Faith & Justice: Speech Imediments

Volume VII, Issue 3

SPEECH IMPEDIMENTS How one student’s classroom ordeal became an inspiration for other Christian students

Volume VII, Issue 3

CONTENTS

Jonathan Lopez found few supporters when he challenged an abusive professor on his college campus.

Cover

4 HOW AN ATHEIST PROFESSOR BECAME A VOICE FOR FAITH

Story:

“I really began to see the absurdity of the relativistic worldview, and it lit a fire in me.”

8 SPEECH IMPEDIMENTS “I felt like it was my responsibility to speak up for those that didn’t speak up that day—including myself.”

@AllianceDefends

“I don’t know of anybody offering anything remotely like this.”

14 CHANGING THEIR TUNE “Apparently, it was easier to change our program than to challenge the ACLU.”

16 ALLIANCE PROFILE: EMMANUEL OGEBE

—Jonathan Lopez—

Alliance Defending Freedom

6 BRINGING LEGAL TRAINING TO LIFE

“When no one else was standing with us for the persecuted … that was when ADF came into the picture.”

www.AllianceDefendingFreedom.org

Editor

Chuck Bolte

Alliance Defending Freedom

Senior Writer

[Phone] 800-835-5233

Alliance Defending Freedom would enjoy hearing your comments on the stories and issues discussed in Faith & Justice. Please direct comments/questions to www.AllianceDefendingFreedom.org, call 800-835-5233, or write: Editor, Faith & Justice, Alliance Defending Freedom, 15100 N. 90th Street, Scottsdale, AZ 85260.

[Fax] 480-444-0025

©2014, Alliance Defending Freedom. All rights reserved.

Chris Potts, Alan Sears

15100 N. 90th Street Scottsdale, AZ 85260

Chris Potts

Design Director/Photography Bruce Ellefson

Contributors David Cortman, Phillip Dean,

Minutes With Alan

Waiting And Praying

by Alan Sears, President, CEO and General Counsel

No matter where I am, I sleep very little the night before a major decision comes down from the U.S. Supreme Court regarding one of our Alliance Defending Freedom cases.

Those nights, all my years of studying history come back to me. I feel like one of General Eisenhower’s soldiers, on the deck of a troop ship approaching Normandy, wondering what awaits us on the murky beach ahead.

Wherever I am, I’m up early—usually before 4 a.m.—in contact with our allies and attorneys and straining for every bit of news I can find on what’s happening, what the ruling says, what its implications are for other cases and clients. If I’m home, I’m usually sitting at a table in some quiet corner of the nearest Chick-fil-A, their first customer of the morning, clicking away on my phone or ipad. If I’m on the road, I’m probably juggling cell phone conversations with boarding announcements in a crowded airport waiting area.

I was in the Detroit airport in June when the joyful word came that our Allied Attorneys had won their case against those enforcing Gospel-free “buffer zones” around abortion centers. Christians were now free to share the truth of God’s love and the sanctity of life with those considering killing the baby in their womb.

A few days later, the night before the Conestoga / Hobby Lobby decision, I hardly slept at all …

praying and praying, and absorbed with thoughts of the clients in those cases, our dear friends the Hahns and the Greens, and all that was at stake for them in this decision. I thought of the legal abuse they’ve had to endure for their kindness to their employees, and for their determination—in the face of enormous pressures—to preserve the lives of countless children from chemical execution.

Frankly, I get more emotional about these things now than I used to. I think so often of the Huguenins, the owners of a New Mexico photography business whose rights-of-conscience case was denied by the high court earlier this year. I ache at what it costs God’s children, sometimes, to stand for their Father.

I don’t worry about a loss embarrassing our ministry, or doubt, even with a bad decision, that our Lord’s purpose will ultimately be accomplished. But realizing what losing may cost these who’ve trusted their cases to us drives me to my knees again and again, seeking God’s justice and mercy in their lives.

Sometimes, I pray quietly, in my heart. Sometimes, I find a solitude where I can let the emotions pour forth. And always, I take comfort in knowing that I am not praying alone.

John 15:5–Apart from Christ, we can do nothing.

Watch a special message from Alan. Visit www.Alliance DefendingFreedom.org and click on “Faith & Justice.”

Alliance Defending Freedom

|

3

On The Square

How An Atheist Professor Became A Voice For Faith Q&A with

Dr. Mike Adams Conservative columnist Mike Adams is a native of Mississippi, holds a Ph.D. from Mississippi State, and has served on the faculty at the University of North Carolina-Wilmington (UNCW) since 1993, teaching criminal justice. An atheist and a leftist when he joined the faculty, Adams’ religious and political beliefs shifted significantly over the next decade, even as he won multiple awards for outstanding teaching, earned tenure, and was promoted to associate professor.

His changing convictions, though, brought him into increasing conflict with administrators and fellow professors, and they eventually denied Dr. Adams a well-earned promotion to the rank of full professor. With the help of Alliance Defending Freedom, he filed a successful suit against UNCW to defend his First Amendment right to freely express his beliefs.

4

|

Alliance Defending Freedom

What led you to begin questioning your earlier, more leftist attitudes and beliefs?

