Column/Legend
1 - Prefix  - L-Life,  H-Homosexual Behavior/Perversion, R-Religion/Legal Persecution/ACLU, E-Education, M-Media Bias, O-Other
2-7 - Yr, Mo, Dy
8 - L -Letter to Editor, C-Commentary, O-Op-Ed, M-Metro

Hotlink Index of this weeks's family values related news:  [Life]   [Homosexual Behavior/Perversion]   [Religion/Religious Persecution]   [Education]   [Media]   [Other]

LIFE
L050117     Pro-Life Alert
L050118     Warning to senators
L050118C   Two tidal waves: tsunami and abortion
L050119      Bush's backing
L050119      'Roe' urges court to vacate landmark decision
L050122      Church to bury ashes of aborted fetuses
L050123Va Conservative vs. liberal in Virginia

HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR/PERVERSION
H050117L  Maryland and marriage
H050118    ARKANSAS   Bill would ban gay foster parents
H050119    High court declines gay sex case
H050120    U.S. judge upholds DOMA
H050121    Indiana court rules against same-sex 'marriage'
H050122    Maryland Pro-Family Rally

RELIGION/RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION
R050117E   The faith of a president
R050117L   Lutheran Church in crisis
R050118      Atheist takes inaugural complaint to high court
R050118      Blacks' beliefs
R050118      Bush's embrace of faith cheered
R050119      Christian ball
R050120      Prayer leader
R050120      Rolling Stone rejects ad for Bible
R050121      Faithful Bush calls on God's blessings
R050121      LOUISIANA   ACLU says state violated settlement
R050122      Prayer starts Bush's second term
R050122L   The 55th inauguration
R050123      Faithful standing more firm, poll says
R050123C   Of faith and freedom
R050123C   Using and abusing God

EDUCATION
E050119L  Parental involvement important
E050123     NEA to host pro-life members at march

MEDIA
M050119     Liberal talk-radio studio opens
M050119E  Exposing CBS
M050120     Objectively 'lavish'
M050123C  Poisoned culture afflicting CBS?

OTHER
O050117M  Opening day in Annapolis, Richmond
O050118      Both sides espouse King on gay unions
O050118C   Teenagers listen
O050118C   The grim nightmare of secular hysterics
O050119      Teen sex won't stop if parents are told
O050120      Blue Europe
O050121      Abused, poor women often shun marriage
O050122L   'Faulty' teen-sex study
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

R050121   Faithful Bush calls on God's blessings
 

By Julia Duin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

President Bush mixed images of the Almighty as a just ruler, as a judge, and as a freedom-loving deity in a speech that surpassed his 2001 inaugural address in references to God.
    Barely one minute into the 21-minute discourse, he said, "every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of heaven and earth."
    A few minutes later, he addressed dictators with a quote from Abraham Lincoln: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."
    Four years ago, Mr. Bush, a born-again Methodist, had referred to God in vaguer terms as a "higher power" and "author"; used such words as "democratic faith"; and referred to a saying by Mother Teresa and the parable of the good Samaritan to bolster his doctrine of "compassionate conservatism."
    This time, he called Americans to the kind of character necessary in wartime and according to high standards of greatness and morality set by God.
    Last week, in an Oval Office interview with editors and reporters of The Washington Times, he made it clear that his would continue to be a faith-based presidency. He said he couldn't see "how you can be president, at least from my perspective ... without a relationship with the Lord."
    That quote has become popular among Mr. Bush's evangelical base. For example, it was displayed on two large screens Wednesday night at a Christian Inaugural Eve Gala at the Ritz-Carlton in Washington, according to Newhouse News Service.
    Although he steered clear of sectarianism yesterday, the president gave the nod to monotheistic religions in a reference to American character, which, he said, is based "on integrity, and tolerance toward others."
    Not only is such character sustained by families and "communities with standards," he added, but also "by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran, and the varied faiths of our people."
    Mr. Bush included a reference to Islam four years ago when he mentioned "church [and] synagogue and mosque" in his first inaugural speech. Yesterday's ceremonies coincided with Eid al Adha, an important Islamic holiday commemorating Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son, who Muslims believe was Ishmael.
    In the speech, said to have been drafted chiefly by evangelical Episcopalian Michael Gerson, the president's retiring speech writer, Mr. Bush used biblical themes to plead for common, everyday service on the part of Americans.
    "Our nation relies on men and women who look after a neighbor and surround the lost with love," he said. "Americans, at our best, value the life we see in one another, and must always remember that even the unwanted have worth."
    Americans have known "unity and fellowship" with each other during time of attack, he said, referring to September 11, 2001. "And we can feel that same unity and pride whenever America acts for good, and the victims of disaster are given hope, and the unjust encounter justice, and the captives are set free."
    The latter is a near-direct quote from Isaiah 61:1, in which the Old Testament prophet said the Spirit of God was upon him "to proclaim liberty to the captives." Jesus later applied those words to himself in Luke 4:18.
    However, the president rejected the idea of the United States as a "chosen nation," a biblical concept that the young country applied to itself more than 200 years ago as it struggled against British tyranny. Like ancient Israel, those early Americans saw themselves as having escaped an oppressor, crossed a large body of water, and established their own Promised Land.
    "It is human choices that move events," the president said. "Not because we consider ourselves a chosen nation; God moves and chooses as He wills."
    This was a switch from President Roosevelt's 1941 inaugural speech on the eve of the United States' involvement in World War II, in which he said the nation was guided "by the will of God."
    Mr. Bush finished his speech with "May God bless you, and may He watch over the United States of America."
    The Rev. Luis Leon, rector of St. John's Episcopal Church on Lafayette Square, gave the invocation, a change from 2001, when the Rev. Franklin Graham filled in for his famous father, the Rev. Billy Graham, in giving the opening prayer.
    Mr. Bush's spiritual adviser, the Rev. Kirbyjon H. Caldwell of Windsor Village United Methodist Church in Houston, gave the benediction.
    "Respecting persons of all faiths," the clergyman said, "I humbly submit this prayer in the name of Jesus Christ."
    Mr. Caldwell prayed in the name of Jesus Christ four years ago during the benediction.
    The U.S. Marine Band followed up with "God of Our Fathers," a 19th-century hymn composed by Daniel Roberts.
    Mr. Bush swore his oath of office on the family Bible, which his father used during his 1989 inauguration ceremony, ending with "So help me God," a phrase added by former President George Washington.
    Holding the Bible was Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who on Wednesday denied without comment California atheist Michael Newdow's lawsuit to prevent clergy-led inaugural prayers.
    Nearly every other president has included religious flourishes in his inauguration speech. Only Theodore Roosevelt's 1905 speech and Calvin Coolidge's address in 1925 made no mention of God. All others, including Washington's 1789 address, at least invoked God in reverent but general terms.
    This morning, Mr. Bush and his family will attend an inaugural prayer service at Washington National Cathedral.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050121   Indiana court rules against same-sex 'marriage'
 

By Cheryl Wetzstein
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

An Indiana appellate court yesterday ruled unanimously that homosexual couples do not have the right to "marry" in that state.
    "What we decide today is that the Indiana Constitution does not require the governmental recognition of same-sex marriage, although the Legislature is certainly free to grant such recognition or create a parallel institution under that document," Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Michael Barnes wrote.
    The court explained that Indiana supports "opposite-sex marriage" because there is a "legitimate state interest" in encouraging these couples to "procreate responsibly and have and raise children within a stable environment."
    "The ability of opposite-sex couples to reproduce 'naturally' and unexpectedly is the characteristic that rationally distinguishes them from same-sex couples," the court said. "Regardless of whether recognizing same-sex marriage would harm this interest, neither does it further it," it added.
    Ken Falk, a lawyer with the Indiana Civil Liberties Union, which brought the case on behalf of three homosexual couples, told the Associated Press he did not know whether they would appeal yesterday's decision.
    The three couples sued Indiana after county clerks refused to issue them marriage licenses. A trial court dismissed their lawsuit in May 2003, saying that Indiana law clearly defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Yesterday's decision upheld that ruling.
    The Indiana decision marks the third time this week that homosexual "marriage" lawsuits have suffered a defeat in court.
    On Wednesday, the Louisiana Supreme Court upheld that state's newly passed constitutional marriage amendment, which says only unions of one man and one woman can be recognized as marriages.
    Also on Wednesday, a federal court judge in Tampa, Fla., dismissed a lawsuit filed by a lesbian couple against the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
    The lesbian couple, who "married" in Massachusetts last summer under that state's new court-ordered law, argued that DOMA was unconstitutional because it prohibited Florida from recognizing their Massachusetts "marriage."
    U.S. District Court Judge James S. Moody Jr. upheld DOMA, which says states do not have to recognize out-of-state same-sex "marriages."
    Florida lawyer Ellis Rubin, who represented the two women, said, "[W]e are not giving up."
    Traditional values groups cheered yesterday's ruling.
    "Today was the third strike in a row for same-sex marriage advocates trying to force their will upon the rest of America through the courts," said Glen Lavy of the Alliance Defense Fund, which supported Indiana in the lawsuit.
    Homosexual rights groups, meanwhile, are hoping to achieve more Massachusetts-style court victories in any of several states, including New Jersey, California, Washington and Connecticut.
    Recently, 22 homosexual rights groups issued a joint statement restating their commitment to homosexual rights issues, including "the freedom to marry."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050121   Abused, poor women often shun marriage
 

