By Steve Crampton, Chief Counsel, AFA Center for Law and Policy
March 2001 – In San Francisco, the government officially pronounced the Truth in Love campaign, which shared the gospel of Jesus Christ with homosexuals, hateful rhetoric. Truth in Love was co-sponsored by Focus on the Family, the American Family Association, Coral Ridge Ministries, Family Research Council, and others. The City said that calling homosexuality a sin leads to violence against homosexuals, and the ministries were partly to blame for the murder of Matthew Shepard, the homosexual beaten to death in Wyoming. The City prevailed upon local television stations not to run ads for the campaign.
In New York City, Pastor Kristopher Okwedy rented a billboard to display four translations of Leviticus 18:22 ("Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination."). The bottom of the sign said simply, "I AM YOUR CREATOR." Staten Island Borough President Guy Molinari wrote the billboard company a strongly worded letter, reminding the company that it did significant business with the City. Molinari also condemned the message--the unadulterated Word of God--as "unnecessarily confrontational and offensive" and as conveying "an atmosphere of intolerance which is not welcome." In response, the billboard company immediately breached its contract and removed the sign.
In Newton, Massachusetts, the Mayor recently declared that certain conservative groups opposed to the promotion of the homosexual agenda in the public schools threaten human rights, and the City will therefore "stand up to them until their voices are heard no more."
At Temple University in Philadelphia, the "City of Brotherly Love," a Christian student was physically assaulted by university officials who then attempted to have him involuntarily committed to a mental hospital merely because he opposed a blasphemous pro-homosexual play.
Other examples of government actions against religion abound. While government officials claim to support tolerance, the growing intolerance of religion generally and Christianity in particular is alarming.
Over 50 years ago, the United States Supreme Court ruled that "no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in . . . religion." The current test for Establishment Clause violations states that government may neither endorse nor disapprove of a particular religion or religious belief, but must remain neutral. For our nation's first 150 years, the courts found no prohibition on government action regarding religion. Thereafter, Establishment Clause violations were found when government provided aid to religion. Cases concerning government hostility toward religion were nonexistent.
Today, cases striking religious practices in public places abound (e.g., school prayer, creche displays in public parks, public display of the Ten Commandments, etc.). Indeed, so careful are federal courts to guard against any vestige of religion in the public square that they have even stricken a display of portions of the Declaration of Independence, the preamble to a state constitution, and the national motto ("In God We Trust") from the walls of a public school because it "endorses religion" and "attacks . . . the religious diversity that is our national heritage." This trend, while becoming more extreme in its particulars, is at least consistent with the general tenor of past Establishment Clause cases.
Of far greater concern, however, is the growing movement toward overt hostility to religion. As universal experience and the above examples prove, the government frequently manifests overt hostility toward religion today, especially the Christian religion.
The AFA Center for Law & Policy has filed suit in federal court in both the San Francisco case and the New York case raising this very issue of hostility. In New York, no ruling has yet been issued. In San Francisco, though, the trial court ruled that far from violating the principle of neutrality, the City "merely exercised its duty as a public body to address a matter allegedly relating to public safety." The court also decreed that simply "draping opinions" in religious terms does not insulate them from government condemnation--in other words, the court found we were hypocrites.
Such a ruling by a federal court itself displays a remarkable hostility toward religion. It both extends broad protection of government officials exhibiting animosity toward religion, and it denigrates those who would dare challenge those officials. Sadly, there appears to be a double standard on matters of religion: lawsuits claiming endorsement of religion are greatly favored and easily won; lawsuits claiming hostility toward religion are frowned upon and are virtually impossible to win. Both results point to a future in which religious individuals are excised from public life. One need look no further than the invective spewed upon John Ashcroft as the Attorney General nominee simply because he is a believing Christian for proof of this fact.
As Christians, we should not be surprised at this development. After all, Genesis 3:15 states plainly that there will always be enmity between the godly seed and the seed of Satan. The country is straying farther and farther away from its Christian roots, wallowing in sex, violence, and perversion. Can the lions be
far behind? 