In 1996, I was down in Ecuador, doing a teaching exchange, and I had an opportunity to go to one of their prisons. It completely changed my perspective on things.

[It] started to impact me, in terms of the way I looked at things. The prisoners were fed very badly, beaten, and denied attorneys. I heard stories about how they would [electrically] shock confessions out of people, and actually shoot people. Three hours after walking into the prison, I walked out, and the first thing I saw was a statue of the Virgin Mary, up on a hill above the prison. I actually spoke to the statue, and just said, “I was wrong.” It was a grasping of the moral law—and a recognition that there is an absolute moral authority. Cultural relativism doesn’t make sense. Certain things are just universally wrong.

I really began to see the absurdity of the relativistic worldview, and it lit a fire in me. It took a few years before I actually converted to Christianity and had the political conversion, (but) it became very clear that I wasn’t just moving away from the worldview that they loved in my department … I was actually specifically beginning to embrace labels that they hated. That’s around the time that the real trouble started.

I really began to see the absurdity of the relativistic worldview, and it lit a fire in me.

Dr. Adams discusses his recent federal court victory with ADF Litigation Staff Counsel Travis C. Barham.

What was the tipping point in your becoming a Christian?

Late in 1999, I had an opportunity to sit down and actually have an interview with a guy on death row—a mentally challenged guy—and he tried to quote John 3:16, and he mangled it a little. I asked him if he’d read the Bible, and he said he had. And I was a little bit ashamed, because I was a tenured professor, and I hadn’t. So I decided to get a copy and read it. And I spent about nine months reading the King James Bible. I picked up some various Christian apologetics, such as Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, and How Now Shall We Live? by Chuck Colson. (My mother had done some work in Prison Fellowship with him). Absolute best year of my life. I became convinced Christianity was true, and at the end of that journey, I joined a church.

People often say, “You’ve got to love them back to the Lord.” Well, some people need to be argued back, and that was my experience. I just didn’t believe it was true, and wanted to be convinced. I was really impacted by that interview, and it took me a long time to just consider the merits of the faith.

What impact do you see your recent legal win having on Christians at other universities?

(Note: In April, after seven years of litigation, a court ordered UNCW to promote Dr. Adams to full professor and pay him thousands in back pay. In addition, in July, UNCW adopted procedures protecting him from renewed retaliation, and paid his attorneys’ fees.)

Go to www.AllianceDefendingFreedom.org First of all, it and click on “Faith & Justice” to watch shows that profesan interview with Dr. Adams, and to learn sors can speak out more of what ADF is doing to protect on issues of public the religious freedom of Christians on

America’s college campuses.

concern, and integrate that within their work as professors, and not be punished for their viewpoint. But also, it shows that a conservative can stand up and fight—with ADF—and that there is a chance. David can face Goliath and prevail.

If all of the people who are conservative and Christian at public universities were to stand up simultaneously and say, “Yeah, me, too—I’ve had bad experiences—he’s not the only one who believes this way,” they couldn’t target us anymore. So that’s the goal: that people will look at the occasional positive case and decide that they’re going to come forward, and that our numbers will grow.

What gives you hope, as you wade back into the struggle for academic freedom each day?

It’s a dangerous question, because if we sit here and say, “Well, what is it going to take to win?”—we might get discouraged. I think it was Reagan who used to say that tyranny is always a generation away. We have to realize that the battle to defeat tyranny actually never ends.

Once you realize that, you can say, “Okay, I’m no longer focused on winning and stamping out evil forever. I’m interested in the next battle. And maybe I’ll influence other people to join in something that is good and edifying and intrinsically meaningful.” That is an awesome thing to be a part of, and so I’d ask people to be careful about looking all the way to the goal post. Just always be moving in a forward direction. It’s intrinsically joyful—it really is.

What impact do you see ADF having on the struggle for religious and academic freedom?

I’m very optimistic about what ADF is going to be able to accomplish. ADF has been doing great things for a long time, but I think their best days are in the very near future.

Alliance Defending Freedom

|

5

Special Feature

Bringing Legal Training To Life Stephen Casey of Texas Center for Defense of Life makes his case in a mock trial during ADF Advanced Legal Training, supported by (l – r) Dorinda Bordlee of Louisiana’s Bioethics Defense Fund, and Rebekah Millard of Oregon’s Life Legal Foundation.

If it wasn’t for ADF, we wouldn’t have had any training in this.

— Greg Terra

6

|

Alliance Defending Freedom

D oes art imitate life, the old debate asks—or does life imitate art? It’s getting hard to tell, for those directing advanced training at Alliance Defending Freedom.

The training is offered to Allied Attorneys—lawyers not employed on the ADF litigation team, but who share the ministry’s priorities and cooperate with it in defending cases across the country—as a highly specialized, tightly focused variation on the usual ongoing legal training required of all who practice law.

“Non-lawyers don’t always appreciate how specialized law is,” says Joseph Infranco, senior counsel and vice president of Alliance Coordination.

“One of the difficulties we find with some of our most pressing cases is that lawyers are not comfortable if they don’t have a background in that particular area of the law. They might see a case, they might have the heart to help, but they just don’t have the expertise—and that’s more of a disincentive than we might realize.

