ChristiansUnite Forums

ADF: More than 800 attorneys nationwide ready to combat attempts to censor Christmas
Third annual Christmas Project declares, "Merry Christmas. It's okay to say it."
Wednesday, November 02, 2005, 10:30 AM (MST)
ADF Media Relations | 480-444-0020

Comments
 


SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. - The Alliance Defense Fund announced today it has more than 800 attorneys available nationwide to combat any improper attempts to censor the celebration of Christmas in schools and on public property.

"An overwhelming majority of Americans of all faiths agree that we should celebrate Christmas," said ADF President Alan Sears.  "This is a time for goodness, giving, and hope--not a time for fear, intimidation, and the disinformation of agenda-driven, anti-Christmas legal entities."

According to recent polls,

    * 96 percent of Americans celebrate Christmas (Fox News/Opinion Dynamics, 2003).
    * 90 percent of Americans recognize Christmas as the birthday of Jesus Christ (Gallup, 2000).
    * 88 percent of Americans say it is okay for people to wish others "Merry Christmas" and the majority of Americans are more likely to wish someone they just met "Merry Christmas" rather than "Happy Holidays" (CNN/USA Today/Gallup, 2004).
    * 87 percent of Americans believe nativity scenes should be allowed on public property (Fox News/Opinion Dynamics, 2003).

"As in years past, ADF's goal this season is to inform, educate, and help protect the rights of the 96% of Americans who celebrate Christmas regarding their rights," Sears explained.

"We want to dispel the myths about religious expression at Christmastime that have prompted wrongful acts of government censorship of religious speech," Sears said.  "Merry Christmas.  It's okay to say it."

The purpose of ADF's Christmas Project is to clear up misconceptions about seasonal religious expression on public property:

    * The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled that public schools must ban the singing of religious Christmas carols or prohibit the distribution of candy canes or Christmas cards.
    * School officials may refer to a school break in December as "Christmas Vacation" or as a holiday without offending the Constitution.
    * School officials do not violate the Constitution by closing on religious holidays such as Christmas and Good Friday.
    * No court has ever held that celebrating Thanksgiving and Christmas as religious holidays requires recognition of all other religious holidays.
    * The "Three Reindeer Rule" used by the courts requires a municipality to place a sufficient number of secular objects in close enough proximity to the Christmas item (such as a crèche) to render the overall display sufficiently secular.  Although the overall display must not convey a message endorsing a particular religion's view, Christmas displays are not banned as some people believe.  Simply put, the courts ask, "Is the municipality celebrating the holiday or promoting religion?"

Participating with ADF in this year's Christmas Project are Coral Ridge Ministries, Focus on the Family, Christmas Tree Farmers Association of New York, and the majority of America's state family policy councils.

ADF will represent people of faith, as well as school districts or other entities, free of charge--as it has in numerous instances in recent years--to defend their freedom of speech regarding Christmas, even after Christmas is over.

ADF has prepared a free informational pamphlet titled "The Truth about Religious Expression at Christmastime."  An informational legal memorandum that can be sent to school officials regarding the law and Christmas expression is also available.  Visit www.saychristmas.org or call 1-877-TELL-ADF.

ADF is a legal alliance defending America's first liberty--religious freedom--through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.

ADF protecting religious liberty internationally, assisting defense of pastor in Sweden
ADF chief counsel at today's Swedish Supreme Court hearing of pastor on trial for speaking his views on homosexual behavior in sermon
Wednesday, November 09, 2005, 12:01 PM (MST)
ADF Media Relations | 480-444-0020

Comments
 


STOCKHOLM, Sweden - The Alliance Defense Fund sent its chief counsel to Sweden this week to provide legal expertise for the defense of a Swedish pastor who stood before Sweden's Supreme Court today on "hate crime" charges.  The charges against the pastor, Ake Green, stem from a sermon he preached on the biblical view of homosexual behavior.

"The prosecutor general and the Swedish government are out to make an example of Pastor Green," said ADF Chief Counsel Benjamin Bull following the hearing.  "Pastor Green is the first individual charged and prosecuted under the law passed in 2003.  It's drawn national attention.  Homosexual activists in Sweden and throughout Europe are set on making an example of him."

Bull founded and then served for a number of years as director of a Europe-wide religious liberties legal organization based in Strasburg, France.  In Sweden this week, he met with Green's trial counsel to discuss the hearing and also met with several international Christian human rights groups, such as CARE Trust and Christian Lawyers Fellowship in Great Britain, to generate additional support for Green.

In April, Bull met with Green in Geneva, Switzerland, and counseled him with regard to his rights and international law.  A link to a transcript of Ake Green's sermon can be found at www.akegreen.org.

"This case is perhaps the most striking example yet that the pretense of 'tolerance' is over.  'Tolerance' of the homosexual agenda means the silencing and punishment of those who disagree," Bull said.

