Sunday, February 19, 2012

School Censors Pro-life, Promotes Homosexuality

The Dixon (Missouri) High School administration forbid students' promotion of "Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity" because their posters were deemed to be offensive, yet promotion of many other controversial events, including the annual pro-homosexual "Day of Silence," were permitted.

-- From "Mo. School Censors Pro-Life Posters, Leaves Zombie Posters Up" by Michael Gryboski, Christian Post Reporter 2/16/12

The Alliance Defense Fund is filing suit on behalf of a Missouri student whose pro-life posters were taken down at school while other posters including ones with graphic depictions of zombies were allowed to remain.

Matt Sharp, the ADF attorney who works at the ADF's Public School Litigation Team, told The Christian Post that [he] found it interesting that although the school took down the pro-life posters, posters not taken down include ones showcasing students as "bloody zombies" and the school's Gay-Straight Alliance's "Day of Silence."

Founded by Brian Kemper, "Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity" is a nationwide event to take place on Oct. 16 in which students will wear red duct tape with the word "LIFE" written in black.

The case, J.A. v. Dixon R-1 School District, was filed at the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Southern Division.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "School OK with zombies, but not pro-life posters" by Bob Unruh, World Net Daily 2/16/12

. . . students routinely are allowed to make announcements concerning events of interest to students.

However, the flyers and announcements promoting the Pro-Life Day have been censored.

“What is offensive is the double-standard here,” said ADF Litigation Counsel Matt Sharp. “Public school officials cannot pick and choose what messages they are going to allow based on which viewpoints they prefer. ADF has litigated numerous cases similar to this one, and the law and the Constitution are clearly on our side here as well.”

“The district’s censorship of plaintiff’s religious, pro-life speech, and the policies on which that censorship was based, violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and the Missouri Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” the complaint contends.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.