“With advanced training,” he says, “we look at areas of the legal landscape that are sensitive, that require quick intervention, that are kind of technical for various reasons. We’re looking to get these attorneys trained by experts in those fields, so that they’ll be as capable as anybody in their state on these matters, and able to jump into cases related to that area with no reluctance.”

In the last two years, ADF has offered advanced training related to rights of conscience, religious speech in the public square, and denial of medical care. It was that last subject—and the real-life experience that came hard on the heels of the training provided—that led the ADF team and Allied Attorneys to a new understanding of how crucial this kind of specialized training can be.

There’s somebody with ADF who’s an expert in any subject I want to deal with.

– Randy Wenger

Several years ago, ADF attorneys were

tinction between this kind of training to represent a comatose man whose called in to intervene in the case of Jesse and the usual lecture hall fare is “the estranged wife wanted to remove his Ramirez, a seriously injured auto accidifference between a medical school feeding tube—a situation eerily like dent victim whose treating physicians student hearing a lecture on anatomy, the scenario they had taken part in had cut off his food, water, and medicine. and performing actual surgical proonly weeks before. Based on that reActing on behalf of Jesse’s sister, who cedures under the guidance of senior cent training, the two men took the wouldn’t give up on him, ADF went to doctors. It takes legal training to a high-profile case. court to get Ramirez the sustenance and whole new level.”

“If it wasn’t for ADF, we wouldn’t medical attention he needed to live. After “It was the best and most fruithave had any training in this,” Terra months of proper medical treatment and ful (advanced) training that I‘ve ever says. “But we were ready to handle it. physical therapy, he walked out of the received,” says Greg Terra, who, with We had a good overview of what to do rehabilitation center and what we needon his own. ed to think about. It The ADF lewas like we’d hangal training team dled one before.” In drew heavily on the months since, that experience in TCDL has taken on preparing a sample other, similar cases. case for Allied At“The resources torneys participatof ADF are amazing in advanced ing, and empowertraining related ing,” says Randy to denial of mediWenger, chief councal care. Those insel of the Indepenvolved in the traindence Law Cening were divided ter in Harrisburg, into teams of two, Pennsylvania, who presented with a attended the same Paul Yang, a live event producer for ADF, helped synchronize the activities of the mock trial. realistic legal sceadvanced training nario, and required session.

“There’s to do research, draft affidavits, interfellow attorney Stephen Casey, heads somebody with ADF who’s an expert view experts, cross-examine witnesses, Texas Center for Defense of Life in any subject I want to deal with. The file briefs, and argue their case before (TCDL) in Austin, Texas. “Just a lot brightest and the best people are ema judge (with most of these parts enof good, helpful information in a ployed there, and they’re looking for acted by ADF team members). very short amount of time. And very ways to empower me.”

All that hands-on activity is a far hands-on—just the best bang for the “It’s a shared base of expericry from the long hours of listening buck I’ve ever seen, as far as legal ence—a shared pool of information,” to lectures that characterize most adtraining goes.”

Infranco says. “Any ally who comes vanced legal training programs … and to advanced training gets the benefit it seems to distinguish the training oferra and Casey quickly had reaof a special relationship with us. That fered by ADF from that of almost any son to draw on what they’d learned ally can call ADF attorneys for whatother ministry in the country. in the training. Less than a month afever kinds of training, support, or fi“I don’t know of anybody offering ter the ADF session, they were asked nancial assistance he or she may need anything remotely like this,” Infranco in taking on these kinds of specialsays. “We require participation. We ized cases.” By offering that kind of simulated all the stress of a real-life help, he says, “we’re raising the qualhearing—this was a true representaity of legal representation throughout tion of what these attorneys are going the alliance.”

Visit www.AllianceDefendingFreedom.org and click on “Faith & Justice” to learn more to face.” For a lawyer, he says, the dis-

T

about the ADF legal alliance and the advanced training this ministry provides.

Alliance Defending Freedom

|

7

8

|

Alliance Defending Freedom

Speech Impediments HOW ONE STUDENT’S CLASSROOM ORDEAL BECAME AN INSPIRATION FOR OTHER CHRISTIAN STUDENTS

Curiously, in polls of people’s worst fears, public speaking consistently makes the top 10. Curiously, because unlike most other major phobias (flying, falling, spiders, snakes) this one involves no threat of physical harm. It springs, apparently, from the same deep-down insecurities that make us balk at trying something new, or blanch at the sound of our voice on a recording.

We don’t want to be embarrassed. We don’t want to look or sound foolish … by saying something stupid, or saying something valid in a vacuous way.

Despite—or perhaps, because of—the fear, college students across America sign up by the hundreds of thousands every semester for speech courses.

They take their turns at the lecture hall podiums, knowing every oration is a chance to overcome that unnerving insecurity … and unlock that poise and skill of communication that we all dream is within us.

Of course, every speech is also a chance for the mortifying nightmare to come true. That’s why so much depends on the speech instructor, and his ability to coach and coax students out of their shells and fears and into a measure of confidence, even eloquence.

For a while, working his way through a speech class at Los Angeles City College (LACC), Jonathan Lopez was convinced he had a particularly good instructor. The man was witty, inspiring, full of

— by Chris Potts —

“I wasn’t trying to get attention.