"This case and ones like it are critical for freedom of religious expression in America, too," Bull explained.  "If the ACLU and its radical activist allies have their way, the laws of Europe will soon be the laws of America.  The U.S. Supreme Court has already taken note of international law in some of its decisions.  ADF will continue to oppose attacks upon religious liberty here as well as overseas."

ADF coordinated and funded the filing of friend-of-the-court briefs for the case as well as the translation of trial transcripts into English.  Numerous international groups have used these ADF transcripts to prepare their friend-of-the-court briefs on Green's behalf.

ADF is also involved in funding the defense of Stephen Boissoin, a Canadian pastor brought up on charges before the Alberta Human Rights Commission for a newspaper editorial he wrote that contained his views on homosexual behavior.  ADF attorneys have coordinated his defense with Calgary-based ADF-allied attorney Gerald Chipeur.

Access denied: Unemployment advocates banished from open forum
Presence of Bible verses leads to censoring of ads
Monday, November 14, 2005, 4:45 PM (MST)
ADF Media Relations | 480-444-0020

Comments
 


DETROIT, Mich. - Two Michigan unemployment advocates have retained the counsel of Alliance Defense Fund attorneys after being banned from placing Bible verses on advertisements touting their services.  A lawsuit has been filed in federal court.

"Apparently, the Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency thinks it can discriminate against Christian content in ads," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Kevin Theriot.  "Prohibiting the Grosjeans from expressing their religious viewpoint as part of their ads in a public forum is a blatant violation of the First Amendment."

Andrew and Glenda Grosjean, independent contractors who work on behalf of employees who have been denied benefits by the Michigan UIA, found the agency had censored their ads after they refused to remove the biblical references.

Unemployment advocates are not necessarily attorneys but perform many of the same functions on behalf of unemployed persons.  They are permitted to display personalized biographical ads in a list the UIA distributes to unemployed workers who have been denied employment benefits.

In the past, the Grosjeans have been permitted to include biblical references on their ads.  However, after submitting ads on Sept. 15, a UIA employee informed the Grosjeans that the material violated the so-called "separation of church and state" and ordered the Bible references removed. Without the Grosjeans' knowledge, employees then removed the ads' religious content before displaying them.

"Secularization of the Grosjeans' ads is impermissible," Theriot said.  "The Constitution does not permit UIA employees to edit materials at will simply because they contain religious references.  Censorship is apparently fully employed at the Michigan UIA."

Texas marriage amendment supporter silenced...but not anymore
Citizen quietly supporting marriage obtains help from ADF-allied attorney to win victory against attempt to remove him from public property

BALCONES HEIGHTS, Texas - A citizen passively pledging his support for marriage is once again free to express his views in public after receiving assistance from an Alliance Defense Fund allied attorney.

Larry Scott held a sign in support of Texas' proposed constitutional amendment on marriage while sitting in a chair on public property Oct. 28.  Personnel at a nearby mall called police.  Although Scott remained quiet and seated and did not present an obstruction to pedestrian or vehicle traffic, police told him to move on.

"Mr. Scott was simply engaging in the freedoms that the First Amendment provides," said ADF-allied attorney Michael J. Morris.  "He was in no way, shape, or form causing a disturbance or hindrance to any citizens or businesses and had every right to do what he was doing."

Morris sent a letter to the local police chief advising him of Scott's rights under the Constitution.  Scott was able to resume holding his sign Nov. 4.

Scott engaged in a similar display for three to four weeks during 2004's general election, where he ran into similar trouble with a different outcome.  After mall personnel placed a call to authorities in that instance, Scott was told by police that his actions were indeed legal.

"The authorities' turnabout in allowing, then disallowing, Mr. Scott's actions within the space of a year didn't make sense," Morris said.  "We are pleased that he is once again allowed to exercise his rights without interference."

Scott was referred to Morris after phoning the Texas-based Liberty Legal Institute for assistance.

Texas voters Tuesday adopted the constitutional amendment for which Scott was publicly displaying support (www.telladf.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=3586).

No free expression on public sidewalks in Concord
ADF-allied attorney files suit against city for highly restrictive policies against free speech on public sidewalks
Tuesday, November 22, 2005, 5:34 PM (MST)
ADF Media Relations | 480-444-0020

"The First Amendment applies to all Americans, including those expressing their religious viewpoint while standing on public sidewalks," said ADF-allied attorney Rick Nelson of the American Liberties Institute based in Orlando, Fla.
Comments
 


CONCORD, N.C. - An Alliance Defense Fund allied attorney filed suit Monday in federal court against the city of Concord for its highly restrictive ordinances against public expression on community sidewalks and in public parks.

"The First Amendment applies to all Americans, including those expressing their religious viewpoint while standing on public sidewalks," said ADF-allied attorney Rick Nelson of the American Liberties Institute based in Orlando, Fla.  "The city's ordinances are clearly unconstitutional because they restrict the First Amendment rights of citizens in public areas traditionally open to free speech activities."

