c. 2006 Religion News Service

Progressive Groups Want `Left Behind’ Video Game Off Wal-Mart Shelves

(RNS) Progressive religious groups, concerned by the violence and theology in the “Left Behind” Christian video games, have asked Wal-Mart not to sell them.

The “Left Behind: Eternal Forces” game is a spinoff from the best-selling “Left Behind” apocalyptic series and carries a rating of T for “teen” because of its violent elements.

“What is at issue here is this is an instructional video teaching young Christian children about an ideology of religious violence,” said author Fred Clarkson, a member of the advisory board of the Campaign to Defend the Constitution, a liberal group that opposes the religious right, in a teleconference call with reporters Tuesday (Dec. 12).

Wal-Mart is continuing its plans to stock the game, and the company producing it said critics are mischaracterizing it.

“The game is about good vs. evil, not Christian versus non-Christian,” said Jeffrey Frichner, president of Left Behind Games. “When people understand that, they love what we’re doing because who doesn’t want to fight against evil?”

Clark Stevens, co-director of the Campaign to Defend the Constitution, said the protest is focusing on “the hypocrisy that exists within the religious right” because some affiliated with it, including Focus on the Family, have supported the game even though they generally speak against violent video games. The protest does not seek the removal of any other violent games.

Bob Waliszewski, a media specialist for Colorado-based Focus on the Family, said it views the game as one parents can play with their kids.

“Quite frankly, it’s a game that has a lot going for it from a game-player’s perspective, while highlighting some of life’s biggest issues, such as Christ’s second coming, salvation and the end times,” he said.

A Wal-Mart spokeswoman said the product has been selling in select stores and online.

“As always, the decision on what merchandise we offer in our stores is based on what we think our customers want the opportunity to buy,” said Tara Raddohl of Wal-Mart.

_ Adelle M. Banks

N.J. Senate Bans Pastor After He Condemns Same-Sex Marriage

NEWARK, N.J. (RNS) The Rev. Vincent Fields says he didn’t plan to speak out against same-sex marriage when he offered the invocation at the opening of the state Senate session Monday (Dec. 11).

At first, he prayed for wisdom and understanding for the senators. But then, the pastor from Absecon, recalled, “the Holy Spirit took over, and I had to pray what he said.”

What Fields said next _ on the day a Senate committee advanced a bill allowing civil unions for same-sex couples _ has gotten the pastor banned from giving future Senate invocations.

“We curse the spirit that would come to bring about same-sex marriage,” Fields said in the Senate chamber. “We ask you to just look over this place today, cause them to be shaken in their very heart in uprightness, Lord, to do what is right before you.”

The invocations are not supposed to be political or divisive, Senate President Richard Codey said. But Fields, who runs a nondenominational church, provoked a lot of comment. Asked if he felt Fields had gone out of bounds, Codey said, “Absolutely. Positively. Yes. He will not be back.”

The Senate opens every voting session with the Pledge of Allegiance and an invocation given by a pastor, who receives $100. Most clergy who give the invocations through the year are recommended by state lawmakers and represent the diversity of religious groups in the state.

Fields, 46, also was criticized for citing Jesus twice in his prayer. The invocations are usually non-specific to any religion.

“Usually rabbis and ministers and imams are sensitive to the fact that they are saying a prayer before a diverse body,” said Sen. Loretta Weinberg, a Democrat. “They usually try to keep that prayer as inclusive as possible.”

Fields, who gave a Senate invocation last year and whose Greater Works Ministries draws about 200 people on Sundays, said he thought he acted appropriately, and didn’t care that Codey said he won’t be asked back.

“Not at all,” he said. “It’s better just to get the voice across.”

_ Jeff Diamant and Deborah Howlett

Judge Says Worship Song is OK at Public School

FRENCHTOWN, N.J.(RNS) A New Jersey elementary school student’s First Amendment rights were violated when her school district barred her from singing a religious song at an after-school talent show, a federal judge has ruled.