I just needed to speak up for my faith.”

– JONATHAN LOPEZ –

practical advice. Then came the day Jonathan gave the speech that meant the most to him of anything he’d prepared all semester—and he found not only that his teacher had a dark side … but that he had Jonathan by the throat.

That fall, Jonathan was 21 and working hard at finishing the requirements for a general education degree at LACC. He was also growing in a newfound faith, having become a Christian just a year earlier, the last in his family to make that life-changing decision.

“I didn’t grow up in a Christian household,” he says. But, one by one, over time, his mother, sister, and then brother came to faith. “I was the hardheaded one. My mom prayed for me for years—years. I didn’t want to have anything to do with church, anything to do with God.” Still, he went to church, and to camp each year with the youth group, “to get my mom off my back.” And, to his considerable annoyance, God, like his mother, nagged at Jonathan’s heart.

“I would just feel God speak to me, you know? Tugging on me. I was so hard-headed. Actually, my head was

10

|

Alliance Defending Freedom

clear—my heart was hard.” One year, at camp, a friend offered to pray with him, to ask Christ into his heart. “I wouldn’t hear it,” Jonathan says.

A year later, back at camp, the “tugging” had grown even stronger. “I prayed and told Jesus that if someone would offer to pray with me again, this time I would do it. I asked Him to send someone to ask me. He did—the same friend from a year before. This time, I prayed with him.”

He laughs, remembering something his mother often said: “The harder the conversion, the more it will ‘take.’” Jonathan’s took. Worship and the truths of the Bible began to take on growing importance in his life, and increasingly informed his view of the culture around him.

That culture was changing dramatically as he took up his studies at LACC in the fall of 2008. Marriage, in particular, was much in the headlines, as Californians prepared for an electoral showdown on Proposition 8, a voter initiative to amend the state constitution to define marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman.

In November, the amendment passed, and the vote was a topic of con-

siderable discussion on the LACC campus. For students in Jonathan’s speech class, the nature of that conversation changed on the morning after the election, when their instructor, John Matteson, walked in, slammed his papers down on his desk, and announced that anyone in the room who had voted for Proposition 8 was “a fascist bastard.”

“He was so mad, he dismissed class,” Jonathan says. Like the other students, he was stunned by Matteson’s words and manner. “Up to that point, when he came in that day, I could honestly say he was a good instructor. I enjoyed the way he taught, his sense of humor.” With Matteson’s help, Jonathan had begun to “feel a lot more confident giving speeches.”

Confident enough that he decided his next talk would address the subject of Matteson’s outburst.

The

assignment was simple and straightforward: an informative speech, six to eight minutes long, mostly memorized, on any subject. “No criteria, no restrictions, nothing,” Jonathan remembers. “He said, ‘It’s open, whatever you want.’”

Two thoughts went into Jonathan’s choice of subject. First, his newfound faith.

“What better to inform people about than God, right?” he says. Knowing he would be graded down for any effort to turn an “informative” speech into a “persuasive” one, Jonathan carefully crafted his speech to describe his own experiences, not advocate his views. “I wasn’t saying this is the way. I wasn’t trying to tell people to come to church with me. I wanted to keep it simple.”

He resolved just to tell the class of his salvation experience, and share Romans 10:9: “If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” But he also wanted to address, indirectly, Matteson’s derogatory comment about those in the class—including Jonathan—who had voted “yes” on Proposition 8.

“I decided to put the definition of marriage from the dictionary into my speech. I felt like it was my responsibility to speak up for those that didn’t speak up that day—including myself.”

Jonathan’s turn came a few weeks after Professor Matteson’s fit. He was ready for anything except what happened.

Jonathan

devoted the first half of his speech to telling how God had impacted his life; Matteson, apparently, “didn’t have a problem with that.” But when Jonathan began reading the dictionary definition of marriage—the legal union of a man and a woman— things quickly changed.

“He started mumbling, in the back of the room,” Jonathan says. As Matteson’s murmuring continued, growing louder and louder, “I actually asked him if he would mind lowering his voice, because he was being disrespectful—this was my time to speak.”

At that, the professor exploded.

Loudly repeating the epithet of a few weeks before, he denounced Jonathan and announced that his speech was over. Confused, Jonathan reminded him that he still had half of his time left to go.

“No!” Matteson shouted. He announced that anyone who’d been of-

fended by the speech was free to leave.

No one moved. Some students, in fact, asked to hear the rest of what Jonathan had to say. “Don’t listen to him,” they said. “Just keep going.” Matteson, though, would have none of it.

“This speech is over!” he repeated. “Class dismissed!” Two or three students bolted for the door. The rest milled out slowly, several of them offering encouraging words to Jonathan, who moved toward the back of the room to get his evaluation sheet from Matteson. The instructor handed it to him, facedown. Jonathan turned it over as he walked toward the door.

“Ask God what your grade is,” Matteson had written.

“Hey, don’t put your head down,”

told me that it took a lot of courage to do what I did, and that they were grateful that I did it.”

Jonathan knew, too, that a few students were offended—though none of them said anything to him personally.