Nelson filed suit on behalf of three individuals after their family members and relatives were cited for alleged violations of the restrictions.  After the friends and relatives held an event on Oct. 14, two were fined $1,000 and one was fined $5,000.  The city's regulations call for incarceration for up to 30 days and fines up to $5,000 if just two people walk together on a public sidewalk or in a public park without first applying for a permit.

Nelson explained, "This restriction is absurd because it prohibits a family from taking an evening stroll in the city's parks or on the city's sidewalks without first applying for a permit."

The restrictions also prohibit any two people from gathering to make known any position without a permit, and picketing is banned in public parks and other areas where free speech is common in most cities.  The city also may censor any picket sign if city officials feel any words used might be "derogatory or defamatory in nature."

"The First Amendment does not permit government officials to censor speech it deems derogatory or defamatory," Nelson said.  "These restrictions are egregious.  They give the city far too much discretion in when and where to allow the free speech that the Constitution guarantees to all Americans who want to express their point of view in a public area.  Our clients are having their First Amendment rights chilled each day that these ordinances are enforced."

Along with the complaint in the case, Benham v. City of Concord, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, Nelson also requested a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to stop the city from enforcing its ordinances while the lawsuit moves forward.  The court has set a hearing for Dec. 6 at the Greensboro federal courthouse.

ADF to defend Christian student groups facing discrimination at two California universities
Four Christian student groups pressured to accept members and leaders that do not share their beliefs
Monday, November 28, 2005, 3:00 PM (MST)

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. — The Alliance Defense Fund filed a civil rights lawsuit today against San Diego State University and California State University, Long Beach, on behalf of four student Christian groups facing discrimination on those campuses.  The lawsuit is part of ADF’s University Project, a nationwide effort to defend Christian student groups at universities across the nation from the discrimination they often face by campus officials.

“The right of association applies to all groups on campus,” said Jeremy Tedesco, litigation staff counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund.  “All student groups have a right to elect officers and members who share that group’s values or belief system.  These universities are requiring Christian organizations to accept members who disagree with their beliefs and viewpoints, violating these students’ First Amendment rights.”

The universities’ so-called “nondiscrimination” policies force Christian groups to abandon their Christian beliefs as a condition to gain access to the benefits recognized student groups enjoy, including meeting on campus, receiving university funding, and accessing the primary channels for communicating their message on campus.  Because the Board of Trustees of California State University governs all 23 Cal State school campuses, ADF’s filing of the lawsuit has ramifications for the entire Cal State school system.

“University officials would never require that the student vegetarian club allow meat eaters or hunters to lead their organization,” said Tedesco.  “The ultimate impact of this policy will be to either eliminate Christian clubs from campus or dilute them to the point where they are no longer Christian.”

ADF’s clients include local chapters of Every Nation Campus Ministries at San Diego State University and California State Long Beach, as well as Alpha Gamma Omega and Alpha Delta Chi, a fraternity and a sorority at San Diego State University.  Three of these Christian student groups require their members and officers to profess their faith in Jesus Christ and adhere to a biblical code of conduct.  The other group applies these requirements to their officers only.  Each group’s code of conduct prohibits sexual conduct outside the bounds of marriage between a man and a woman.  This restriction applies to both heterosexual and homosexual conduct.

District's Clampdown on Religious Music Criticized as Unconstitutional
'Grinch Alive and Well in New Jersey,' Says TMLC President

By Jim Brown
December 20, 2005

(AgapePress) - A pro-family law firm has filed an appeal against a New Jersey school district that banned instrumental Christmas music.

The Thomas More Law Center is asking the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia to end the South Orange/Maplewood School District's ban on religious music. The ban was implemented last year to prevent the use of Christmas music at year-end celebrations in the district.

Rob Muise, the attorney handling the case for the Ann Arbor, Michigan-based Law Center, argues the district is violating the Establishment Clause, found in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Muise contends there are "plenty" of court cases that, under the Constitution, it is perfectly permissible to have religious instrumental and choral music in schools during the Christmas holiday time.

"So when these school districts claim [they are] doing this because of separation of church and state or so forth, that's just not true," the attorney explains. "It really is just a way for them to mask what their true, illicit purpose is, which is to keep Christmas out of the public school and take it out of the public domain."

In fact, says Law Center chief counsel Richard Thompson, it is a "blatant anti-religious policy" that serves as an example of a "total and militant hostility that many public schools exhibit towards the celebration of Christmas."

According to Muise, the New Jersey school district is relying on a policy drafted nearly 15 years ago that stated religious music has to be tied to a school's curriculum. He explains that even though the district had permitted Christmas music to be played in schools in the past, it decided in 2004 to re-institute that old policy and to enforce a complete ban on religious music.

But the attorney notes that "since we filed this lawsuit and filed the appeal, they rewrote their policy, which looks very ... similar to the policy that they had in 1991."

Muise says the South Orange/Maplewood School District needs to adopt an inclusive and tolerant view of religion. Right now, he says, the district is hiding under a "mantle of 'tolerance'" to promote intolerance toward Christians.