Court rules against ACLU, atheist on San Diego cross

Court rules against ACLU, atheist on San Diego cross
Judges say voter measure transferring land to federal government constitutional

Posted: November 30, 2006
6:30 p.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

In a major victory for backers of San Diego's Mt. Soledad cross, an appeals court ruled today in favor of a voter measure that authorized transfer of the land beneath the memorial to the federal government.

A panel of justices from the 4th District Court of Appeal ruled 3-0 that Proposition A was constitutional, overturning a decision by Superior Court Judge Patricia Yim Cowett that invalidated the measure. The court also reversed a $275,000 attorney fee award received by an ACLU-backed lawyer for plaintiff Phillip Paulsen, an atheist who died last month.

"We are quite pleased with the court's decision," said Charles LiMandri, the West Coast Regional Director for the Thomas More Law Center, which argued the case. "It protects the will of the people and their desire to preserve a historical, veterans memorial for future generations."

The battle began in 1989 when Paulsen filed suit, and a court ordered the city to remove the cross. In 1998, the city sold the property to the Mt. Soledad War Memorial Association, which again was challenged in court. The sale originally was upheld but later ruled unconstitutional by the full panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco and remanded back to district court to work out a remedy.

Proposition A, passed by 75 percent in July 2005, called for the city to donate the cross to the federal government as the centerpiece of the veterans memorial.

The ballot initiative came about after the city refused to donate the cross and memorial to the federal government. A group called San Diegans for the Mount Soledad National War Memorial took just 23 days to gather 105,000 signatures.

Paulson had argued against the validity of Proposition A, contending it violated the state constitutional ban on government aid or preference to religion.

But the justices today decided the voter initiative not an establishment of religion by San Diego voters.

"Given the language of Proposition A and the official ballot argument in favor of the proposition, we cannot conclude the individuals who voted for the proposition acted in order to establish the Christian religion or favor that religion," wrote Associate Justice Patricia Benke.

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, which is defending the constitutionality of the cross, said the decision "clearly shows that the ballot proposition was proper."

"This decision represents another important legal victory in the ongoing battle to keep the Mt. Soledad Memorial in place," he said.

Judge Moore files brief supporting 'In God We Trust'

Judge Moore files brief supporting 'In God We Trust'
Says Constitution never meant neutrality between religion and non-religion

Posted: November 30, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Bob Unruh

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

The Foundation for Moral Law has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a lawsuit challenging the legality of the United States' motto "In God We Trust," saying "neutrality between religion and non-religion … is a myth lacking both logical and historical underpinnings."

The foundation, launched by former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice and now WND columnist Judge Roy Moore, was set up by Moore after he was removed from his state judicial position for refusing to follow a federal order he believed unconstitutional – to remove a Ten Commandments representation from state property.

It exists to argue for and support the recognition of God in America, and that's why it entered the California case filed by Dr. Michael Newdow, who is suing because he claims the motto is an unconstitutional "establishment" of religion.

Moore's brief in the case notes that, "complete neutrality concerning religion in the public square does not exist and was never intended in our law." Neutrality between religions? Yes. But not neutrality between religion and non-religion.

"The primary author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, observed that, 'No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be,'" the foundation document said.

In his weekly column for WND, Moore says the nation today is facing another challenge not altogether different from the night Francis Scott Key wrote the words to the Star-Spangled Banner, which include:

Blest with vict'ry and peace may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the power that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto – "In God is our Trust."

"Our nation is under an attack that threatens our survival. This time an enemy from within seeks to destroy America's godly heritage and force us to surrender our public faith in God. We must withstand this bombardment by realizing that the shells of atheism lack the powder of truth and will not enjoy success if we stand together and fight! Then, when the smoke clears, the flag of our faith will be seen as a beacon to the rest of the world and our national motto as a testament to our trust in God," he wrote.

"The Declaration of Independence itself states that 'all Men are created equal' and are 'endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…'" Moore noted in the foundation brief. The U.S. Constitution itself, according to John Adams, does not create a "government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion … Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other," the foundation brief said.

The lawsuit was brought by Newdow, who earlier took a lawsuit alleging "under God" should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. Supreme Court where he lost on a technicality, and he claims the motto violates the Establishment Clause.

Newdow, who says he has his own religious rights under his own "First Amendment Church of True Science," also has refiled his complaint over the Pledge, and that also now is pending.