“Sometimes, when people disagree with you—especially if you have a really strong opinion about something—you just feel offended. One or two students, maybe, were offended, because of the definition of marriage. Sometimes the truth offends people—but just because it may offend somebody doesn’t mean you don’t have the right to say it.

“I knew it was something I was supposed to do,” Jonathan says. “When (Matteson) dismissed class and cancelled—pretty much censored—my

“Ask God what your grade is.”

– JOHN MAT TESON –

a friend said, seeing Jonathan’s dejection. “You did good.” In fact, he says, he received “a lot of positive feedback.”

Outside of class, many students approached him who had also voted “yes” on Proposition 8. “A lot of them were offended” by Professor Matteson’s remarks, Jonathan says, “but they didn’t do anything about it. So when I gave my speech and then the incident occurred, a lot of them actually came to me and

speech, I had a little doubt, thinking to myself, ‘Did I do the right thing? Did I go about it the right way?’ But that was very minimal. I felt that what I did had to be done, and for the most part, I felt that was the way it needed to be done.”

Unfortunately, Professor Matteson was not a man to let bygones be bygones.

Not long after Jonathan’s speech, he Alliance Defending Freedom

|

11

and another student arrived late for class. Not realizing someone was speaking, they slipped in the door, interrupting a speech. Jonathan apologized to the class, but Matteson immediately singled him out for ridicule and reproach. Being so rude, the instructor said, “was not very Christian of you.”

Jonathan said nothing.

“It was hard,” he says. “Really hard.”

Things didn’t get any easier, in the days that followed, as Matteson continued to deride Jonathan before the other students at every opportunity.

“He would always have remarks in class,” Jonathan says. “It was like he made it his mission to the end of the semester to keep attacking me. I didn’t know whether I should keep going to

Matteson’s classroom. Matteson saw the two talking and shortly afterward confronted Jonathan in the hallway.

“He got in my face,” Jonathan says.

“I thought he was going to put his hands on me. He said he was going to make it his mission to expel me from school.”

For Jonathan, that was the final provocation. When a friend contacted Alliance Defending Freedom on his behalf, and told him they might be able to offer legal help, Jonathan made the call.

Although he dreaded the thought of a lawsuit, “Something needs to be done,” he decided. “Instructors can’t just do things like this. It’s not right.”

After conferring with his family, and considerable prayer, “I decided to go that road.”

“I felt like it was my responsibility to speak up for those that didn’t speak up that day— including myself.”

– JONATHAN LOPE Z – class or not, because I didn’t want to go through that embarrassment any more. I wanted to just avoid another confrontation. But if I didn’t go, I would get an incomplete, so all that hard work—all those speeches that I had done already—would have been for nothing. I had to finish.”

Jonathan decided to tell the college dean what was happening. To his surprise, she didn’t seem especially concerned, suggesting only that he document his complaint with some signatures from other students. She made no offer to investigate his assertions or confront Matteson herself.

Even worse, the dean’s office was directly across the hall from Professor

12

|

Alliance Defending Freedom

ADF connected Jonathan with David Hacker, senior legal counsel and director of the ministry’s University Project, created to defend the legal rights and religious freedom of Christian students all over America. David sent demand letters to LACC, detailing what had been happening in Professor Matteson’s class and urging administrators to correct the problem.

“In the letter the dean sent back to us,” David says, “she said that other students had been offended by what Jonathan said regarding marriage, and by his Christian beliefs. She wasn’t say-

ing that what the professor did was wrong.” In effect, he says, she was “justifying the professor’s actions” while ignoring Jonathan’s constitutional right to free speech.

ADF filed a federal lawsuit against the college, its administrators, and Professor Matteson, asking the court to put a stop to the instructor’s behavior, and address the college’s unconstitutional speech code that facilitated that behavior.

“The college actually had a policy that said, ‘If you believe what you are going to say is going to be offensive to someone, don’t say it,’” David says. “So the college was already telling students to self-censor their speech, and that’s what caused this whole incident.

“Policies like this are on the books on college campuses all across the country,” David says, “and just the fact that they are on the books, and in student handbooks, chills student speech. Students read, ‘If you think you’re going to say something offensive, don’t say it,’ and then they self-censor their speech. They don’t share their ideas. They don’t feel free to do so.”

ADF asked the federal court to block LACC from enforcing its speech policy, and the court did. The college appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled that the connection between the speech policy and what happened to Jonathan wasn’t sufficiently clear to justify compelling the college to change its speech code. ADF asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review that decision, but the high court declined.

That wasn’t the end of the case, though. ADF went back to the district court, asking it to rule in Jonathan’s favor and compel Professor Matteson to stop his outrageous behavior in the classroom—and the court did just that.

It entered a judgment against Matteson for abusing his student’s free speech rights, and awarded Jonathan damages for the violation of those rights.

“I was pleased with that,” Jonathan says, “even though it was never about the money. It was more about defending my faith. I was really glad that there was acknowledgement that the instructor did do wrong, that he did violate

See an inspiring video of Jonathan Lopez’s story by visiting AllianceDefendingFreedom.org and clicking on “Faith & Justice.” You can also learn more about the film God’s Not Dead.

my rights … and that other believers can speak up now, and feel comfortable about speaking up.”

