“I want to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”

According to Dr. Pamela Hurley of the Department of Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology at the University of California at Los Angeles, “Jesus” is simply unacceptable.

The situation arose when soon-to-be-graduating senior Christina Popa of UCLA decided to include a sentence of gratitude to Jesus in a personal statement that would be read by a university staff member as she graduated.

The statement she submitted reads, “I want to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I also want to thank my father who passed away 3 years ago, for teaching me to always do my best and thus motivating me to pursue the sciences. I want to thank my mother for supporting me in school as well as my sisters and brother for encouraging me and my friends for making college fun. I plan to work in a research lab or become a dietician.”

In her reply to Christina Popa, Dr. Hurley wrote, “UCLA is a public university where the doctrine of separation of church and state is observed, in order to respect the sheer diversity of religious beliefs among the people who come here.”

Obviously, it is through this deep respect for Christianity that Dr. Hurley censors any mention of Jesus Christ. So if we respect diversity on the Supreme Court, we would never mention that Sotomayor is Latina?

Interestingly enough, most of the time, “respecting diversity” means mentioning it sickeningly. Not so here. This time, you somehow respect diversity of religion by never, ever mentioning that you have different religions. Brilliant.

Dr. Hurley continues, “Since that is so, we do permit MCDB graduates to thank God in their words of wisdom, but we also ask that they refrain from making more specific religious references of any kind. In this setting, even I would not personally be comfortable reading: ‘I want to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.’”

Apparently, Dr. Hurley finds devotion to Jesus Christ to be deeply offensive. However, she is kind enough to conclude with the following: “I do understand that, because of your own faith, this is not what you would prefer, Christina. But I hope that you can be okay with the above, given all the circumstances that exist.”

In other words, given that I can’t stand what you have to say, I hope you’re all right with shutting up.

Of course, Christina Popa contested the censorship, saying, “My personal statement is to be made to the most important and significant people in my life. The fact that I cannot thank Jesus (or someone from another religion) because of school policy shows me that UCLA officials do not understand what diversity and respect really means. I know that my fellow students would not be offended by such a statement, just as I would not be offended by other students thanking the most important person in their religious faith.”

But Ms. Hurley did have a winning way about her. She replied, “If you prefer, Christina, I can read none of what you wrote. I am very sorry that this is a problem for you.” (Ironically, Ms. Hurley boasts of “excellent written and verbal skills” on her LinkedIn account.)

Since when is the separation of church and state to be interpreted as to prohibit thanking Jesus? And why is it acceptable to say “God” but not “Jesus?”

Besides the fact that Ms. Hurley is a few articles short of a full Constitution, she apparently has no understanding of what the “separation of church and state” means.

Thankfully, the lawyers at the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), the organization that represented Christina Popa, were able to explain to UCLA that before it was used to ease liberal consciences, the Establishment Clause sought to protect religious freedom.

As the Supreme Court stated in Capitol Square Rev. & Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, “Our precedent establishes that private religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan, is as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression… Indeed, in Anglo-American history, at least, government suppression of speech has so commonly been directed precisely at religious speech that a free-speech clause without religion would be Hamlet without the prince.”

Since the personal statement is just that – a personal statement – there is no danger of government-established religion. Private religious speech is fully protected under the First Amendment.

Luckily, after being advised that ADF would sue the pants off UCLA if Christina Popa was deprived of her First Amendment rights, the university quickly realized they were in error and Popa’s original statement was read, Jesus and all.

Photo by Whitney Sandelin

As explained in the previous edition of the Patriot, Reverend Walter Hoye, a Baptist pastor from Berkeley was arrested for approaching clients outside an Oakland abortion clinic while holding a sign reading, “Jesus loves you and your baby. Let us help,” despite no “victims” stepping forward. This innocent action was made illegal thanks to a city ordinance that creates a “bubble” of eight feet around women, staff or escorts entering the buildings.

He was sentenced in February to 30 days in prison and three years probation. He was also ordered to stay 100 feet away from Oakland abortion clinics and to pay $1130 in fees and fines.

Reverend Hoye began his sentence on March 20th in Santa Rita jail in Dublin, California. While in prison he preached the gospel and states that he led eight men to Christ even in the brief time he spent there. Hoye explains, “I grew spiritually from every encounter with every man every day.”

In what he calls the “spirit of James 2:15-17” (Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?), he bought food and supplies for every man (about 30 men) in his pod.

Prior to his incarceration, Hoye fasted for the 40 days.

After 18 days, with days off for good behavior, Reverend Hoye was released. He plans to return to sidewalk counseling on May 7th, the National Day of Prayer. In the meantime, the Life Legal Defense Foundation, representing Rev. Hoye, is currently challenging the constitutionality of the ordinance in federal court, since it substantially restricts free speech.

Campus opinions are mixed on the subject. Second-year Andrew Lee states, “I feel like the legal system has done him a great injustice by violating his free speech and trying to force him into submission. If it is an unjust law, he has every right to fight it just as the African American population did during segregation.”

First-year Pegah Zardoost explains, “The fact that he was arrested for that was a little extreme. I’m not necessarily against the law… but I also think that he has a first amendment right to free speech.”