The Foundation's interest in the case is that it believes "In God We Trust" is one of many public acknowledgments of God that have been "espoused from the very beginning of this nation."

"The Foundation believes that the government should encourage such acknowledgment of God because He is the sovereign source of American law, liberty, and government," the filing explained.

Statutes authorizing the motto "in no way violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because the statutes do not conflict with the text of that Amendment, particularly as it was historically defined by common understanding at the time of the Amendment's adoption."

And the court's responsibility is to exercise its authority based on the text of the document from which that authority is derived, Moore said.

"The text of the Establishment Clause states that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,'" the brief says. "When these words are applied to the statutes in issue, it becomes evident that the statutes and the phrase 'In God We Trust' do not dictate religion to anyone and do not represent a form of an establishment thereof. While this important statement about the religious conviction of the nation may offend someone, it properly expresses the spirit of 'We the People' as a whole and does not offend the First Amendment to the Constitution."

The legal filing, which acts in an advisory capacity for the court, endorsed the district court, which concluded there was nothing unconstitutional about the motto, basing the decision on a previous case that concluded, "[It] is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of reliion."

But the Foundation for Moral Law said the appeals court could go further. "To get the case completely right, this Court … should apply the words of the First Amendment according to their meaning when they were first adopted."

"Following the carefully crafted words of the Establishment Clause will yield the correct result in this case, save the Court from the headache of having to guess which test Supreme Court would employ to evaluate the constitutionality of the motto, and ensure that the Court is adhering to its oath to uphold the Constitution," the brief said.

Over the years various courts have set up "tests" to determine the constitutionality of such items, but Moore said all that's needed is the Establishment Clause itself.

Those tests "erroneously assume that the language of the Establishment Clause is not clear and that somehow judicially-fabricated tests will succeed where the original language has purportedly failed," the brief said. "However, the exact opposite is the case: jurisprudential experiments with various extra-textual 'tests' such as Lemon, the Endorsement test, and the coercion test have produced a continuum of disparate results."

The issue was addressed 150 years ago when the Senate Judiciary Committee, while considering the Congressional chaplaincy, said, "[The Founders] had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people; they did not intend to prohibit a just expression of religious devotion by the legislators of the nation, even in their public character as legislators; they did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistical apathy."

"The neutrality that Newdow asks for is, in fact, a hostility toward religion by another name. Because this nation is so steeped in a tradition of recognizing God, to suddenly forbid expressions in the public square about God would place the government's imprimatur on atheism," the brief said.

"The motto, 'In God We Trust,' is an acknowledgment of God and His integral role in the life of the nation. It contains a 'religious' element, but it does not represent a 'religion'' under the Establishment Clause."

Justice Joseph Story in his Commentaries on the Constitution said the real object of the amendment was "to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment."

The case is being defended by the U.S. Justice Department and Pacific Justice Institute.

PJI chief counsel Kevin Snider earlier told WND his documents already had been filed.

"We better take this one seriously," constitutional attorney Herbert W. Titus told D. James Kennedy's Coral Ridge ministry. "Otherwise, we're going to see a very strong erosion of the references to God at the federal level."

The radical elimination of those references already has been under way for some years, as WND reported in a story about the U.S. Supreme Court changing its official description of stone tablets in the artwork within the very chamber where decisions are delivered. As recently as 20 years ago, they were officially the Ten Commandments. Now they are the Ten Amendments.

Newdow has admitted that references such as the motto do not require him to believe in God, but he told WND he still wants to eradicate the historic motto in public places and instead install his own belief system that does not acknowledge God.

He said his goal is to have "the government treat everybody's religious views equally."

Snider warned if Newdow is successful, there could be a ripple across the land for years to come. Even the Constitution's own reference that it was done "in convention … in the year of our Lord" 1787, apparently could be considered "unconstitutional" under that reasoning, observers said.

Also filing amicus briefs in the case were several other Christian and civil liberties organizations, including the national public-interest Thomas More Law Center and the American Center for Law and Justice.

"The Establishment Clause was never intended as a guarantee that a person will not be exposed to religion or religious symbols on public property, and the Supreme Court has rejected previous attempts to eradicate all symbols of this country’s religious heritage from the public’s view," the ACLJ's brief argued. "Although enterprising plaintiffs can find support for just about any proposition in the Court's multifarious Establishment Clause pronouncements, a claim that the national motto violates the First Amendment borders on frivolous."