By Cheryl Wetzstein
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Poor women who experience sexual or physical abuse, especially during childhood, often find it difficult to marry or form long-term relationships with men, says a study that urges policy-makers not to overlook domestic violence when they talk about promoting marriage.
    "If we are concerned about the decline in stable, long-term unions among the poor and near-poor, then we may need to consider measures that would directly reduce the levels of physical and sexual abuse that women bear," said Johns Hopkins University professor Andrew J. Cherlin, co-author of the study, which appears in today's American Sociological Review.
    The timing of a woman's abuse seems to affect her romantic patterns, said the researchers, who surveyed about 2,400 poor mothers and conducted in-depth interviews with 256 poor families.
    Women who were abused as children were most likely to have "transitory" relationships — essentially, a parade of boyfriends moving through their lives.
    In contrast, women abused as adults often shut down emotionally and avoided romantic entanglements with men altogether.
    The result was that few poor women married: Of the 2,400 mothers surveyed, about 14 percent were married and living with their husbands. About 12 percent were married but separated, 6 percent were cohabiting, and 69 percent were single and unattached. Three-quarters of the mothers surveyed were in their 20s and 30s.
    Sexual and physical abuse is "widespread" among poor women, and policy-makers are well-advised not to gloss over these problems when they talk about promoting stable family relationships, the researchers said.
    The Cherlin study reinforces other research that finds "experiencing and witnessing violence does have long-term consequences and can make it more difficult to form strong families later in life," said Kiersten Stewart, a top policy official with the Family Violence Prevention Fund, a national group that works to end domestic violence and child abuse.
    Roland Warren, president of the National Fatherhood Initiative, said the study underscores the need for more "involved, responsible and committed fathers"— a message that his group has been championing for more than a decade.
    A good father not only loves and protects his daughter, but he teaches her how to distinguish between men who "have her best interest at heart" and those who don't, he said.
    The Cherlin study, which was funded in part by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, found that 52 percent of the 2,400 women surveyed had been abused in some way: Twenty-four percent said they had been sexually abused as a child; 11 percent had been sexually abused as an adult; 21 percent had been physically abused as a child; and 44 percent had been physically abused as an adult.
    Sexual abuse included molestation, rape or witnessing sexual abuse in the home. Physical abuse included beating, burning, assaults with weapons or having their lives threatened after witnessing regular abuse in the home.
    When Congress takes up welfare reform this year, it likely will debate a Bush administration proposal to allocate up to $300 million a year to promote healthy marriages, especially in low-income neighborhoods.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050120   U.S. judge upholds DOMA

TAMPA, Fla. (AP) — A federal judge yesterday upheld the federal law protecting states from having to recognize another state's homosexual "marriages," dismissing a lawsuit by two women seeking to have their Massachusetts union recognized by Florida.
    In a separate ruling yesterday, pro-family forces scored a victory in Louisiana, where the state Supreme Court unanimously reinstated the marriage amendment to the state constitution that voters overwhelmingly approved in September.
    The federal case was filed by Nancy Wilson and Paula Schoenwether, who live in Tampa and were "married" in Massachusetts in July. They argued that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional because it discriminates on the basis of sex and violated their fundamental rights.
    But U.S. District Judge James S. Moody disagreed, saying the law treats men and women equally and that the government met its burden of stating a legitimate interest for allowing marriages to exist only between men and women.
    "The legislatures of individual states may decide to overturn its precedent and strike down" the law, Judge Moody wrote. "But, until then, this court is constrained to hold [the law] and the Florida statutes ... constitutionally valid."
    Attorneys for conservative groups hailed the ruling as an important first step, with Tom Minnery of Focus on Family calling the ruling "a significant victory — for marriage and democracy."
    "Unfortunately, at any time, marriage in any jurisdiction is only one judge away from being ruled unconstitutional," he said.
    The plaintiffs promised to appeal.
    "We are not giving up," said lawyer Ellis Rubin, who filed the lawsuit on the women's behalf. "This case is going to be resolved in the U.S. Supreme Court, and I have said that since the day I filed it."
    The Louisiana high court reversed a state district judge's ruling in October striking down the amendment on the grounds that it violated a provision of the state constitution requiring that an amendment cover only one subject.
    "Each provision of the amendment is germane to the single object of defense of marriage and constitutes an element of the plan advanced to achieve this object," the high court said in an opinion signed by six of its seven justices. The seventh filed a concurring opinion.
    The court's ruling puts the amendment in the state constitution.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050120   Rolling Stone rejects ad for Bible
 

By Jennifer Harper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Rolling Stone magazine accepted advertising for a company selling a T-shirt emblazoned with the image of Jesus Christ. Indeed, a color ad with the image of Jesus and the message, "Put down the drugs and come get a hug," appears on page 71 of the current issue.
    But when it came to running an ad for a new Bible aimed at twentysomethings, the magazine said forget it.
    With little warning, the youth-worshipping Rolling Stone reneged on a deal forged nine months ago with Zondervan, the nation's largest Bible publisher, ultimately rejecting the company's ad for "Today's New International Version" of the Bible — "TNIV" for short.
    "We were surprised and disappointed," said Doug Lockhart, spokesman for the Michigan-based publisher, which sells more than 6 million Bibles per year.
    "We have no comment on the situation," a Rolling Stone spokeswoman said yesterday.
    The Bible publisher remains mystified.
    "Initially, Rolling Stone was excited, and we were excited. The fees had all been negotiated. They had second thoughts, I think, when they saw the ad itself," Mr. Lockhart said. "Their first comment was that this just wasn't 'the right time.' We really wish they'd reconsider."
    Written in contemporary language "for a new generation of Bible readers," TNIV is aimed at the 18- to 34-year-old set — a group that is the prime Rolling Stone audience.
    The ad itself — part of a $1 million national campaign — does not flaunt theology or even mention God. It instead features a photo of a young man and the slogan "Timeless truth, today's language."
    The approach has not offended other youthful markets. Mr. Lockhart said cable channels MTV and VH1, plus America Online, Modern Bride magazine and the satirical political magazine the Onion have accepted ads for the new version of the Bible.
    "Our phone has rung a lot in the past 48 hours with those saying they'll also accept the ad," Mr. Lockhart said. "So, we're encouraged by that."
    Heavy on auto and rock-music advertising, the current Rolling Stone also contains a mixture of other ads for personal lubricants, liquor, cough medicine and the "Got Milk" campaign. The Jesus T-shirt, featured in the magazine's "The Shop" section, is from a Florida-based company called Victim Clothing.
    Zondervan's market research into the young and restless reveals they are a spiritually hungry group.
    Mr. Lockhart cites a Harris poll that found 59 percent of 18- to 34-year-olds said the Bible was "relevant to their lives," though more than half said they did not read it. Another 32 million of them call themselves "spiritually intrigued."
    "We are committed to reaching this group. But to engage them, we needed media venues which were untraditional for a Bible background. That's what brought us to Rolling Stone," Mr. Lockhart said.
    In an interview with USA Today earlier this week, a representative from Wenner Media, which owns Rolling Stone, noted that the publication is "not in the business of publishing advertising for religious messages."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050120   Blue Europe
    "Watching George Bush's second inaugural from a bistro in Paris is like watching the Red Sox win the World Series from a sports bar in New York City," New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman writes.
    "Odds are that someone around you is celebrating — I mean, someone, somewhere in Europe must be happy about this — but it's not obvious," Mr. Friedman said.
    "Why are Europeans so blue over George Bush's re-election? Because Europe is the world's biggest 'blue state.' This whole region is rhapsody in blue. These days even the small group of anti-anti-Americans in the European Union is uncomfortable being associated with Mr. Bush. There are Euro-conservatives, but, aside from, maybe, the ruling party in Italy, there is nothing here that quite corresponds to the anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-tax, anti-national-health-care, anti-Kyoto, openly religious, pro-Iraq-war Bush Republican Party. ...
    "While officially every European government is welcoming the inauguration of President Bush," the columnist said yesterday, "the prevailing mood on the continent (if I may engage in a ridiculously sweeping generalization!) still seems to be one of shock and awe that Americans actually re-elected this man."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M050120   Objectively 'lavish'
    Yesterday, on "Good Morning America," ABC's Peter Jennings used the word "lavish" twice in the same sentence to describe the inaugural festivities.
    White House correspondent Claire Shipman had just concluded her interview with first lady Laura Bush — who disagreed with the unbiased reporter's assessment that the $40 million celebration ($2 million less than President Clinton's 1997 inaugural) was too "lavish."
    Anchoring the broadcast alongside one of his highly paid, nonpartisan, objective observer colleagues, Mr. Jennings then made sure that millions of ABC viewers were not misled: "Now, it's a little risky, George Stephanopoulos, to contradict the first lady, [but] it is pretty lavish and it was pretty lavish last night."
    This exchange was noticed by Tim Graham of the Media Research Center, who reported it on National Review Online (www.nationalreview.com). Kathryn Jean "K-Lo" Lopez, editor of the "Corner" blog at the NRO site, soon posted an e-mail from a quick-witted reader:
    " 'Lavish' is what you call a party that you weren't invited to. If it was a Kerry inauguration (shudder) could you imagine what a spread would be fitting of John and Teresa?"
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050121   LOUISIANA   ACLU says state violated settlement
    NEW ORLEANS — Escalating a fight over whether Louisiana's program encouraging premarital sexual abstinence promotes religion, the American Civil Liberties Union asked a federal court yesterday to hold the state in contempt of a 2002 court settlement over the issue.
    In its motion, the ACLU contends that the Governor's Program on Abstinence — despite the agreement not to promote religion — continues to feature religious materials on its official Web site.
    The action followed a letter sent by the ACLU to the governor's program asking it to remove all religious content from the Web site. In December, Gov. Kathleen Blanco and her executive counsel, Terry Ryder, said merely providing links to other abstinence-related sites with religious content does not violate the settlement.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050120   Prayer leader
    The Rev. Billy Graham will lead the opening prayer at a service at the National Cathedral tomorrow honoring the second inauguration of President Bush.
    "I have known the Bush family for many years and have seen how their faith in God has sustained them through some very trying times," Mr. Graham said yesterday. "I pray for them daily, and it is a great honor to pray publicly for our president, his family and our nation as he begins his second term."
    The president credits Mr. Graham with inspiring him to reaffirm his faith at age 40, give up drinking and become more self-disciplined.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050119   'Roe' urges court to vacate landmark decision
 