“J onathan’s

case had far-reaching effects,” David says. “It was covered in the national media, (and) a lot of people paid attention because the facts were so egregious. Certainly other schools noticed the inherent wrong in a professor singling out a student just because of his faith, and punishing him.” The incident and ensuing lawsuit also caught the attention of other college students nationwide, many of whom contacted ADF with their own experiences of persecution for their faith and denial of their constitutionally protected speech and religious freedom.

“We’re able to tell Jonathan’s story to those students,” David says, “and how he stood up boldly to protect his religious liberty and defend his faith, and those students have been encour-

aged and are more willing to stand up for their rights.”

Despite all the attention his case received, though, Jonathan studiously avoided the limelight, refusing all requests for interviews, from the school newspaper to national cable news outlets.

“I didn’t want my face out there,” he says, “because it wasn’t about me.

I wasn’t trying to get attention or anything like that. I just needed to speak up for my faith.

“Everyone has the right to say, ‘I don’t believe in God,’ so why don’t I have the right to say, ‘I believe in God?’ I felt that this is something God put in me to do, and I did it for Him. I knew in my heart that it had nothing to do with me.”

The

semester of his confrontations with Jonathan was Professor Matteson’s last on the LACC campus. Whether he was dismissed or left of his own accord, Jonathan doesn’t know. He

Jonathan Lopez shares a lighter moment with his attorney, ADF Senior Counsel David Hacker, director of the ministry’s University Project.

does know that, in the end, the college gave him credit for the speech course he endured to the end. His final grade was an “A.” Early in 2014—six years after the incident—Jonathan’s sister told him she’d seen a movie about what happened to him, and that Jonathan’s name was in the closing credits. The film, God’s Not Dead, was based on several cases involving Alliance Defending Freedom, including the one at LACC. Eventually, Jonathan saw the movie himself.

“It kind of brought back feelings,” he says … long-buried emotions from the moments he faced a professor’s anger and abuse. But it also reminded him why he spoke up in the first place, and what the long years of the court case were all about. “It was very, very rewarding,” he says. “The first time I actually felt proud of myself.”

In other words, for that speech, Jonathan Lopez doesn’t have to ask God what his grade is.

Alliance Defending Freedom

|

13

My View

CHANGING THEIR TUNE

by Phillip Dean

Music has always been especially important to Phillip Dean. Gifted as a singer and musician, the high school sophomore leads a Wednesday night youth band at his Rock Hill, South Carolina church. And, though he completes his academic coursework online from home, he played for the last four years in the band of nearby York Preparatory Academy, a public charter school. Like many in the band, he was looking forward last Christmas to playing the holiday concert, which was scheduled to feature, for the first time in memory, a medley of carols with religious themes.

The decision really came out of the blue. We’d been practicing Christmas carols for a month, when one day I walked into class and the band director announced, “We have to pick out new music—the principal says we can’t play religious songs.”

The whole band was upset about that, for two reasons. One, we’d just put in weeks of practice on these songs, and nobody wanted to start over, learning new music from scratch. And, second, the director had let us pick out the songs—so it was our own music choices that were being rejected.

Some of us were curious why our principal would suddenly make such a decision, so we walked to his office and asked him. He seemed surprised to see us—maybe he didn’t think it would be that big a deal to the students. He told us he was responding to a letter from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and that they’d threatened to sue the school if we performed any religious music. Apparently, it was easier to change our program than challenge the ACLU. Visit www.AllianceDefendingFreedom.org At home that night, I talked and click on “Faith & Justice” to learn more about what had happened with

about this ministry’s efforts nationwide to preserve the religious freedom of students in our nation’s public schools.

14

|

Alliance Defending Freedom

Apparently, it was easier to change our program than to challenge the ACLU.

my parents. They’ve always taught me that it’s important to stand up for what I believe in, no matter what the issue might be. Not that I need a lot of encouragement in that … especially when it comes to my religious beliefs. So an issue like this … well, I was just determined to get to the bottom of it.

I went online, researching laws about freedom of speech and religion. But it was my dad who found Alliance Defending Freedom, and sent them an email. He and my mom had told me that if I wanted to try to get the religious songs back on the program, they were behind me 100 percent.

We heard back quickly from an ADF attorney, Rory Gray. He’d done his homework, too, and now quickly sent a letter to the school, explaining that the Constitution protects our right to perform religious music. He sent me a copy of that letter, and suggested that I present it at the upcoming meeting of the school board.

That turned out to be one of the most nerve-racking things I’ve ever done. I typed out what I wanted to say, and practiced reading it. I’d never actually been to a school board meeting before. It turned out there were only a few people there—including my dad, a school friend speaking on the same thing I was, and her mom.

After I read my statement and gave the board the letter from ADF, they

just said, “Thank you for sharing,” and that was it. They didn’t have a full quorum of the board that night, so they postponed the vote to the next meeting.

In the meantime, I posted what was happening on Facebook, and a neighbor suggested maybe I should call our local paper, too. The reporter I spoke with asked a lot of questions, and began looking into things herself. Other folks were posting things, too, for and against what I and some others were doing. Some said we should just go along with what the principal said and not argue. Others had the same questions I did.