Pope prays during visit to Istanbul mosque

Pope prays during visit to Istanbul mosque

Benedict's outing added to schedule as 'sign of respect' to Muslims

ISTANBUL, Turkey - Pope Benedict XVI prayed alongside an Islamic cleric in one of Turkey’s most famous mosques Thursday in a dramatic gesture of outreach to Muslims after outrage from the pontiff’s remarks linking violence and the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad.

The pope bowed his head for nearly a minute after Mustafa Cagrici, the head cleric of Istanbul, said: “Now I’m going to pray.”

“This visit will help us find together the way of peace for the good of all humanity,” the pope said before leaving the 17th century Blue Mosque in only the second papal visit to a Muslim place of worship. Benedict’s predecessor, John Paul II, visited a mosque in Syria in 2001.

The mosque visit was added to Benedict’s schedule as a “sign of respect” during his first papal trip to a Muslim nation, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, said last week.

'Let us pray for brotherhood'

The pope removed his shoes before entering the carpeted expanse of the mosque, which is officially known as the Sultan Ahmet Mosque after the Ottoman sultan Ahmet I, who ordered its construction. But it’s widely called the Blue Mosque after its elaborate blue tiles.

The pope received a gift of a glazed tile decorated with a dove and a painting showing a view of the Sea of Marmara off Istanbul. The pope gave the imam a painting showing four doves.

“Let us pray for brotherhood and for all humanity,” the pope said in Italian.

The pope has offered wide-ranging messages of reconciliation to Muslims since arriving in Turkey on Tuesday, including appeals for greater understanding and support for Turkey’s steps to become the first Muslim nation in the European Union.

But Benedict also has set down his own demands.

After a deeply symbolic display of unity with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, the spiritual leader of the world’s Christian Orthodox, the pope again repeated his calls for greater freedoms for religious minorities and described the divisions among Christians — including the nearly 1,000-year rift between Catholics and Orthodox — as a “scandal to the world.”

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Drug Town Miracle has World-Wide Effect

Drug Town Miracle has World-Wide Effect
By Wendy Griffith
CBN News

CWNews.com -MANCHESTER, Ky. - Last fall, we brought you the amazing story of a Kentucky drug town that was transformed by the power of God. Little did anybody know the huge impact this story would have on cities and towns all over the world. It was the march seen around the world. In May, 2004, nearly 4,000 people came out to march against drugs in the small town of Manchester, Kentucky.

The pastors repented before God and their communities for allowing the darkness to settle in. The drug dealers were put on notice: "get saved or get busted." They'd had enough.

Over the next 12 months, they saw dramatic changes in their town -- drug arrests went way up, drug dealers and users started coming to church and getting free from their addictions, and the story of Manchester was seen around the world on the 700 Club.

Pastor Doug Abner of Community Church said, "About two hours after the story of Manchester aired the first time live, we started getting telephone calls."Pastor Abner keeps track of all the states that have contacted him - 33 so far - and hundreds of towns. "Not only did we hear from people in the U.S., but we got e-mails from New Zealand, France, Wales, England, and British Columbia.just mind-boggling," said Abner.

Nearly every request was the same: "Help us do in our town what you did in Manchester."

Pastor Mike England of Tri-State Christian Center in Blue Ridge, Georgia, said, "We were blown away, because we knew we had a serious, serious methamphetamine problem. We have other drugs too, but meth is just overwhelming. We had no idea how to battle it - or deal with it. We saw that video and we got hope that somebody might have an answer about how to attack it!"Pastor England showed the 700 Club story to his church."

I didn't even preach because the floor of the church was just littered with people weeping and weeping after seeing that video, and I wasn't going to touch that because that's a holy thing." After that - my wife decided we needed to come here and see for ourselves," England explained.

And that's just what they did. After a surprise visit to Manchester, Pastor England and his wife just showed up on Pastor Abner's doorstep.

Then the Englands headed back to Georgia, where they helped organize the first-ever march against meth. In August, some 3,000 residents of Fannin County, Georgia took to the streets. The local news covered the event.

In Longview, Texas - a similar story of desperation. Shannon Smallwood's family was almost ready to give up, after struggling for years with a family member hooked on crack cocaine. Smallwood said, "I just flipped on the TV and the 700 Club was on, and I saw this community marching, concerning drug abuse in their city. And what God did in that city was just amazing and miraculous, and pretty much I said, 'God, would You do that in our city?' Shannon's prayer was answered.