The parents of Olivia Turton sued the Frenchtown Elementary School District Board of Education in May 2005. Administrators had denied the then-second-grader’s request to perform “Awesome God,” saying its lyrics amounted to the “musical equivalent of a spoken prayer.”

U.S. District Court Judge Freda L. Wolfson issued a 26-page decision Monday (Dec. 11) calling the district’s actions inappropriate, saying Olivia’s song was one student’s “private speech” and could not legitimately be perceived as a public school’s endorsement of religion.

“We’re excited for Olivia that she’ll be able to sing her song,” said the Turtons’ lawyer, Demetrios Stratis. “A student doesn’t lose her First Amendment rights just because she walks onto school property. … To suggest that she at 8 years old is going to proselytize to this audience is nonsense, and the court saw through that.”

The song in question, by Christian writer Rich Mullins, includes lyrics such as the verse: “Our God is an awesome God/He reigns from heaven above/with wisdom, pow’r and love/Our God is an awesome God.”

Olivia, now a fourth-grader, will sing “Awesome God” at the next installment of the “Frenchtown Idol” talent show in May, Stratis said.

School officials said they do not plan to appeal the decision.

The case drew national attention and the backing of strange legal bedfellows: the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal advocacy group that represented the Turtons, and the American Civil Liberties Union, which intervened as a friend of the court.

_ Claire Heininger

Woman Sues Ex-Husband for Withholding a Religious Divorce

TORONTO (RNS) A woman who sued her ex-husband for refusing to give her a Jewish divorce is looking to Canada’s Supreme Court for relief.

The case is being watched closely for how _ or even whether _ the high court will delve into the principle of separation of church and state, an area that secular courts have been generally reluctant to enter.

Observers say the main issue is whether religious obligations should be enforceable in courts.

The case involves Stephanie Bruker, who has asked the nine judges on the Supreme Court to restore her earlier victory that ordered her former husband to pay her damages for refusing for 15 years to give her a “get,” or Jewish divorce decree, despite promising to do so in their divorce agreement.

Under Jewish law, a woman may be divorced civilly, but without a get she is referred to as an agunah, or “chained woman,” meaning that she is bound to a dead marriage and cannot remarry within the Jewish faith.

Bruker and Jessel Marcovitz, both of Montreal, married in 1969 and divorced in 1980. In their divorce agreement, Marcovitz agreed to give his wife a get. But he reneged on the deal, arguing, among other things, that his wife had alienated him from their two daughters.

Marcovitz finally granted his ex-wife a get in 1995 _ when she was almost 47 years old, too old, she argued, to have any more children.

In 2003, a judge ordered Marcovitz to pay Bruker $47,500 in damages _ $2,500 for each of the 15 years he withheld a get, thereby depriving her of remarriage, and another $10,000 for restricting her from having more children.

But Quebec’s Court of Appeal overturned that decision, saying the husband’s obligation was “religious in nature” and therefore outside the purview of a civil court.

Now, Bruker wants her original claims enforced: $500,000 in damages for refusing to comply with the divorce agreement, another $500,000 for being restrained from getting on with her life, and the $47,500 ordered by the lower court.

In her brief to the Supreme Court, Bruker said people can’t be permitted to “brazenly invoke religion as both a shield and a sword” to get out of their contractual obligations.

The outcome “will have major implications for the ability of Canadians to determine whether, and in what circumstances, matters of religious observance or ceremony can become legally binding obligations,” said the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which is intervening in the appeal.

A ruling is not expected for several months.

_ Ron Csillag

Quote of the Day: Evangelist Jay Bakker

(RNS) “It’s not fun trying to raise money for your church when you’re a Bakker.”

_ Jay Bakker, son of disgraced evangelists Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, talking about his punk-rock ministry in “One Punk Under God,” a documentary series airing on the Sundance Channel. He was quoted by The Washington Post.

KRE/PH END RNS