By Amy Fagan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

"Jane Roe," whose 1973 Supreme Court case struck down state laws against abortion, petitioned the high court yesterday to vacate that decision or order a new trial on the grounds that abortion hurts women.
    Norma McCorvey was joined on the steps of the high court yesterday by women who said the public needs to know about the mental and physical damage that their abortions caused them and other women.
    "I don't want any more women to be injured by abortion," said Miss McCorvey, who reversed her stance on the issue after having worked in abortion clinics and undergoing a religious conversion in 1995.
    She says she is now "forgiven by Jesus" for her role in the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade case.
    "I plead with all that I am for the Supreme Court to take Roe v. Wade and reverse it," she said yesterday.
    The petition Miss McCorvey wants the high court to hear was denied by a federal district court and a federal appeals court. It cites a federal rule that allows a party in a case to ask that the judgment be vacated if it is no longer equitable or there is some other reason the ruling shouldn't be in effect.
    The Supreme Court granted such a request in 1997 in a religious liberties case, attorneys for Miss McCorvey said.
    The petition includes sworn testimony from more than 1,000 women who said they were hurt by abortion, and points to medical and scientific articles on the negative effects of abortion on women. It also contends that most abortions aren't the result of an informed decision, and notes that, far from the social landscape of 1973, 46 out of 50 states now are able to care for unwanted children.
    "It's a different day from 1973," said Allan Parker, president of the Justice Foundation and lead attorney on the case.
    The women who spoke — members of Operation Outcry, an advocacy group of women who have had abortions and want to overturn Roe v. Wade — said they were given little information before their abortions and were led to believe it was a quick fix.
    But they later experienced physical pain, hemorrhaging, nightmares, depression and severe emotional problems.
    "It's been 14 years since my last abortion and it has been a week and a half since my last nightmare," said Caron Strong of Brentwood, Tenn. She said no one told her that her four abortions could cause the psychological pain and miscarriages she suffered.
    Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation, said pro-life advocates have tried unsuccessfully for years to scientifically prove post-abortion stress syndrome. She said vacating Roe v. Wade would jeopardize the lives of women and that many women say abortion helped them improve their lives.
    "There is no scientific or medical evidence that would cause a Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade based on alleged post-abortion stress syndrome," she said.
    But among the women who spoke yesterday was Alveda C. King, a civil rights activist and niece of the late Martin Luther King.
    Miss King said that after she had an abortion, "the guilt made me ill."
    She compared abortion to slavery. "Every aborted baby is like a slave in the womb of his or her mother. The mother decides his or her fate," she said.
    Amy Young of Sterling, Va., said it took her 17 years to realize that the source of so much anger and bitterness in her life was the abortion she had.
    "I still cry; I still hurt," she said, adding that the irony of the "pro-choice" society is that no woman truly wants to have a painful, uncomfortable procedure, but "she does it because she believes she has no other choice."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050119   High court declines gay sex case

ASSOCIATED PRESS
    The Supreme Court declined yesterday to review a former Air Force lieutenant's criminal conviction for having sex with a 15-year-old boy, an act that the officer contended was protected by a previous court decision overturning state statutes that criminalized homosexual sex.
    Justices, without comment, rejected the appeal by former 2nd Lt. Ryan W. Davis. He pleaded guilty to consensual sodomy and conduct unbecoming an officer in military court after an April 1997 meeting with a boy at a park in Gulf Breeze, Fla.
    Davis subsequently was dismissed from the Air Force, confined for 24 months and ordered to forfeit all pay and allowances.
    Davis had asked the Supreme Court to overturn his conviction after its 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas. That ruling struck down state statutes criminalizing homosexual sex as a violation of an individual's constitutional right to sexual privacy.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050119   Teen sex won't stop if parents are told
 

By Cheryl Wetzstein
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Most parents know that their underage teen daughters use family- planning services, and most teens say they would continue to use clinic services even if their parents had to be told of their visits, a study released today says.
    Despite this "good news," there is evidence that if family-planning clinics were forced to tell parents about their children's visits, there would be an increase in risky or unsafe sexual behavior, Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) researcher Rachel Jones said in a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
    About 40 percent of minor teenage girls didn't tell their parents that they went to a family-planning clinic, and most of these teens likely would avoid clinics — and prescription birth control — if parental notification were required, Miss Jones said. She and AGI colleagues surveyed 1,526 minor teens who visited family-planning clinics in 33 states.
    "We found that one in five teens, or 18 percent, said they would have unsafe sex if parental notification were required," Miss Jones said. This means that "mandated parental-involvement laws wouldn't discourage kids from having sex — but would ultimately increase rates of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases."
    Supporters of parental-notification laws were not swayed by the study.
    The AGI study comes to a hypothetical conclusion and even concedes there is no way to know how teens would "actually respond" if parental-notification laws were implemented, said Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America, a traditional values group that thinks parents should be notified before federal Title X funds can be used to prescribe contraceptives for minors.
    "If anything, this study shows that parents want to be involved and minors want their parents involved," said Pia de Solenni of the Family Research Council, which also supports parental notification.
    These things, "plus the fact that parents are legally responsible for their children and have a right to know and be involved in these [family-planning] decisions," are all reasons to support parental-notification laws, she said.
    Typical family-planning clinics, including those funded by the federal Title X program, provide services to minors confidentially, although family participation may be encouraged. Only Texas, Utah and McHenry County in Illinois require parental notification for minors seeking a prescription for birth control, the AGI study said.
    In the AGI study, 60 percent of teens surveyed said their parents knew they had visited a family-planning clinic. About a quarter of these teens said their parents had recommended they visit the clinic.
    The teens then were asked what they would do if the clinics had to tell parents about their visits. Multiple answers were allowed. Fifty-nine percent said they would still go to a clinic, and 46 percent said they would turn to over-the-counter contraception, such as condoms. Eighteen percent said they would engage in sex without a contraceptive product, and 7 percent said they would "stop having sex."
    Of teens whose parents didn't know they had gone to a clinic, only 30 percent said they would go to a clinic if their parents had to be told. More than 60 percent said they would turn to over-the-counter contraceptives.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050119   Bush's backing
    President Bush, in previewing tomorrow's inaugural speech during a private session yesterday with the full 165-member Republican National Committee, sent a clear signal that he backs pro-choice JoAnn Davidson of Ohio for the post of RNC co-chairman.
    "He talked about the importance of the national committee's electing Ken Mehlman as national chairman and JoAnn Davidson as co-chairman. He said they were philosophically attuned," California RNC member Tim Morgan told reporter Ralph Z. Hallow of The Washington Times after the meeting.
    "He cited her role in working with volunteers" for Mr. Bush's campaign in Ohio, Mr. Morgan said.
    "I have received 45 e-mails just in the last 20 hours from pro-life folks not on the committee," Mr. Morgan added. "They're complaining the president isn't keeping faith with pro-life voters."
    Mr. Mehlman, highly popular with the RNC members, managed Mr. Bush's presidential re-election campaign, and Mrs. Davidson, a former state House speaker, was a regional chairman. The RNC votes today.
    On a lighter note, Mr. Bush pledged his inaugural address would be brief.
    "You'll be relieved to know my speech won't be too long," Mr. Bush said with a wink and a smile, according to other Republican officials who attended the meeting.
    At one point, after discussing the philosophical merits of his proposed Social Security reforms, Mr. Bush paused and said, "I may be getting too far into the weeds."
    Standing nearby, his wife, Laura, nodded and laughed, whereupon Mr. Bush said, "I guess we'll be getting out of here pretty quick."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050119   Christian ball
    Scores of Christian ministers and lay people in town for this week's inauguration say they will start the day with a one-hour thanksgiving prayer service across the street from the U.S. Supreme Court thanking God for the re-election of George W. Bush.
    "No president is perfect," said the Rev. Rob Schenck, president of Faith and Action, "but George Bush has done more than any recent president to champion what is important to serious Christians of every tradition: the sanctity of human life, the sanctity of marriage and the public acknowledgment of God. We're thankful that God heard our cries and gave us four more years of a Bush administration."
    The Christians will conclude their day with a black-tie soiree, where author David Aikman will autograph copies of his book "A Man of Faith," a religious biography of Mr. Bush.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M050119   Liberal talk-radio studio opens
 