In May, hundreds of residents in Longview, Texas donned red-T-shirts in what they called "The Big March." Their theme: "The Battle is the Lord's - taken from 2nd Chronicles, Chapter 20. Participant Roger Carr said, "Do not be afraid or discouraged, for the battle is not yours, but God's - tomorrow, march down against them."And in Oceana, West Virginia, sometimes referred to as "Oxy-ana" because of the drug problem associated with the pain killer Oxycontin, two marches were held after hearing about what God did in Manchester."

We had over 550 people march and it was awesome," said Debbie Davis. "The Word tells me that God is no respecter of persons -- if He can do that in Manchester, Kentucky, than He can do that in Oceana, West Virginia." Nobody could have imagined that so many towns, so many lives, would be inspired - even changed by a single story. And, that a town -- once hopeless when it came to its drug problem --could give hope to so many who need it.

"What I saw on TV that day gave me hope," Texas march organizer Smallwood said.

Amanda Tornberg, a former drug user, said, "I believed that I would never be anything more than the hopeless junkie that I had been for so long, but God spoke to me and He said, 'You know what, when you were still in your sins, Christ died for you.'"

"You cannot underestimate the value of hope in the community," said England. "Churches are letting down the walls and seriously starting to work together…The government agencies and the churches are working together for the first time ever -- that's never happened." Not only that, but England says that since the march, calls to the county's drug-tip hotline are up 10 percent. A good indicator, he says, of things to come.

And in Manchester, two 1/2 years after the march -- the area once known as the pain killer capitol of the nation is now seeing a dramatic dip in the number of pain killers prescribed by doctors -- and there's more. Pastor Abner said, "We've been told by drug dealers who've now been set free by Jesus, that if they were still dealing drugs they wouldn't even stop in our town and buy gas because the climate has changed so much." And Abner says that he's grateful for how God used the 700 Club to share their story. "The 700 Club totally changed our lives," Abner said, "in that, every day, we get to do things in the Kingdom because people saw that. And every time it's been re-run, we get telephone calls. We've got a couple of dvd's now; we always send the story of Manchester out. And we follow that up with calls and we pray for them and the communities on Sat. morning.

I really believe what's going to happen is that eventually the fire is going to move across our nation, and we're going to have a tremendous revival in America again." England said, "When we saw that video, we saw a community where the church was actually making an impact. And after visiting here, I am convinced now - this is reproducible in any community in America. And this may be the key for the church really impacting America nation-wide."

Saddleback Church Hosts AIDS Conference

Saddleback Church Hosts AIDS Conference

CBN News
November 30, 2006

CBNNews.com - LAKE FOREST, Calif. - The Rev. Rick Warren, author of "The Purpose-Driven Life," is calling together Christian leaders, scientists, doctors and government officials for a global summit on AIDS.

The author of "The Purpose-Driven Life" and his wife are hosting the gathering today and tomorrow at their Saddleback Church in southern California.

This is the second year for the summit, entitled, "Global Summit on AIDS and the Church."
Rick's wife Kay became aware of the vastness of the AIDS problem in 2002, according to the Los Angeles Times, after she read a news article about the 12 million orphans that the disease had left in Africa.

Kay says that her own battle with cancer has helped her relate to people with AIDS.

And Christians have several assets that are crucial to winning the fight against AIDS, according to Rick: a worldwide network of believers and local churches, and credibility in their communities.

He also says that if the church is the body of Christ, it needs to be hands and feet helping the sick and not just a mouth that criticizes.

But he's being criticized by some Christian conservatives for including Democratic Senator Barack Obama -- who supports abortion rights -- among the 60 speakers.

Saddleback Church has issued a statement that says, "Obama was invited to share his views on AIDS, not abortion," and notes that conservative Republican Senator Sam Brownback also will participate.

Warren feels that "the church has been known more for what it's against than for what it's for," and while he opposes abortion, he says he wants to expand the agenda by including Obama.

In fact, Obama and Warren are not total strangers to each other. When Obama was writing his best-selling book, "The Audacity of Hope," he asked Warren, himself a best-selling author, to review the chapter on faith.

The global summit will place particular emphasis on the effect AIDS has on women, orphans and children. It will also emphasize the impact of AIDS on Hispanics and African-Americans.

