Rutherford's work is never done

Fighting the good fight

[Reprinted from Issues & Views October 1, 2001]

The Rutherford Institute, a public interest law firm, is inordinately busy these days, and the following three cases being handled by the organization offer a sad but clear idea of the state of formerly Christian American culture.

• In 1998, Sgt. George Daniels, a police officer in Arlington, Texas, was fired from the force for wearing a small cross pin in the lapel of his uniform. It's not as if there were a department ruling against wearing decorations of any kind. On the contrary, the Police Chief had encouraged his men to wear various ornaments, including anti-drug symbols, union pins, and even the Mexican flag (!). Chief David Kunkle admitted in testimony that it was in his power to permit Sgt. Daniels to wear his cross, but said he was fearful that this symbol "might offend someone."

  Both the district court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the Chief's decision and found in favor of the police department, upholding the firing of Daniels. Rutherford attorneys have prepared the case to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

• In the second case, although Indiana state trooper Ben Endres informed his supervisors of his religious beliefs, they still insisted that he be assigned as a Gaming Commission Agent on a riverboat casino. In a letter to his supervisors he explained that he did not want to compromise his beliefs by appearing to condone the casino's activities, namely, gambling and drinking. He believed he would be doing just that if he worked as an agent of the Commission. Endres cited his church's strong position against such activities, and expressed his willingness "to do virtually any job" to avoid violating his religious beliefs.

  Just a few short years ago in America's history, any state or federal agency would have exempted an employee from duties that might offend his conscience. But this is 21st century America, where controlling interests now take delight in punishing the sincerely religious. And so, after an administrative hearing, Ben Endres was fired for "insubordination." The Rutherford Institute is appealing the decision in state court and is also filing a federal lawsuit.

• In the third case, we learn that the National Park Service has a "Zero Tolerance Policy" regarding discrimination, and especially regarding "discrimination against gays and lesbians." A Park employee, Lawrence Glantz, learned of this policy in a most bizarre fashion.

  Think back to June 28, 2000. This is the date on which the Supreme Court announced that the Boy Scouts of America could exclude homosexuals from membership. June was also the month that President Clinton designated as "Gay and Lesbian Pride Month." The National Park Service sent Clinton's proclamation, via e-mail, to all its employees. Upon receiving his copy, one unknown employee added to this Gay Pride announcement the words "God Bless the Boy Scouts of America," and forwarded it on. Seeing that comment, with which he agreed, Glantz decided to add one word at the bottom of the e-mail, "Amen."

  Well, this is all it took for an uproar to break loose, as angry employees deluged their supervisors with complaints of being "offended" by Glantz's one word addendum. The Deputy Regional Director issued what is known as a Formal Letter of Reprimand to Glantz. This is an official demerit of some sort that goes into an employee's personnel file. Glantz was charged with "appearing to affirm the appropriateness of discriminating against gays and lesbians."

  Glantz turned to the Rutherford Institute for help and to get the Reprimand expunged from his records. After meetings with officials of the Department of Interior, the Institute's attorneys succeeded in having the Letter of Reprimand rescinded and all other documents connected to it removed from his files.

And such is the state of the union.

Copyright © 2010 Issues & Views