By Jennifer Harper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

It is being billed as the official "clubhouse" for liberal talk radio.
    Just in time for President Bush's inauguration, a broadcasting studio opened today at the District-based Center for American Progress, set to host Al Franken and a chorus of progressive or left-leaning personalities for three days of special inaugural coverage this week.
    The studio is meant to be a national beacon for liberal talkers.
    "The right had done an excellent job at providing resources and infrastructure for talk radio — especially conservative radio hosts," said John Podesta, the group's president, who served as chief of staff to President Clinton.
    "As talk radio emerges as one of the primary sources of information for Americans, the center felt it was important to counter the efforts of the right, and to create a level playing field in talk radio," Mr. Podesta said.
    The center describes itself as a research group "dedicated to promoting a strong, just and free America."
    Mr. Franken, who will broadcast tomorrow and Thursday from Washington, doesn't regard the inauguration as an automatic target, a spokesman said.
    "We're going to the true ground zero of politics. But we're not billing our coverage in any particular way," said producer Billy Kimball of New York-based Air America, which syndicates Mr. Franken's daily program in 45 cities.
    The inauguration is not a celebration — or a funeral, Mr. Kimball said.
    "We're just here to comment on the event," he added.
    Air America, founded last year as the nation's first liberal talk radio network, will be profiled March 31 in "Left of the Dial," a behind-the-scenes HBO documentary centered upon Mr. Franken and featuring fellow personalities Janeane Garofalo, Chuck D, Randi Rhodes and Marc Maron.
    Conservative listeners, however, have their own champions. More than 20 popular radio hosts — including Neal Boortz and Blanquita Cullum — also will offer live inaugural coverage with the District-based Talk Radio News Service.
    Sean Hannity, who hosts a daily show for ABC Radio, will broadcast live from a temporary studio in the Reagan Building — just blocks from his liberal counterparts.
    "Throughout the campaign and the election season, we've worked hard to keep our loyal listeners informed about the most important and decisive issues facing our country," Mr. Hannity said. "It is my privilege to be broadcasting from our nation's capital during this historic week."
    The inauguration, meanwhile, could serve as a backdrop for liberal talkers intent on honing an appealing populist image.
    Mr. Franken will be joined by Stephanie Miller and Ed Schultz of Denver-based Jones Radio Networks.
    The network describes Miss Miller as "a fresh voice from the left that even conservatives love because she's real."
    Mr. Schultz, on the other hand, "delivers straight talk from the heartland. ... He goes toe-to-toe with conservatives and injects common sense, intelligence and humor into mainstream talk radio," the network noted.
    The trio will offer broadcasts before a live audience on Thursday. The program will be broadcast from a D.C. hotel and can be heard locally on WRC-AM (1260), a station that traded an all-sports format for "progressive talk" this week.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050118   Warning to senators
    The national director of Priests for Life yesterday warned Senate Democrats against anti-Catholic bias in the treatment of judicial nominees.
    "Senate Democrats have made history in their obstruction of this constitutional process, simply because some of them find the religious and ethical beliefs of some of the president's nominees unacceptable," the Rev. Frank Pavone said.
    "What matters more, however, is that so many Americans find this Democratic obstructionism unacceptable. We intend to monitor closely the behavior of Senate Democrats in this regard, and will make it an election issue in 2006. We will inform every Catholic priest in America of the details of the obstruction, especially when it involves anti-Catholic bias," he said.
    "Moreover, we call upon Senate Republicans to carry forward whatever action is necessary to restore the proper traditions of the Senate so that it may carry out its constitutional duties free of ideological captivity."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050118   Blacks' beliefs
    A panel of leading black religious conservatives will discuss the future of the black church vote as part of the executive conference of the National Clergy Council, which convenes after Sunday services at the Key Bridge Marriott in Arlington.
    The panel says it will examine voting trends and sentiments among black church attendees and, more particularly, "how they are changing relative to key moral issues, such as abortion rights and same-sex relationships."
    Among the panelists: the Rev. Johnny Hunter, founder and president of the Life Education And Resource Network (LEARN); the Rev. Kenneth Barney, senior pastor of the 5,000-member New Antioch Baptist Church in Randallstown, Md.; the Rev. Clenard H. Childress, director of LEARN; Phyllis Berry-Myers of the Center for New Black Leadership; the Rev. Luke Robinson of the African Methodist Episcopal Church; and Paulette Roseboro of the African American Life Alliance.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050118   Atheist takes inaugural complaint to high court
 

By Jon Ward
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

A California atheist is taking his quest to block clergymen from publicly praying during President Bush's inauguration Thursday to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    Michael Newdow, a lawyer from Sacramento, Calif., will file an appeal with the high court today seeking an injunction to thwart Mr. Bush's plans to have two pastors say prayers during his inauguration.
    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected Mr. Newdow's emergency request for an injunction late Friday, hours after a federal judge also denied his request.
    "I expect [the Supreme Court will] deny that, too. But it's violating the Constitution," Mr. Newdow, 50, said yesterday. "They'll do it the same way, I expect. They'll just say, 'Denied.' "
    U.S. District Court Judge John D. Bates denied Mr. Newdow's request Friday, saying an injunction likely would not succeed. However, the judge did not dismiss the case, and asked Mr. Newdow and the president's attorneys to submit additional filings.
    If the Supreme Court rejects his case, Mr. Newdow said, Judge Bates probably will dismiss his lawsuit in its entirety.
    Mr. Newdow has argued in court that prayer by Christian ministers is akin to racial discrimination because it makes him, a staunch atheist, feel like an "outsider." He also contended that prayer at such a public event is a declaration that America is a "Christian nation."
    He said it violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
    During Mr. Bush's inauguration in 2001, the Rev. Franklin Graham and the Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell said prayers. This year, the Rev. Luis Leon, pastor of St. John's Episcopal Church, where Mr. Bush worships when he is in Washington, will deliver an invocation. Mr. Caldwell will offer the benediction. Both clergymen were chosen by the president.
    In rejecting Mr. Newdow's request, Judge Bates on Friday said that clergy-led prayer does not necessarily violate the Constitution and thats courts do not have power in most cases to order the president to "take an official act." The judge ruled that an injunction against clergy-led prayers would not serve the public interest and would disrupt a carefully planned inaugural ceremony.
    Mr. Newdow's case "has no merit," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, a D.C.-based public-interest law firm specializing in constitutional law that filed a brief supporting inaugural prayers.
    "History was very much against [Mr. Newdow] here," Mr. Sekulow said.
    Judge Bates noted in his decision that "inaugural prayer can be traced to the founding of this country" and has been a part of inaugurations since 1937.
    Mr. Newdow gained national attention when he argued before the Supreme Court in March for the removal of the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. The court dismissed his case on the grounds that Mr. Newdow could not represent his 10-year-old daughter, who is in the custody of his ex-wife, who believes in God.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050118  Bush's embrace of faith cheered
 