Others taking parting the summit include the Reverend Franklin Graham, representatives from the pediatric AIDS foundation, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, other AIDS organizations, and leaders of World Vision, World Relief and Compassion International.

There will also be special video messages from Bill and Melinda Gates of The Gates Foundation, and Senator Bill Frist.

Source: Associated Press, Larry Ross Communications Press Release, LA Times

International Christmas Outreach Refutes Reported Ban on Christian-Themed Gifts

International Christmas Outreach Refutes Reported Ban on Christian-Themed Gifts

By Allie Martin


(AgapePress) - Recently, a story in London's Daily Mail newspaper said the Operation Christmas Child (OCC) program, an outreach of the international relief ministry Samaritan's Purse, had banned Christian and Christmas-themed children's gifts from its annual shoebox gift drive. However, an official with the North Carolina-based ministry says the British paper's report is not correct.

The Daily Mail story said the alleged ban on all Christian materials in the OCC shoeboxes was part of an effort not to offend Muslims. However, Operation Christmas Child spokesman Jim Harrelson claims that is not true and that such a ban would be inconsistent with the ministry's global mission, policies, and practices. He believes the newspaper's inaccurate statements about the giving program's policy are the result of small variations in the handling of the donated gifts in the United Kingdom.

"Christian literature is not banned from the OCC shoebox gifts, as reported," Harrelson insists. Some items, such as war-related toys, are removed from gift boxes; but, since this program has had an evangelical focus from its inception, he notes that a gospel presentation for children is placed in every shoebox OCC distributes.

However, the ministry representative notes, there is "a slight operational difference in the way the OCC gifts are processed for overseas shipment." In the UK program, all religious literature as well as "political and military things" are initially removed from the shoeboxes, he explains.
Then, according to procedure in the UK, the OCC staff sorts through these items. However, Harrelson emphasizes, the ministry "keeps all the Christian literature, and all of that is sent to the national leadership teams for distribution to the children."

So, yes, the processing of the OCC shoebox gifts in the UK "is different from what we do in the U.S. and some of the other sending countries," the program spokesman explains. But again, he stresses, "all the Christian literature is forwarded to the national leadership teams, and it's used specifically for evangelism to children in and through the local churches that we work through."
Contrary to the Daily Mail's reports, countries around the world -- including Muslim nations -- that will receive gift-filled shoeboxes from Operation Christmas Child will be getting Christian and Christmas-themed materials, Harrelson says. In addition to the donated gifts given by caring donor, needy children receive gospel booklets in their own language.

Since 1993, Operation Christmas Child has collected and distributed more than 46 million shoebox gifts to children in more than 120 countries. Last year alone, the ministry collected 7.6 million shoebox gifts worldwide and distributed them to children in 95 countries.

Allie Martin, a regular contributor to AgapePress, is a reporter for American Family Radio News, which can be heard online.

© 2006 AgapePress all rights reserved.

Legal Group Tells IRS to Back Off Intimidating Churches

Legal Group Tells IRS to Back Off Intimidating Churches

By Jeff Johnson


(AgapePress) - A religious liberties group says it has had enough of the Internal Revenue Service bullying pastors, and wants those pastors and churches to know that the U.S. Constitution trumps IRS regulations about what can and can't be said from the pulpit.

The Washington, DC-based Becket Fund for Religious Liberty says the First Amendment -- which forbids the government from prohibiting free speech or establishing an official religion -- take precedence over regulations established by the IRS concerning political speech from the pulpit of a house of worship. Anthony Picarello, vice president and general counsel for the Becket Fund, says the first mistake most churches make when they are confronted with an IRS investigation is keeping quiet about it. He recommends they go public.

"Make sure that the world knows about what's going on," he suggests. "I think that's one of the best approaches that a church can take when it's confronted with this sort of investigation." The attorney believes the federal agency does not have the resources to fight drawn-out battles against churches and cannot afford the kind of negative publicity such cases generate.

Picarello says groups like Americans United for Separation of Church and State frequently file complaints against churches when their pastors address politics from the pulpit. Those churches, he says, should call his group.

"What we've taken a stand on is the ability of any minister of any faith to preach on any topic -- political or otherwise, short of an incitement to violence -- from the pulpit," he explains. "That is precisely the kind of freedom that the First Amendment protects."

