Christian University v. Weaver is available at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/CCUopinion.pdf."

Illinois

Good News: Court Affirms Chicago Man's Freedom of Speech-"In 2006, a district judge ruled that Granite City, Ill., violated the First Amendment when it prosecuted Donald Horina for placing pro-life literature and Gospel tracts on cars outside an abortion clinic. The Thomas More Society and the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) represented Horina. “Religious liberty has been vindicated and expanded as a result of this ruling," Jason Craddock, who has worked with the Thomas More Society and ADF, said in 2006. “The Constitution requires that citizens be permitted to distribute pro-life and Gospel literature freely, not only near the abortion clinic in Granite City, but wherever the public may otherwise engage in the free exchange of ideas.”

Virginia

Federal Court Rules That Schools Must Stop Discriminating Against “Good News Clubs”-"Today, a federal court ruled in favor of Child Evangelism Fellowship of Virginia (CEF), granting an injunction against the Williamsburg-James City County Public Schools. The court ruled that the school board engaged in unconstitutional discrimination by charging CEF a fee for holding after-school Good News Clubs at area schools, while granting free use to Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and other organizations. Liberty Counsel represents CEF. The opinion pointed out a problem with the school board's policy that "empowers its superintendent to decide which organizations are allowed to have fee waivers without setting forth any concrete standards." The court also cited an appeals court ruling in a case Liberty Counsel won on behalf of another CEF group in South Carolina. "The Fourth Circuit made it clear, in its holding in Anderson, that a fee-waiver given arbitrarily to non-religious organizations by school administrators under the guise of enforcing a vague policy is a violation of a religious organization’s First Amendment rights."

Maryland

Univ. of Md. to changespeech code, speech zone policies-"University of Maryland-Baltimore County officials agreed Friday to modify their unconstitutional “speech code” and “speech zone” policies that restricted a pro-life student group from sharing its message on campus. Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund Center for Academic Freedom filed a lawsuit April 2 on behalf of Rock for Life students against the university after it forced the group to move its pro-life display to less visible locations. “Pro-life students at the University of Maryland shouldn’t suffer discrimination for their beliefs,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Steven H. Aden. “We are encouraged by the university’s decision to change its speech policies so that the constitutional rights of its students will be respected.” After UMBC student Alexander Vernet reserved space for the Rock for Life club’s “Genocide Awareness Project” to be displayed in front of the University Center on April 30, 2007, the university’s Office of Student Life rescinded its permission and made the group move the display numerous times. Once the students relocated the display from the high-visibility University Center to the lower-trafficked Commons building patio area, university officials, backed by campus police, ordered them to move the display to a large vacant field behind the Commons, where even fewer students pass by (www.telladf.org/news/story.aspx?cid=4636). The university says it will remove unconstitutional policy provisions prohibiting “emotional harassment” and “intimidation.” The university also agreed to amend its speech zone policy—eliminating the unlimited power it previously had over student events—and will provide safeguards for First Amendment expression. Rock for Life plaintiffs will go forward to trial to ensure that the university changes the section of its speech code that unconstitutionally infringes on free speech. In addition, the lawsuit, Rock for Life v. Hrabowski, will continue to seek an injunction against the university’s sexual harassment policy, which has also been used to unconstitutionally silence student speech."

Ohio

ACLJ Welcomes Court's Dismissal of ACLU Contempt Charge Against Ohio Judge-"The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) is pleased to announce that a U.S. District Court sitting in Cleveland has formally dismissed a motion brought by the ACLU of Ohio to hold in contempt of court Richland County Judge James DeWeese for displaying in his Mansfield courtroom a poster entitled “Philosophies of Law in Conflict.” The ACLU charged that Judge DeWeese's display of the poster – which graphically compares and contrasts the Ten Commandments with Seven Humanist Principles – violated a 2002 injunction barring him from displaying a poster consisting solely of the Ten Commandments under the caption “Rule of Law.” In its motion to hold Judge DeWeese in contempt, the ACLU claimed that Judge DeWeese was in “public defiance” of the previous court order and, by his actions, was “undermining the administration of justice.” But U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen O'Malley, the same judge who issued the 2002 injunction, disagreed."

Michigan

ADF asks Supreme Court to hearMich. student religious speech case-"Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court Monday, asking the court to consider whether a fifth-grade student’s religious expression on a classroom project may be categorically identified as “offensive” and therefore legitimately censored by Michigan school officials. “Penalizing Christian students for expressing their beliefs in the classroom is unacceptable under the Constitution. The First Amendment exists to protect private speakers, not to enable religious discrimination by government officials,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jeff Shafer. “The court of appeals’ unprecedented classification of student religious speech as an ‘offense’ worthy of censorship should be reversed.”In 2003, fifth-grader Joel Curry, a student at Handley School in Saginaw, Mich., was required to remove a religious message he had attached to homemade candy cane ornaments he made as part of a student project. Curry was participating in an annual school event known as “Classroom City,” in which students develop and “sell” a product at individual booths. Curry was permitted to continue participating in the class activity on the condition that the pamphlets bearing the religious message be removed from his ornaments. Curry’s pamphlets had assigned a Christian significance to the characteristics of candy canes. ADF attorneys filed a lawsuit against the Saginaw School District and the Handley School principal on behalf of Curry in 2004. In 2005, the U.S. Department of Justice wrote a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Curry. In 2006, a federal judge ruled that the school principal had violated Curry’s First Amendment rights. However, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit later decided to the contrary....A copy of the writ of certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Curry v. Hensinger is available at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/CurryWrit.pdf."