By James G. Lakely
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

President Bush's declaration that he can't imagine anyone serving in the Oval Office "without a relationship with the Lord" has pleased groups that say public expressions of faith have been discouraged for too long.
    "We believe that not only the president, but everyone would be much better off for eternity with a relationship with the Lord," said Tom Minnery, vice president of public policy at Focus on the Family. "The president should not be criticized for stating what he believes by faith. Every American has the right to do that."
    Abraham Foxman, national director of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, added that he doesn't think "anyone should be upset or worried" about Mr. Bush's words — even if his reference to "the Lord" means Jesus Christ.
    "I haven't heard him say his faith is the only truth, the one truth," Mr. Foxman said. "He talks about respect for people's faith or nonfaith."
    Mr. Bush discussed the role of his Christian faith in his personal life and presidency in an Oval Office interview last week with The Washington Times.
    He acknowledged that "there are some who worry about a president who is faith-based, a person who openly admits that [he] accepts the prayers of the people."
    Mr. Bush said he would never try "to impose his will on others," but he couldn't see "how you can be president, at least from my perspective ... without a relationship with the Lord."
    Conservative Christians were heartened to hear Mr. Bush express his beliefs so candidly and noted their continuity with the mainstream of American history.
    "Most of our presidents were very forthright in their Christian convictions," Mr. Minnery said. "I think what we're seeing here is an ever more desperate attempt by atheists to deny the very motto of the country, 'One Nation Under God.' "
    Mr. Minnery noted that even religious tolerance is part of the Christian tradition.
    "People who do not believe in the Christian faith ought to be thankful that this is a Christian country," Mr. Minnery said. "Christianity is voluntary. No Christian can force anybody to accept the Christian faith.
    "Christians, above all, recognize freedom of conscience. They realize some will turn away," he said. "Therefore, a country governed by Christian principles is a country that guards religious freedom religiously."
    Mr. Bush took time out Saturday to mark "Religious Freedom Day," commemorating the passage of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom in 1786 and citing President Washington writing about "the liberty enjoyed by the people of these States, of worshipping Almighty God agreeably to their consciences, is not only among the choicest of their blessings, but also of their rights."
    "Our Founding Fathers knew the importance of freedom of religion to a stable and lasting union," Mr. Bush wrote in his official proclamation. "As the United States advances the cause of liberty, we remember that freedom is not America's gift to the world, but God's gift to each man and woman in this world."
    Mr. Bush famously named Jesus Christ as the most influential political philosopher of his life while running in the 2000 presidential race. Vice President Al Gore also told The Washington Post during the campaign that if faced with difficult problems, he "would ask what Jesus would do."
    Mr. Foxman said his organization was critical of both candidates' comments, as it has opposed Mr. Bush's faith-based initiative, which gives public dollars to religious organizations to provide services for the poor.
    "We said Jesus Christ can be your moral guide, but not your political philosopher," Mr. Foxman said. "That is where the line is crossed."
    That said, Mr. Foxman asked: "Why isn't it OK for the president to have faith?"
    "The moment you serve the public, you shouldn't have to put away your faith," he said.
    At the end of Mr. Bush's conversation with The Washington Times, he stressed that "the president's job is not to pick religion."
    "The president's job is not to say you've got to be religious," he said. "The president's job is to say each is free to choose it. And it's really important that that be clear today, given the world in which we live. And if you're a Sikh or Muslim or a Methodist or anybody else for that matter, it's an important message."
    But that assurance wasn't enough for Ellen Johnson, president of American Atheists.
    "He just doesn't get it," Mrs. Johnson said. "And he seems to ignore the fact that in our Constitution we do not have a religious test for those seeking public office."
    The interview "demonstrates clearly that he does not respect the diversity of the country, and the fact that nonbelievers and so-called seculars are one of the fastest-growing segments of American society."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050118C   The grim nightmare of secular hysterics
 

By Wesley Pruden

George W. Bush is about to send a lot of people to the dentist.
    If history is a guide, when the president takes his oath at noon Thursday he will include in his remarks an affirmation of religious faith in American life, a tribute to the cherished convictions that most of us follow (or say we do).
    The grinding of teeth in the enlightened precincts will be long and loud enough to wake the newly dead. The dust of molars and the residue of bicuspids will lie heavily upon the land. The president's predecessors, not just the devout John Adams but the doubting Jefferson and skeptical Lincoln as well, to a man offered testimony to faith and acknowledgment of the nation's place in divine will.
    George W., in fact, has lately become more sensitive to secularist sulking than most of those predecessors. He has toned down the telling of his embrace of the born-again religion of the Methodist camp meeting. He first set liberal teeth on edge in the 2000 presidential debates when, in answer to a question, he identified Jesus Christ as his favorite "philosopher." (This irritated more than a few of his fellow evangelicals, who regard Christ not as a philosopher but as the unique Son of God.) When he goes out of his way now to reassure the blockheads who insist on misreading what he says, the president is careful to refer to the divinity in more or less neutral language.
    He isn't quite as bland as Dwight D. Eisenhower, who, like generals will, imagined that he spoke to God as (at least) an equal. Mr. Eisenhower neatly summed up the prevailing Potomac piety five decades ago: "Our government makes no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith — and I don't care what it is." Presbyterian, Pentecostal or Hottentot, all same-same.
    This is not far off par for our present day. "When an American president closes an address by saying 'God bless America,' " writes Michael Lind in Prospect magazine, "this is not a signal that the United States is about to become a theocracy. It is the equivalent of 'may the Force be with you.' "
    As unhinged as even this mild gesture gets the secular hysterics, it puts our presidents well within the traditions of the Enlightenment often invoked by those who imagine themselves to be intellectuals above the hokey sentiment of Sunday morning.
    "The French, at least, ought to understand this," writes Mr. Lind. "Robespierre and the Jacobins initiated a similar ecumenical cult of the Supreme Being, which permitted them to spurn orthodox Christianity while denouncing atheism (which on both sides of the Atlantic has connotations of immorality). Here is Robespierre in 1794: 'Did not His immortal hand ... write the death sentence of tyrants? Did not His voice, at the beginning of time, decree the [French] republic, making liberty, good faith and justice the order of the day for all peoples?' "
    So who says George W. Bush does not have a similar way with words 200 years on: "Yet I know that liberty is not America's gift to the world — liberty and freedom are God's gift to every man and woman who lives in this world." (Who would have thought that camp-meeting rhetoric was a gift of the Enlightenment?)
    The churlish resentment of religious faith, coming to a head this inaugural week in Washington, manifests itself in mean and petty ways. The Washington Post exposed a plot only the other day to give 300 Indonesian orphans a break in the wake of the tsunami that killed their parents in Banda Aceh province. An American evangelical mission obtained permission from the Muslim government to take in the homeless orphans at their orphanage in Jakarta — to nourish them, to put clothes on their backs, to fix their teeth, to give them their first medical attention, to educate them — and to love them. This was an incredible opportunity, an offer of a life beyond the grim poverty of the Sumatran outback.
    The Post reported darkly that the orphanage, working with native Christians, wanted "to plant Christian principles as early as possible [in the orphans]." Once "exposed," of course, the Indonesian government had to bow to Muslim pressure to rescind permission. The Post reported triumphantly the next day that it had foiled the sinister conspiracy: "the children [are] still in the Muslim province."
    Grim as the news was for the disappointed orphans, it was a rare spot of cheer for the secular hysterics in a week when, at noon Thursday, their worst nightmare comes true.
    Wesley Pruden is editor in chief of The Times.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050118   ARKANSAS   Bill would ban gay foster parents
    LITTLE ROCK — Legislators filed a bill to restore a state ban on foster parenting in any household with a homosexual member.
    Sen. Jim Holt, who ran for U.S. Senate on a platform against homosexual "marriage," was a sponsor of the bill to give the state's child welfare board control over "public morality."
    A Pulaski County Circuit Court ruling said the board didn't have that authority.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050118   Both sides espouse King on gay unions

ATLANTA (AP) — Martin Luther King's youngest child lighted a torch at her father's tomb last month to kick off a march advocating a ban on same-sex "marriage," creating a strong image linking the slain civil rights leader to today's heated social debate.
    But just nine months earlier, King's widow defended the rights of homosexuals in a speech at a New Jersey college.
    King never publicly spoke about homosexual rights while leading the charge toward racial equality in the 1950s and 1960s, but the clash over same-sex "marriage" has prompted people close to his legacy to pick sides and interpret how they think King would stand on the issue if he were alive.
    Coretta Scott King often has invoked her late husband's teachings while advocating tolerance and equality for homosexuals. Last year, she denounced the proposed national constitutional amendment to ban same-sex "marriage" in a speech at New Jersey's Richard Stockton College.
    "Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union," she said in her March 23 address. "A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages."
    Martin Luther King III and his mother invited homosexual groups to participate in the 40th anniversary commemoration of the 1963 March on Washington.
    But the Kings' youngest child, Bernice King, helped lead thousands of people in an Atlanta march last month against same-sex "marriage." Organized by Bishop Eddie Long and his 25,000-member New Birth Missionary Baptist Church, that march supported an amendment to "fully protect marriage between one man and one woman." Bernice King, an elder in the church, repeatedly has declined interview requests during the past month.
    Alveda C. King — niece of the slain civil rights leader, founder of the faith-based King for America Inc. and a vocal opponent of same-sex "marriage" — said she joined her cousin in the Atlanta march because she thinks her uncle never intended homosexual rights to be part of the civil rights movement.
    "Bernice says herself that she knows deep within that her father did not march and did not take a bullet for same-sex marriage," said Alveda King. "I don't believe that people should be penalized for their affections, but we need to be clear on the purpose of sexuality and marriage, that purpose being procreation."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050118C   Teenagers listen
 

