Along with Gordon Klingenschmitt, Jim Ammerman and the Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches are being sued by Michael and Bonnie Weinstein for “imprecatory prayers.”  A recent news release indicates that Ammerman and the CFGC will be represented by the Rutherford Institute.

The Rutherford Institute describes itself as an organization that is “dedicated to the defense of civil liberties and human rights,” including “the defense of religious…liberties.”  Ironically, Weinstein and his organization, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, are also self-proclaimed defenders of civil and religious liberties.

Notably, while many smaller news organizations have carried the story about the lawsuit, all that have included commentary from Constitutional lawyers have said that the Weinsteins do not have a case (many have included references to Brandenburg, as did this commentary); some have said they doubt the lawsuit will survive the first motion to dismiss.

The Rutherford press release seems to indicate they believe the same thing:

Rutherford Institute attorneys dismiss the conspiracy charge, noting that neither Ammerman nor CFGC have any control over the content of prayers offered by its chaplains.  Furthermore, Institute attorneys point out that the content of one’s prayers is protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute, had some interesting comments on the case:

When Martin Luther King spoke, violence erupted in many places. He wasn’t inciting violence. Free speech is the last bastion we have in this country. You can’t shut down speech based on speculation.

For the Weinsteins’ part, their lawyer believes the opposite:

Dallas attorney Randal Mathis, who represents the couple, says the Weinsteins’ suit tests whether threats made in prayer are constitutionally protected.

“Of course, we think the answer to that is ‘no,’ ” says Mathis…”We think these things called prayers cause violence.”

Mathis says people have fired shots at the Weinsteins’ home…, set fire to their lawn and left animal carcasses on their porch.

The reference to shots and fires are, of course, inflammatory and irrelevant, because they had no connection with Klingenschmitt’s prayer (indeed, they occurred years prior to the prayer).

Weinstein has longed proclaimed himself a defender of religious liberty and the Constitution, frequently monologuing

I would give my last drop of blood, and I would give my last breath…to support your right to [what you] believe…, because that is American. That is a right we have under our beautiful U.S. Constitution.

Critics, including Klingenschmitt, have long maintained that while Weinstein has said he would defend the Constitution, and while his organization has “religious freedom” in its name, his actions have proved anything but.  His vitriolic accusations and cries for restrictive constraints have been contrary to the Constitution’s protection of human liberties, not in support of it.  This most recent lawsuit is only the most clear example of Weinstein’s consistently incorrect understanding of the Constitution.

Now, it would seem that a reputable religious and civil liberties organization agrees.