The Becket Fund spokesman says if the IRS pursues penalizing churches, synagogues, or mosques for what their ministers say from the pulpit, "then the IRS is going to have a fight on its hands." He says his firm will defend any pastor's statement from the pulpit that does not involve an incitement to commit violence.

Jeff Johnson, a regular contributor to AgapePress, is a reporter for American Family Radio News, which can be heard online.

© 2006 AgapePress all rights reserved.

ADF Releases Booklet on Students' Religious Speech Rights on Campus

ADF Releases Booklet on Students' Religious Speech Rights on Campus

By Jim Brown
November 30, 2006

(AgapePress) - The Christian legal group Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) has released a new free-speech guide for Christian students in public schools. The 32-page booklet titled "Knowing Your Rights" is designed to help students counter censorship of their First Amendment rights on public school campuses.

ADF attorney Matt Bowman says young people need to know how to respond when they find themselves unconstitutionally silenced by teachers or other school officials, as happens all too often in schools throughout the United States.

"Christian and pro-life and pro-family students are often treated as second-class students and in some cases treated as criminals," Bowman asserts. "The 'Knowing Your Rights' booklet will help students understand their rights to be treated equally, to speak, to proclaim the gospel to their peers and their fellow students," he says.

For years, the ADF representative points out, many U.S. public schools have given in to pressure from groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and their allies, opponents that have used fear, disinformation, and even intimidation tactics to bully school officials into silencing students' free speech -- particularly those whose viewpoints are based on traditional Christian or conservative pro-life or pro-family values.

"School officials sometimes have an allergic reaction to any Christian activity going on at school, even if it's student-initiated," Bowman contends. "But students have the right to establish Christian and conservative clubs to the same extent as any other group, and they cannot be discriminated against based on their viewpoint."

Also, the pro-family lawyer emphasizes, students have the constitutional right under the First Amendment to speak out and express their viewpoint, provided they do so "in between classes and before and after school" and "without disrupting school."

Nevertheless, Bowman observes that many U.S. school officials are either unaware of these student rights or choose to disregard them. Only recently, he notes, he sent a letter to officials at a Virginia high school, demanding that the administration reverse its decision to bar a student from wearing pro-life clothing and passing out flyers with information about abortion.

According to ADF president, CEO, and general counsel Alan Sears, it is the legal alliance's hope that the "Knowing Your Rights" booklet will serve as a valuable tool to equip Christians students and school administrators with the truth regarding the law and religious expression on school campuses.

Sears says both public school students and school administrators alike need to be aware that "Christian students do not abandon their rights at the schoolhouse gate."

Jim Brown, a regular contributor to AgapePress, is a reporter for American Family Radio News, which can be heard online.

© 2006 AgapePress all rights reserved.

As Nativity Story Premieres, Christians Gear Up for Evangelistic Outreach

As Nativity Story Premieres, Christians Gear Up for Evangelistic Outreach

By Jenni Parker and Allie Martin
November 30, 2006

(AgapePress) - Almost concurrent with the advent of the Christmas season, a biblical account of Jesus' birth is coming to the big screen in thousands of theaters across the United States and around the world.

New Line Cinema's The Nativity Story (rated PG), which opens tomorrow (December 1), offers a vivid cinematic retelling of the Christmas story found in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, from the events leading up to Christ's birth to Mary and Joseph's flight with the holy infant into Egypt. Although the film takes some dramatic license with extra-scriptural dialogue and plot embellishments, several Christian critics have joined in a chorus of praise for the film.

The Nativity Story is opening in more than 3,000 theaters across the U.S., and before the end of the holiday season the movie will grace another 5,000 screens worldwide. In the Christian faith community, excitement over the December release have been high; even the Vatican is hosting its first film premiere ever, with plans to screen the new film for an audience of more than 7,000 people on Sunday.

Meanwhile, many Christian leaders are touting the merits -- and the evangelical usefulness -- of what one Christian Post report calls "the most talked about faith-based film in Hollywood since Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ three years ago." Mark Weimer, CEO of Global Media Outreach (a ministry of Campus Crusade for Christ), says Christians have in The Nativity Story a potentially powerful witnessing tool.

Global Media Outreach uses various forms of media to reach people for Christ and has produced a resource for Christians to use in conjunction with the new movie. The ministry's Internet site links to a page about The Nativity Story that explains to online visitors why Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Jesus and how a relationship with him can change their lives.

