School District Slashes Bible Mentions From Classic Christmas Play - ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM CHARISMA NEWS

Linus shares the Christmas story in the "A Charlie Brown Christmas" TV special. (YouTube)

School District Slashes Bible Mentions From Classic Christmas Play

12/16/2015 ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM  charisma news

Join us on our podcast each weekday for an interesting story, well told, from Charisma News. Listen at charismapodcastnetwork.com.

---

Alliance Defending Freedom sent a letter Tuesday to Johnson County Schools to encourage it to ignore a single complaint it received about biblical references in a student play based on the classic Charles Schulz television special A Charlie Brown Christmas.

"Schools should not have to think twice about whether they can allow students to perform a classic Christmas production simply because it contains biblical references," said ADF Legal Counsel Matt Sharp. "A Charlie Brown Christmas has become an iconic Christmas story and tradition. Are school officials going to start demanding that other classic productions, such as Shakespearean plays, be censored just because they contain religious references?"

After receiving the lone complaint from a family at W.R. Castle Elementary School, the district announced its intent to censor all religious references from A Charlie Brown Christmas and any other Christmas plays at the district's schools. Parents, students and cast members have expressed dismay over the decision.

"There is no violation of the so-called separation of church and state by allowing children to learn about theater and the origins of Christmas through participating in a stage version of this beloved program that contains the same religious elements as the television version," the ADF letter explains. "Given that courts have consistently held that schools may organize and sponsor Christmas programs and performances that include religious songs and study the historical origins of Christmas, there is no basis for the District's decision to censor the religious aspects of A Charlie Brown Christmas."

The letter offers legal assistance to the school district if anyone files suit to stop the play from occurring.

"Because the school district completely misunderstands the First Amendment, all it is accomplishing here is upsetting and disappointing a lot of children and other community members who love this completely acceptable play," said ADF Senior Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. "We sincerely hope the district will change course and correct its entirely misguided censorship."

For a limited time, we are extending our celebration of the 40th anniversary of Charisma. As a special offer, you can get 40 issues of Charisma magazine for only $40!

NEW from CHARISMA: Do you want to encounter the Holy Spirit and hear God speak to you? Increase your faith, discover freedom, and draw near to God! Click Here

Marriage Supporters Flood High Court Ahead of Case

CBNNews.com

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

The U.S. Supreme Court has received a barrage of briefs ahead of the upcoming case that could legalize same-sex marriage nationwide.

Dozens of opponents have filed briefs urging the justices not to enforce a sudden, radical change on society by redefining what constitutes a marriage.

One of the top arguments made in the briefs contends that same-sex marriage could harm children because information indicates children raised by two fathers or two mothers suffer more emotional pain.

In fact, six children who were raised by same-sex couples have even filed briefs stating their opposition to redefining marriage.

Heather Barwick and Katy Faust filed a "friend of the court" brief saying they endured harm because they were not raised by a father and a mother.

"We write to this Court as children raised by women in committed same-sex relationships. While we love and cherish our mothers, we feel it's imperative that we bring to this Court's attention the impact that redefining marriage will have on children like us," Barwick and Faust stated.

"We oppose gay marriage on the grounds that it violates children's rights and cannot provide children with the most foundational building blocks for child development - a mother and father living with and loving them," they said.

Some briefs argue the high court should let states limit marriage to a man and a woman for the sake of children.

They cite a recent study by the Rev. D. Paul Sullins, a Catholic University sociology professor, which shows that children brought up by same-sex parents have a higher rate of emotional and developmental problems.

"If children don't do as well when they are raised by same-sex parents, why would we want to establish or encourage that as a social norm?" Sullins asked.

Sullins has been criticized by supporters of same-sex marriage who say he skewed the study because he's Catholic. But he said the data doesn't lie.

"I don't know of any Catholic way to compute the equation," he said. "The idea that there are no differences is emphatically mistaken. I don't know how else to say that."

And the Alliance Defending Freedom points out that the American College of Pediatricians has filed a brief with other groups and scholars that argues "of the eight total large-scale studies that purport to evaluate the welfare of children raised by same-sex couples, the four most recent 'find that children with same-sex parents suffer substantially reduced well-being.'"

Meanwhile, supporters of traditional marriage also contend that a ruling in favor of same-sex marriage will remove all boundaries, opening marriage to three or more people.

"Expanding the definition of marriage away from the way cultures and civilization have always defined it can only lead to further confusion," said the Rev. Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.

"We're always told that what we say is slippery-slope alarmism. And yet the slope is quite slippery," Moore warned.

Attorney John Bursch wrote a defense of Michigan's gay marriage ban. He will argue before the court on behalf of the states that same-sex couples can claim no constitutional right to marriage.

Bursch writes that his case is not about the best marriage definition, but "who decides, the people of each state or the federal judiciary?"

The Supreme Court will hear the case on April 28.

High Court Strikes Down Abortion Clinic Buffer Zones - CBNNews.com Thursday, June 26, 2014

High Court Strikes Down Abortion Clinic Buffer Zones 

CBNNews.com Thursday, June 26, 2014

The Supreme Court handed a victory to pro-lifers Thursday.

The justices unanimously struck down a 2007 Massachusetts law that created a 35-foot protest-free zone outside abortion clinics in Massachusetts.

The high court ruled a buffer zone 35 feet from the entrances of clinics violates the First Amendment rights of protesters.

Chief Justice John Roberts says authorities can deal with problems outside abortion clinics in less intrusive ways.

"Americans have the freedom to talk to whomever they please on public sidewalks," said Mark Rienzi, an allied attorney of Alliance Defending Freedom, the organization that filed the lawsuit in McCullen v. Coakley.

"That includes peaceful pro-lifers like Eleanor McCullen, who just wants to offer information and help to women who would like it," he continued. "The Supreme Court has affirmed a critical freedom that has been an essential part of American life since the nation's founding."

Attorneys at Americans United for Life filed amicus curiae briefs twice in the Supreme Court. They argued the law, which was enforceable through criminal sanctions, was unconstitutional.

"In a brazen affront to the First Amendment, Massachusetts government officials had sought to use the threat of arrest and criminal conviction to silence those offering women life-affirming alternatives to abortion," AUL president and CEO Charmaine Yoest charged.

"The Supreme Court rightly rejected this unlawful attempt to deny pro-life Americans their First Amendment rights," Yoest said.