By Warren Throckmorton

In 1988, George Michael won a Grammy award for his album "Faith." This disc featured sexually graphic songs, the most controversial being "I Want Your Sex."
    Apparently, teens were listening to Mr. Michael. That same year, the Centers for Disease Control surveyed teens and learned 50 percent of males and 37 percent of females ages 15-17 had experienced sex sometime during their short lifetime. While a generation of teens was learning to just say no to drugs during the '80s, many were saying yes to sex.
    Now comes the same CDC reporting on a new bunch of teens and the findings are encouraging. Amid the current maelstrom that is the public and political debate over sexual education in the schools, the CDC released a report showing a significant decline in adolescents who have had intercourse. Among teens aged 15-17 only 30 percent of females and 31 percent of males reported engaging in sexual relations in their lifetimes.
    These numbers collected in 2002 were down from 1995 when 38 percent of girls and 43 percent of boys reported sexual relations. At least for males, there is a significant downward trend from the days of "I Want Your Sex."
    Pundits and experts reacting to these results have unfortunately divided along ideological lines. Those favoring contraceptive-based sexual education programs cite another finding of the CDC report: Condom usage among those having sex is on the rise. Eight in 10 sexually active teens use contraception. So apparently these programs have some effect. Abstinence-only proponents are quick to point out abstinence programming also seems to be getting results.
    So who is right?
    I suspect both groups can claim some credit. While I favor abstinence programming in educational settings, my reading of the research tells me that when adults teach contraception is a good idea, teens listen. Perhaps there is a clue there for those on both sides to examine. If you missed it, let me elaborate.
    Teens listen.
    Not all teens of course, but apparently many do. In fact, it appears from the new survey, even many adolescent males can cut through the hormonal haze and actually reflect upon their choices before they act. I think this is a crucial observation. Having established that teens listen, it is critically important to ask: What should we tell them?
    First, we should ensure these research results are made widely known. Despite the message of MTV and network television programs, everybody is not "doing it." Less than one-third of teens are having sex before age 18. Spreading this message puts peer pressure back in the hands of teens who encourage self-control and self-respect.
    Second, early sex is not usually "good sex" or even "safe sex." Of those teens who have sexual relations, a significant majority report dissatisfaction and disappointment with the experience. Especially for teen girls, "safer sex" is not often emotionally safe. In fact, when asked, the vast majority of sexually experienced girls say they wished they had waited.
    According to a 2000 poll by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, nearly two-thirds of teens who initiated sexual activity said they wished they had delayed their decision.
    Among girls, the results were striking: 72 percent of girls wished they had waited.
    Third, policymakers should not be intimidated by those who say teens won't abstain. We now know there are good scientific reasons to abandon moral neutrality in sex education. Teens will abstain if given good reasons to do so. Furthermore, in the recent CDC research, nearly 40 percent of teens said they avoided sex because of religious reasons.
    There are two important lessons here. One is that faith-based initiatives are reaching this important subset of teens; and the second is that multiple exposure to information (abstinence) across multiple settings (home, school and worship center) presents a consistent message that is being heard.
    Fourth, delaying sexual behavior until marriage seems to be a prescription for long-term sexual fulfillment. This directly contrasts with the leftover values from the "free love" era that freedom and sex combine to produce the deepest form of sexual satisfaction.
    Teens need to know sexual adjustment is highest for those in married, monogamous relationships. Not all teens will wait until marriage, but it appears that those who do are not cheated out of anything.
    Of course, not all teens will agree with or heed the advice given in abstinence-only health education. The vast majority of these teens use contraception. This highlights a point for the grown-ups in the sex education discussion: If teens are clearly listening to us, why can't we listen to the data and work together to better prepare the next generation?
    Answering this last question will determine what teens hear from health educators and parents. The choice is not insignificant. As a culture, do we want teens delaying sexual involvement even longer? Do we want those percentages of sexually active teens to drop more? Do we want sexually active teens to know the consequences of their choices? Then we must tell them what we know. They are listening.

    Warren Throckmorton is associate professor of psychology and director of Counseling at Grove City College in Pennsylvania. His essays have been published in more than 60 newspapers and on numerous Web sites. He maintains DrThrockmorton.com and can be reached at ewthrockmorton@gcc.edu.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050118C   Two tidal waves: tsunami and abortion
 

By Marvin Olasky

Web only

    Two tidal waves of death: the tsunami late in December and 32 years of massive abortion since the Roe vs. Wade decision on Jan. 22, 1973.
     Television images and Internet blogs have brought home to Americans the reality of one disaster. Ultrasound images have shown many young women and their boyfriends the reality of lives that can be saved. We have fewer excuses than we once had for not loving our neighbors as ourselves, no matter how far away or how small they are.
     But what happens when we still lack vision? We have a license to kill unborn children (and young born ones) because they lack "higher mental capacities," according to Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer. Hmmm. Maybe T-ball players are useless because they lack higher baseball capacities. Maybe acorns are worthless because we can't make oak furniture from them.
     Let's widen our vision of how abortions occur. In Havana last year, I met with two pro-life physicians who fight for life against huge opposition. Cuban officials do not force anyone to abort, they say, but the government applies "great psychological and economic pressure so the woman will choose abortion of her own 'free will.'" The physicians used the words "free will" ironically.
     For a lonely view of abortion in America, read the blog of leftist comedienne Margaret Cho. She writes: "I had an abortion, and you know what? It (expletive) hurts like hell." She describes how she hated being in that situation "because the rubber broke, and I didn't even (expletive) like that guy in the first place."
     She sounds as miserable as the six-month-pregnant Cuban woman who wanted to have an abortion two years ago because "I don't have anyone to help me" -- but when one of the pro-life doctors within two hours found a nun who pledged to stick by the woman, the woman stuck by her unborn child.
     Margaret Cho did not stick by hers. She writes, "Pregnancy feels like there is somebody in there," and she's right: Somebody is there. But Ms. Cho continues: "For whatever reason, and every reason is the right reason, you can't have a tenant. So you gotta evict. Nothing personal."
     Does that sound like a pro-choice statement? "Can't" and "gotta" suggest the absence of free will. Funny, but another of the pro-life doctors in Havana counsels 100 women a year with far fewer resources than Cho has, and they don't go with "can't" or "gotta."
     Cho sounds very bitter about the results of her abortion: "And then you see that the tenant has checked out, leaving you hollowed out and alone." She takes out her frustration on others, saying to pro-life protesters, "(Expletive) you. Seriously. (Expletive expletive) you."
     With better communication, people where the tsunami first hit could have warned others where it arrived later. It's similar with abortion: Millions of women who have had abortions could warn those planning to have them this year of the sadness they will find. Our major communication channels, though, do not transmit those stories.
     Here's what I've learned from 20 years in the pro-life movement: Almost no women choose abortion. Almost all women naturally want to produce life, and they only "choose" abortion when they feel they have no choice. Since the Cuban government takes away choice, to be pro-choice in Cuba is to be pro-life. The pressures are not official in the United States, but with vision we can see that the bottom line is the same.
     What to do? Another intense Asian tsunami may be a century away, but the abortion tsunami occurs every year. An overall constitutional amendment would be great, but in this meantime many lives can be saved through a compassionate conservative approach that features ultrasound machines, waiting periods, involvement of boyfriend or husband and both sets of parents, information about post-abortion syndrome and pro-adoption counseling.
     All of those means can counteract the pressures that make real choice unlikely.

    Marvin Olasky is a nationally syndicated columnist.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050117E   The faith of a president
 

By Suzanne Fields
 
 