The ministry's Nativity Story web resource has already had a tremendous impact, Weimer points out. "We have so far seen hundreds of people come to that website and tell us that they prayed to receive Christ," he says.

"The website is really just a short presentation of the gospel; very, very brief," the Global Media Outreach spokesman notes. "Then it says, 'Would you like to pray this prayer to receive Christ'" he adds, "and we have had several hundred people so far say that, yes, they prayed to receive Christ at that site."

Weimer says even though The Nativity Story was made by a secular company, the biblically-based movie is well researched. He notes that New Line, the production company behind the film, is part of Time-Warner, whose executives "actually had invited a Christian in to teach them how Christians think."

The movie industry executives did this, the Christian ministry CEO explains, "because, from their standpoint, they suddenly realized there's this enormous number of Christians and also [other] people who'd be interested in films like this."

Weimer, who is also the author of a book called The Nativity: the True Story of Christmas (Life ConneXions, 2006), says Global Missions Outreach launched its Nativity Story website to complement the new film as a witnessing resource. He believes both the movie and the companion Internet site can offer believers new ways to reach out to the lost with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Other Ministries Bring Out Resources Based on Nativity-Themed MovieOther groups offering resources tied in to the new film include MovieGuide, a ministry of Christian media critic Dr. Ted Baehr's Christian Film & Television Commission; and Christian speaker and movie analyst Dr. Marc Newman's organization, Movie Ministry.

Baehr calls The Nativity Story a "divine revelation," one of those very rare movies that "brings the gospel alive in a compelling, captivating, entertaining, and inspiring manner that shatters expectations." His MovieGuide website is offering a free, downloadable Nativity Story "Faith Guide" written by theologian and Bible teacher Dr. David Jeremiah for small groups, families, and individuals to use in discussing the film with others.

And MovieMinistry.com, a site that features in-depth movie analysis, sermon illustrations, and Bible study guides, is currently featuring its own Bible study and leader's guide on New Line Cinema's The Nativity Story. Movie Ministry president Marc Newman says the study, titled "What Would You Do With a Gift From God?" provides users with "a great opportunity to ask what people think about the gift of Jesus and what it takes to receive Him." The resource examines Bible passages relevant to The Nativity Story from Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, Colossians, 2nd Peter, 1st and 2nd Corinthians, and Hebrews.

Movie Ministry's "What Would You Do With a Gift From God?" is available in print and downloadable formats. The Bible study guide includes scripture references, a step-by-step leader's preparation guide, space for note-taking, and discussion questions designed to help students make the transition from the film to issues of faith and to motivate students to take action, as well as permission to make copies as needed for groups.

© 2006 AgapePress all rights reserved.

CWA: Chicago Way Off the Mark in Reaction to Nativity Ads

CWA: Chicago Way Off the Mark in Reaction to Nativity Ads
'It Would Be Humorous If It Weren't True,' Says Group Spokeswoman
By Ed Thomas
November 30, 2006

(AgapePress) - The city of Chicago's claim that sponsorship of a German-American Christmas festival by the studio releasing The Nativity Story movie would be insensitive to other religions is being called "politically correct nonsense" by a women's public-policy group.

Lanier Swann is director of government relations for Concerned Women for America, a conservative policy group based in Washington, DC. She calls the accusation "unbelievable" that ads posted for a new movie portraying the life of the very person the Christkindlmarket Festival celebrates could be insensitive to believers of faith other than Christianity. As well, the threat from the city to remove its support of the festival unless New Line Cinema's movie was removed as an official sponsor.

"The mayor [of Chicago, Richard M. Daley] did release a brief statement saying that he really felt it wasn't appropriate advertising," Swann notes. It is a sad state of affairs in America, she says, when offense is more easily found in ads for a theatrical Nativity story than for, say, Victoria's Secret, a lingerie retailer often criticized by pro-family groups for its ads and displays featuring scantily clad women.

"Really, I'm so curious to know what the mayor of Chicago finds appropriate," Swann adds.
CWA says the trend of being offended by the mere mention of Christ is an "overdone cliché." And Swann says not only is the rationale behind the statement politically correct nonsense, but the threat to remove city support could be a possible violation of the Illinois Human Rights Act.
"You see this entire Christmas event covered in Christmas decorations, with a Nativity scene right in the middle of it, and yet they're worried about offending festival-goers by an ad on the true meaning of Christmas," she explains. "The whole thing, honestly, just seems so lacking in terms of logic."