With so many talking about what had happened, I decided to visit the principal again, just to be sure I’d understood everything right the first time. In fact, his story had changed.

He hadn’t actually received a letter from the ACLU, he said now. He’d just read a press release they’d issued a few years before.

That was definitely different from what he’d told me before, and I shared that with our attorney and the reporter. They both wondered why he hadn’t just told me the truth the first time. But by then, it was time for the second school board meeting.

This time, they would be voting.

There were a few more people at this second meeting—word had gotten around. After I spoke again, briefly, about why I felt this issue

Phillip Dean at his school concert last December.

was so important, several parents in the room stood to say they agreed with me. The board talked it over, and voted—unanimously—to reinstate the religious music. People gave a little cheer, and we all shook hands.

It was pretty exciting.

And I was really thankful to ADF for stepping in and helping us. I don’t think we could have persuaded the board by ourselves.

Next

day, I told our band director what had happened, and he announced that our band would be performing the religious medley after all. The rest of the band was pretty happy about that (though, to be honest, a lot of them were just as excited not to have to keep learning new music).

We had a great turnout for the concert. True, nobody really said much about what had happened with the principal—but I knew, and I was kind of proud of myself. Not because of what I had done—but because I had been obedient to God’s call to stand up for Him.

Alliance Defending Freedom

|

15

Alliance Profile

Emmanuel Ogebe likes to describe his native Nigeria as “the America of Africa.” Nigeria has the largest population of any country on that continent (equal to more than half that of the U.S.), its people divided between a mostly Muslim North and a mostly Christian South. In recent years, Muslim extremists—like the notorious Boko Haram, whose attacks include the kidnapping of 300 schoolgirls earlier this year—have been moving to exterminate Christians in the North.

“You have revival going on in the South,” Ogebe says, “an explosion of churches. But in the North you have this horrendous persecution, the largest killing of Christians anywhere in the world.” This year, more Christians were murdered in northern Nigeria—about 350 a month—than in the rest of the world combined. Under Boko Haram, entire states have eradicated virtually all Christians and churches; areas that once had thousands of pastors now have only a few dozen.

What is happening is essentially “ethnic cleansing,” Ogebe says, “except this time, it’s ‘religious cleansing.’ This is an evil unlike anything that we’ve seen in recent times. The world needs to rise and stand against this and crush this.” He and other Nigerian leaders are looking to U.S. Christians for help. Alliance Defending Freedom has financially supported Ogebe’s work, which produced an in-depth report on Boko Haram that led the U.S. State Department to declare it a terrorist group, freezing the group’s international assets, and posting warrants for its leaders.

Nigeria’s president has also called for constitutional reform; ADF is working to help Ogebe and other Christian attorneys secure protections for religious freedom throughout the country. Recalling how, as a young man, he was tortured and imprisoned by government officials, Ogebe now expresses endless gratitude for all ADF is doing to bring justice and freedom to his nation.

“When no one else was standing with us for the persecuted,” he says, “when my heart was overwhelmed, I prayed for God to ‘lead me to the rock that is higher than I am,’ and that was when ADF came into the picture.”

16

|

Alliance Defending Freedom

Emmanuel Ogebe Nigerian Attorney

Visit www.AllianceDefendingFreedom.org and click on “Faith & Justice” to see a compelling conversation with Emmanuel Ogebe and learn how ADF is working around the world to defend religious freedom.

Updates

In The News

FREEDOM OF SPEECH ON AMERICA’S CAMPUSES

This year has been the most successful ever for Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys and allies defending religious speech on college campuses. Across the last two decades, ADF has achieved over 200 legal victories, including more than 40 this year alone.

In the past fiscal year, ADF attorneys filed 10 new lawsuits to protect public university students against unconstitutional policies and private universities

against the Obama Administration’s abortion pill mandate.

In North Carolina, ADF lawyers won a critical decision in a major faculty free-speech case (see On The Square, p.4), and in Virginia, they secured a court ruling that dismantled unconstitutional speech restrictions at 23 community colleges throughout the state. ADF is also continuing its nationwide effort to contact universities and colleges that enforce unconstitutional policies.

Continuing to contact schools nationwide that enforce unconstitutional policies, ADF has written letters to more than 400 schools, resulting in changes that could potentially impact nearly five million students in more than 25 states.

AN ENEMY OF THE STATE On June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that two family-run businesses, Conestoga Wood Specialties and Hobby Lobby Stores, do not have to surrender their religious freedom in order to remain in business. The court determined that federal law protects the two families from being forced to act contrary to their beliefs by the Obama Administration’s abortion pill mandate.

The Department of Health and Human Services mandate forces employers, regardless of their religious or moral convictions, to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception or face heavy financial penalties from the Internal Rev-

Vol. VII, Iss. 2

enue Service. But in Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Burwell and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, the Supreme Court said the families running the two businesses have federally protected religious freedoms that the government must respect. (As of August, 2014, ADF is now 20-0 in decisions on lawsuits filed against the mandate.)