    When the president takes the oath of office this week, he will, as 42 presidents before him have done, place his hand on the Bible. This upsets some who want no public acknowledgment that ours is a society of faith, freedom and family. Such dissent leads other Americans to think their faith is under attack by "secularists." President Bush, who became particularly animatedindiscussing his own religious faith in a wide-ranging interview last week in the Oval Office, is not one of them. He is bemused by the furor, such as it is, not angry.
    "I don't see how you can be president — at least from my perspective — without a relationship with the Lord," he said. "I think people attack me because they are fearful that I will then say that you're not equally as patriotic if you're not a religious person. I've never said that, I've never acted like that." He becomes just as animated in defending the right to have no faith at all: "That's what distinguishes us fromtheTaliban." Nevertheless,the president's remarks about his faith set off controversy. A columnist for The Washington Post scolded him for saying that "someone is not qualified to be president unless they are religious." The columnist should take a deep breath, sit down and read the transcript again. The president didn't say anything remotely like that.
     Mr. Bush, however, insists that faith-based community organizations not be discriminated against if, for example, they can use government resources to help drug addicts or AIDS sufferers as long as they don't proselytize on behalf of their religion. He made that clear in our interview. He places his faith-based initiative in the tradition of civic and community groups as identified by Alexis de Tocqueville, the French aristocrat who toured American in the 1830s and saw such associations as "the great strength of America."
    If faith itself is not under attack, the president's faith-based initiative is, from liberals and some conservatives. Liberals, who say it collapses the wall between church and state, prefer the paternalism of the New Deal and big government. The voluntary organizations that de Tocqueville saw as the bulwark against big government are, in this scheme, reduced to irrelevance.
    Conservatives challenge the idea from a different direction. They don't want government money interfering with religion or influencing those who, as a religious duty, work for the underclass; they think it demeans the ethical spirit. They prefer faith-based voluntary organizations free of government money, free of the strings that such money always comes with.
    We no longer live in de Tocqueville's America, and many civic groups without religious affiliations thrive on government money. The president thinks that's unfair, that religious folk shouldn't be excluded as long as they don't proselytize. Faith-based organizations augment the community spirit, making needed investment in social capital. The federal government has funneled about $1.2 billion to religious groups so far; the president is determined to increase this in his second term.
    His rhetoric is charged with the zeal of a do-gooder as well as a man who values sound business principles. Government money, he says, helps those groups, whether religious or not, who choose to serve "something greater than yourself as an important part of life." He describes his approach to social service programs as "consumer-oriented" and "demand-driven" rather than "supply driven." Skeptics mock. To many of them faith is something hokey and unenlightened. The president reflects the vision of Ronald Reagan, who often spoke of America as "the shining city on a hill" that the devout John Winthrop described in founding the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1630.
    The president uses similar language in describing his approach to foreign policy. "I am excited about helping spread freedom and helping say to reformers, 'We hear your call and you've got a friend,' and helping to say to the critics and the cynics, 'people from all walks of life, all religions, have got the capacity to self-govern.'" He draws attention to a painting of a mountain, on the wall behind him. "Laura and I live on the east side of the mountain, the sunrise side, not the sunset side," he says. "The president must also be able to see the day that is gone." He cites imperial Japan as an example from the day that is gone. "My dad fought them. [They were] mortal enemies. They killed a lot of people and attacked our country. But because we believe that freedom can change societies and convert enemies to allies ? Japan is now a strong ally, and the world is more peaceful as a result of it. I know that free societies will be peaceful societies." Amen to that, as a good deacon would say.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050117L   Maryland and marriage
    Do Marylanders want to live in the second state in the nation to have same-sex "marriage" forced on us by the courts, following Massachusetts ("Foes set push to ban gay unions," Metropolitan, Monday)? That's what is in jeopardy with a lawsuit filed last summer by the ACLU seeking to overturn Maryland's marriage law.
    The majority of Marylanders, like the majority of Americans in 13 other states, want our elected state representatives to represent us and protect marriage as it has existed for milleniums and has been the bedrock of culture in Asia, Africa, Europe, North America, South America, Australia and even Antarctica.
    Though Delegate Joseph Vallario says he personally opposes homosexual "marriage," he does not support an amendment banning them. Give Marylanders an opportunity to vote on a constitutional amendment.

    LAURA CLARK
    Catonsville, Md.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

E050119L   Parental involvement important
    The Montgomery County Board of Education has bypassed several of its own policies on sex ed ("Montgomery set on pilot sex-ed class," Metropolitan, Dec. 15).
    Its policies explicitly require the board to inform parents of changes to the sex-ed curriculum and solicit public reaction to those changes. In November, however, it rolled out the new curriculum and approved it for piloting on the same day.
    Parents are still reeling from this brazen decision and are wondering how to insert themselves into a tightly controlled and manipulated process that has left them out of the loop.
    The board also plans to exclude parents from evaluation of the pilot program, relying solely on teacher and student feedback before final approval for countywide use.
    Keep in mind that this new curriculum includes a highly controversial presentation of homosexuality and sexual variations. We parents pay a large portion of the taxes that fund the schools and their $1.7 billion budget. According to the board's policy on Citizen Review of Curricular and Instructional Materials, we have the right to voice our "reaction to curriculum documents dealing with sensitive topics." Parents are justly furious over this new curriculum that the board is forcing on the schools with no regard for its own procedures.

    ELLEN CASTELLANO
    Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum
    Montgomery Village
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M050119E   Exposing CBS
 

By William Campenni

"[N]o one had provided persuasive evidence that the documents were not authentic." — Dan Rather

    "[T]he Panel stresses that it is making no findings as to the authenticity of the Killian documents;... it may never be possible for anyone to authenticate or discredit the documents." — Report of the 60 Minutes independent panel

    It's time to drive a stake into this continuing saga less it become the new grassy knoll for the left-wing pundits and blogosphere. I accept the challenge.
     While the public debate has exposed these creative forgeries by focusing on the peculiarities of type fonts and signatures, the fatal flaw is in the inconceivability of the documents themselves. While a doctoral dissertation could be written (and probably will) on the issue, space constrains us to the most salient points. Thus we will take just one of these famous memos and prove it to be a fake. By extrapolation, one could take that to the remaining five when editorial space becomes available.
    The selected memo is that dated May 4, 1972, wherein the late Lt. Col. Jerry Killian orders 1st Lt. Bush to report for a flight physical not later than May 14. This memo is the most expository of the memo forgeries for several reasons. First, while the other five memos may be considered Mr. Killian's memos to self, and thus personal musings never intended for distribution, this particular memo is posited as a direct order to 1st Lt. Bush, mailed to his (wrong) home address. It was used obsessively by CBS and Bush opponents in the campaign as evidence of his refusal to obey a direct order. If any criminal or civil liabilities for fraud or forgery of government documents obtain, they would be most applicable to this document.
    So, putting aside the typos, the superscripts, the signatures, the wrong header and address, and all the previously dissected items susceptible to subjective interpretations, how do I prove this memo is a fake? Easy — for the weekend that 1st Lt. Bush was supposedly ordered to report for his physical, May 13-14, 1972, the Ellington Air Guard Base was closed. It was Mother's Day. Except for emergencies, Air Guard units never drilled on Mother's Day; the divorce lawyers would be waiting at the gate.
    If George Bush showed up at the clinic that weekend, he would have had to get the key from the gate guard.
    The drill weekend for May 1972 was the following weekend, May 20-21. A survey of the pay and flight records of several of the Texas Air Guard members of that period shows no activity for May 13-14, but drill pay vouchers and flights for May 20-21. Guard flight physicals were normally conducted on the drill weekends, because that is the only time all the required clinic personnel were on hand to complete lab work and flight surgeon consultations mandated for aircrew. Does anyone think that Jerry Killian, squadron commander and one of the drill-schedule planners would not know on May 4 that the clinic was closed the next weekend? While CBS, in its rush to judgment, might have missed this fatal flaw in the Burkett memo, its investigative law firm, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP, cannot be excused. Why? Because one of their investigating lawyers was informed of this fact on Nov. 15 and given a list of seven witnesses who worked in the same offices with Jerry Killian every day in 1972. (Disclosure statement: I was the source.) The panel report makes no mention of this, and a canvass of most of the witness list reveals no contact attempt by Kirkpatrick & Lockhart.
    CBS paid Kirkpatrick & Lockhart big bucks for this report. As brilliantly explained by Tony Blankley ("Damage Control at Black Rock," his Jan.12 column), if Kirkpatrick & Lockhart's aim was an attorney's protection of its client, intentional ignorance was a good strategy.
    The lesson here: If you are a big media entity with a political agenda and have reporters with a five-year obsession to get George Bush on his Guard service even if it means using fake documents from an incredible source (hint to USA Today) get Kirkpatrick & Lockhart. If you want the unambiguous truth, look in the yellow pages for a good but inexpensive private investigator.

    William Campenni, an engineer living in Herndon, Virginia, served as a pilot in the Texas Air National Guard in the early 1970s.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050117L   Lutheran Church in crisis
    It's sad that the decision by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America not to censure churches that ordain homosexual clergy raises so little controversy ("Lutheran decision splits on gay clergy," Page 1, yesterday).
    Martin Luther's prime assertion and the entire basis for the Reformation was "sola Scriptura" — that doctrine and practice must be founded in God's word and not driven by the whims of the moment.
    Scripture is unrelenting in its condemnation of homosexual practice — of any kind, "loving and committed" or not — and St. Paul is most emphatic that ministers must be male and either married to a woman or celibate.
    The ELCA has abandoned its roots and has no reason to refer to itself as Lutheran any more. I fear we will reap what it sows as families continue to disintegrate, public morality drops to the lowest common denominator and our society in general repeats the fall of the ancient Roman Empire.