Meanwhile, a New Line Cinema spokeswoman says the Chicago festival is the only instance in its nationwide publicity campaign for The Nativity Story where its sponsorship was turned down.

© 2006 AgapePress all rights reserved.

Fifth Circuit Will Hear Case Over Texas Courthouse Bible Display

Fifth Circuit Will Hear Case Over Texas Courthouse Bible Display
By Allie Martin
November 30, 2006

(AgapePress) - The entire Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will rehear a case involving a longtime display of a Bible on government property in one Texas county. Three years ago an atheist sued Harris County over the Bible display, which is part of a monument erected on the grounds of the Harris County Courthouse in Houston in the 1950s.

Earlier this year, a three-judge panel of Fifth Circuit ruled that the display containing a Bible was unconstitutional. But Edward White III, trial counsel with the Thomas More Law Center, says the monument does not violate the Constitution because it was donated by a local homeless shelter, the Star of Hope Mission. He claims the monument, erected as a tribute to a longtime benefactor named William Mosher, is the "private speech" of the mission.

The Bible display at the county court building is the Christian charity's monument, White says, because it was the representatives of Star of Hope Mission who put the display up and they who were "speaking" through it. "And since there are other monuments up in this courtyard as well," he adds, "it's not an Establishment Clause violation, [in] that the government is speaking. It's a free-speech issue."



The Thomas More Law Center attorney believes the fact that the entire Fifth Circuit has agreed to listen to arguments in the matter is an encouraging development for those battling to save the Bible display at the Harris County Courthouse. "If the full court just wanted to have the monument removed," the court "could have just said, 'We're not going to hear the case,' and then the monument would be removed," he points out.


When an appellate court decides to rehear a case, this is "always a very good sign if you have lost the case," White observes, "because it means you now have another crack at it." The attorney, who authored the Law Center's friend of the court brief on this case, says the Star of Hope Mission's memorial to William Mosher is protected speech under the First Amendment.

The Fifth Circuit's willingness to hear the case "gives us hope," White adds. He says he and the Law Center are optimistic that the court will permit the Christian charity's memorial to William Mosher to remain at the Harris County Courthouse, on the same public ground where it has stood for more than 50 years.

© 2006 AgapePress all rights reserved.

A first for America...The Koran replaces the Bible at swearing-in oath

A first for America...The Koran replaces the Bible at swearing-in oath

What book will America base it's values on, the Bible or the Koran?

Please take a moment to read the following TownHall.com column by Dennis Prager, who is a Jew. After reading the column, take the suggest action at the bottom of this email. After you have read it, please forward it to your friends and family.

America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on By Dennis Prager - Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.

He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism -- my culture trumps America's culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.

Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison's right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?

Of course, Ellison's defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Koran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in. But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either. Yet those secular officials did not demand to take their oaths of office on, say, the collected works of Voltaire or on a volume of New York Times editorials, writings far more significant to some liberal members of Congress than the Bible. Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon. And it is hard to imagine a scientologist being allowed to take his oath of office on a copy of "Dianetics" by L. Ron Hubbard.

So why are we allowing Keith Ellison to do what no other member of Congress has ever done -- choose his own most revered book for his oath?

The answer is obvious -- Ellison is a Muslim. And whoever decides these matters, not to mention virtually every editorial page in America, is not going to offend a Muslim. In fact, many of these people argue it will be a good thing because Muslims around the world will see what an open society America is and how much Americans honor Muslims and the Koran.

This argument appeals to all those who believe that one of the greatest goals of America is to be loved by the world, and especially by Muslims because then fewer Muslims will hate us (and therefore fewer will bomb us).

But these naive people do not appreciate that America will not change the attitude of a single American-hating Muslim by allowing Ellison to substitute the Koran for the Bible. In fact, the opposite is more likely: Ellison's doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal -- the Islamicization of America.

When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization. If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11. It is hard to believe that this is the legacy most Muslim Americans want to bequeath to America. But if it is, it is not only Europe that is in trouble. (End Commentary)


Take Action

1. Send an email asking your U.S. Representative and Senators to pass a law making the Bible the book used in the swearing-in ceremony of Representatives and Senators.

2. Forward this email to your friends and family today!

Write your Representative and Senators Now!

Sincerely,
Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association

P.S. Please print this and share with others.