HIGH COURT AFFIRMS PRO-LIFE SPEECH On June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court in McCullen v. Coakley unanimously struck down a Massachusetts law creating a 35-foot anti-speech zone around abortion facilities. ADF Allied Attorney Michael DePrimo successfully argued that the zone’s unconstitutional effect was to block advocates for life from quietly conversing with women on their way into these buildings to have an abortion. (The law imposed up to two-and-a-half years in jail for its violation.)

The court ruled that those who would lovingly invite women to choose life face-to-face are legally entitled to do so, up until the moment a woman enters the abortion facility’s property.

The high court’s decision affirms that “The government cannot muzzle speech just because abortionists want to silence it,” says ADF Senior Legal Counsel Matt Bowman.

This crucial ruling is already having a domino effect on other cases.

On July 23, after the decision, ADF attorneys and allies in New Hampshire secured a court order blocking the creation of 25-foot censorship zones designed to keep anyone from speaking, standing, or entering public sidewalks outside abortion facilities. On August 5, after another ADF lawsuit, the city of Madison, Wisconsin voted to rescind a law that had created hundreds of 200-foot “bubble zones” around any entrance in the city that might be used by professionals offering medical services.

Alliance Defending Freedom

|

17

Opinion

David Cortman

The Abortion Mandate: A Hard Pill To Swallow

Several

years ago, public outcry over blood diamonds—those mined in war-torn countries and sold to finance the activities of brutal warlords was everywhere. Women were returning jewelry that was not certified as “conflict-free.” It even became a cause du jour in Hollywood, culminating with an award-winning film starring Leonardo DiCaprio.

What if the U.S. government mandated that all diamonds come from a country notorious for its trade in blood diamonds? All engagement rings, anniversary earrings, and Mother’s Day necklaces could only contain diamonds mined in the suspect country. Many jewelry retailers believe that using such diamonds is immoral, and have adopted policies to ensure that such gems are not sold in their stores. Should they be forced to comply with this mandate?

Should they be forced to violate their sincerely held belief that selling diamonds that might have caused the suffering and death of innocent people is a grave wrong?

This is exactly what the Obama Administration’s abortion pill mandate, which requires family businesses to pay for items that they believe can cause abortions, imposed upon both Hobby Lobby and our client, Conestoga Wood Specialties—a small Pennsylvania-based cabinet manufacturer owned by a devout Christian Mennonite family. On June 30, the Supreme Court ruled against this mandate.

To socially conscious family businesses like Conestoga, it is a grave moral wrong to deliberately termi-

18

|

Alliance Defending Freedom

nate a human life, no matter how long it has been since that life was conceived. These families have courageously taken a stand for the sanctity of every human life, even though it means openly defying the demands of the government.

This should have been an easy case. Among the fundamental rights our Founding Fathers enumerated is the right not to be coerced into doing something that violates one’s sincerely held religious beliefs. If a person (or the family business he operates) can be forced to transgress those beliefs, then the guarantee of free exercise of religion is not worth the paper on which it is written. Any law or government policy that furthers such coercion is fundamentally unjust.

But in this debate over the legality of the mandate, the Left has created and exalted a “right” to employer-provided abortifacients—a right James Madison must have missed when drafting the Bill of Rights. This “right” demands that my employer, whom I probably knew was religious when I applied for my job, must pay for pills that can terminate a human life. Apparently, it is too much of a burden to expect a person who wants these pills—which cost less than a couple of large pizzas—to pay for them.

Imagine me walking into my local jewelry store, proclaiming that I have a “right” to purchase blood diamonds because it is just too expensive to pay for those conflict-free certified diamonds. Under the Left’s concept of freedom, my right to that low-cost engagement ring trumps the

jewelry store’s deeply held moral opposition to the gems.

And this “right” to employerprovided abortifacients is enforced by none other than the Internal Revenue Service—the same government agency that’s been under investigation by Congress for targeting socially conservative organizations and losing potentially incriminating e-mails. For a family business like Conestoga, the potential IRS penalties for not complying with the mandate—$100 per employee per day— are devastating.

Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to recognize this new “right” to abortifacients. Instead, it recognized that no one, whether sitting at his own kitchen table or behind the desk at his company office, should be forced to violate his deeply held beliefs in this manner.

This is a victory for everyone, even those who desire access to abortion pills. After all, if the government can force Conestoga Wood Specialties and Hobby Lobby to pay for morally objectionable items, then tomorrow it can force you to violate your most cherished beliefs.

Preventing that harm is what freedom of religion is all about.

David Cortman is senior counsel and vice president of litigation for Alliance Defending Freedom. This piece originally appeared in USA Today.

Opposite page photos—Top: A blood diamond from Sierra Leone. Bottom: Mifepristone, or RU-486 … an abortion pill.

Alliance Defending Freedom

|

19

TODAY’S PLAN TOMORROW’S PROMISE

“We firmly believe the Lord is uniquely using ADF as a sword and a shield for Christians around the world ... both for today and tomorrow. They are a vital ministry and critical legal resource that we dare not fail to support.” —Dave & Suzanne M.

Pass on a legacy of freedom. Please contact Lisa Reschetnikow at 800-835-5233 or LisaR@AllianceDefendingFreedom.org to discuss your legacy giving.