    PAUL BLASE
    Alexandria
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050117M   Opening day in Annapolis, Richmond

The Maryland and Virginia state legislatures, both of which began their 2005 sessions last week, are poised to tackle a wide variety of hot-button issues, ranging from taxes and the budget to transportation; illegal immigration; homosexual "marriage"; gang violence and school funding.
    In Maryland, Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich lost one political battle when Democrats in the state Senate and House of Delegates voted to override his veto of medical-malpractice legislation. But the governor was successful in persuading lawmakers to sustain his vetoes of two other badly flawed bills: legislation mandating a $10.50 an hour living wage on state projects and legislation imposing a tax increase in order to limit university tuition hikes.
    During this year's session, Mr. Ehrlich hopes to work with members of the legislature to improve upon the malpractice-insurance bill, which he faulted for failing to put real curbs on frivolous lawsuits. But much of the governor's time will likely be spent fending off higher taxes and new state spending legislation advocated by Democrats, led by the moderately liberal Senate President Mike Miller and the very liberal House Speaker Michael Busch. Once again, both are likely to push for substantial increases in regulations on business and increases in spending for elementary, secondary and higher education and virtually every form of government social spending — including Medicaid and myriad other social-service programs. Every time Mr. Ehrlich says no, they will try to portray him as a cruel man doing the bidding of the rich and trying to deny Marylanders an education, health care, etc.
    Mr. Busch, who since 2003 has blocked efforts by the governor and Mr. Miller to approve the installation of slot machines in Maryland, will likely do so again this year. He'll get enthusiastic support from advocates of tax increases like Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley and Montgomery Executive Doug Duncan (who will likely vie for the Democratic nomination for governor next year), who seem intent on doing everything they can to push the Democrats farther to the left. Republicans think this may work to their advantage: Buoyed by Mr. Ehrlich's strong showing in 2002 in places like Baltimore and Anne Arundel Counties, GOP lawmakers will likely try to force vulnerable Democrats to cast unpopular votes on everything from tax increases to in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, and let voters sort things out at the polls next year.
    In Virginia, where voters are less than 10 months away from choosing a new governor, General Assembly Republicans are still reeling from last year's debacle on taxes, where Democratic Gov. Mark Warner split Republican legislators apart. Mr. Warner put together a coalition consisting of virtually every member of the General Assembly's Democratic minority; the majority of Senate Republicans, led by Finance Committee Chairman John Chichester (who, aside from the governor, has become perhaps the state's most powerful advocate of higher spending and taxes); and 19 of the 61 Republicans in the House of Delegates, who last year joined to push through a $1.38 billion tax increase. Messrs. Warner and Chichester insisted that, without higher taxes, the solvency of the commonwealth would be in jeopardy. Then, shortly after the legislature left town, Mr. Warner and his administration informed the people of Virginia that the state had a surplus of more than $1 billion. In short, the major argument made for holding on to the windfall by Messrs. Warner and Chichester — that not giving the money back to the taxpayers who earned it in the first place was essential for Virginia to maintain its credit rating — had collapsed. But Messrs. Warner and Chichester and many of their political allies remain strenuously opposed to parting with their windfall from the taxpayers during the coming session, aside from a rollback in grocery taxes proposed by the governor. Another issue that will receive a great deal of attention during this year's session will be a proposal to give voters the opportunity to vote on a constitutional amendment banning homosexual "marriages."
     This year's session of the General Assembly promises to Act One in a fascinating political year. In November, voters will likely be deciding whether Attorney General Jerry Kilgore, a conservative Republican, or Democratic Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine, who is moderately liberal, becomes Virginia's next governor. And, before that, many of the Republican delegates and state senators who voted for the Warner-Chichester tax increase are likely to face stiff primary challenges from anti-tax conservatives.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050122  Maryland Pro-Family Rally

Reminder!!! This coming Thursday, January 27, from 2pm to 4pm - THE CHURCH (Body of Christ) from all walks will Rally in Annapolis to DEFEND MARRIAGE between A man and A woman in Maryland. Remember on November, voters in eleven states overwhelmingly voted to invoke a ban against same-sex marriages in their state(s).

In three states, Louisiana, Indiana, and Florida same sex couples challenged the will of the people in courts. Judges in those three states rejected and/or denied the case. Amen? Do you know what that means? THEY LOST!

See the following news reports. http://www.sptimes.com/2005/01/20/State/Federal_judge_throws_.shtml AND http://www.indystar.com/articles/7/210928-6667-092.html OR http://www.theadvocate.com/stories/012005/new_ruling001.shtml

However, in Maryland, eight same sex couples filed a lawsuit and the case was scheduled to be heard in March until the gay leaders heard about our movement to protect Marriage as the Maryland Annotated statue for Family Law section 2-201 reads. The lawsuit was moved from Maryland Circuit Court to the Appellant Court and has not been scheduled.

We believe the attorney for the same sex couples is waiting until the General Assembly is over so that they can try to Rambo MD's Court system the way they have tried in other states. But praise be to Jehovah, I read the back of the book and no where did it say that this issue would bring on the big one...That means that we are going to win this battle; people the signs are there. The question is will you be able to stand before God and be approved because you stood firm!

Contact your church leaders and ask them to announce this rally during services this Sunday. For more information please visit http://www.defendmarylandmarriage.com/ for up-to-the-minute updates regarding this important rally.

For those that did not received the article regarding the issue, the rally, and the controversy as ‘pictured’ by the Baltimore Sun, download the attached and spread the word.

Please do not be afraid to pray, participate, and promote this important cause. Remember, last year, several liberal state legislators voted against constitutionally protecting traditional marriage in this state. And remember, this is not an anti-gay Rally – as Christians we are to love the sinner and hate the sin. Therefore, when faced with this controversy quote these scriptures: Acts 9:11, John 5:14, and John 8:11.

Let everything have breathe praise the Lord. Maybe we need to study the animals. They have breathe and they certainly praise the Lord. How? They do not have sex outside of their bread or sex, they feed, protect, and educate their young, they do not overeat, they work according to gravity, and their senses are keen. In other words, they serve the Lord by instinctively following HIS orders. We, humans are supposed to be more intelligent than the animal, the bird, or the fish. Um?

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050120  College Banned 'Passion' but OK'd 'F**king for Jesus'
News Max

Florida’s Indian River Community College (IRCC), which recently prohibited Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" from being shown on campus, has admitted that last year it approved a screening of the R-rated documentary film "Welcome to Sarajevo" at a college-sponsored event.

This information contradicts the college’s claim to have banned all R-rated movies – an unwritten policy that it used to justify its decision to prohibit the Christian Student Fellowship (CSF) from screening "The Passion of the Christ."

The college also admitted that it allowed a skit called "F**king for Jesus" to be performed on campus. The college now says that permission was a breakdown of procedure.

"IRCC’s double standard is shameful and causes legitimate concern that the school is not acting to enforce an actual ‘policy’ but has instead singled out religious expression for censorship," stated David French, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which intervened on behalf of CSF.

"IRCC seems to understand that adult students have a legitimate educational interest in watching an R-rated film in some cases, but rejects the idea that the same students should be able to watch a movie about their faith in a private student group meeting. These distinctions are juvenile and demonstrate precisely why the state should not be regulating the speech of adults."
 

After FIRE brought IRCC’s campaign to repress the expressive activities of the CSF to the public last week, students came forward with reports that the college has not generally prohibited R-rated films in the past.
 

For instance, they reported that the R-rated documentary film "Welcome to Sarajevo" was shown on campus in February 2004.

College spokesperson Michelle Abaldo later confirmed the showing of this film to the Palm Beach Post.

This directly conflicts with IRCC’s policy as stated in its letter to FIRE, which broadly claimed that "the College has made a determination that it is inappropriate to have R-rated movies shown on campus.”

FIRE Director of Legal and Public Advocacy Greg Lukianoff remarked, "The Supreme Court has explained that public institutions, which are bound by the First Amendment, cannot ban expression for all adults because of some theoretical fear of a minor being exposed to that expression. To paraphrase the Court, IRCC may not reduce the discourse of the campus to that of the sandbox."

He continued, "Applying a flat-out ban on R-rated movies excludes films with obvious educational value, from 'Schindler’s List' to the most recent interpretations of Shakespeare. When the MPAA established its voluntary rating system in 1968, it was never intended to be used to limit the expressive activities of adults. IRCC has imposed an unconstitutional and patronizing rule on its students."

FIRE is a nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists and public intellectuals from across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, due process, freedom of expression, academic freedom and rights of conscience at our nation’s colleges and universities.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050117 Pro-Life Alert

C E N T E R   F O R   R E C L A I M I N G   A M E R I C A
From the Desk of Dr. Gary Cass, Executive Director

       + + PRO-LIFE ALERT, 1/17/2005
   Supreme Court receives case to overturn Roe v. Wade

       (Forward to your pro-life friends)

On January 18, the U.S. Supreme Court will begin a process that could overturn Roe v. Wade!

Because you have stood with the Center for Reclaiming America on pro-life issues, I wanted to alert you to
this news.

On January 18, Norma McCorvey (the original "Jane Roe" of Roe v. Wade) will file a legal appeal with the Supreme Court to have Roe v. Wade reversed. I will be in Washington, D.C., on that day to stand with our friends at The Justice Foundation in support of this case.

The Justice Foundation has invested thousands upon thousands of hours in this case. They have gathered an enormous body of evidence to support Norma's case.

This is a powerful opportunity to refute Roe v. Wade!

Here is how you can help.

First, notify your friends. Forward this message to everyone you know. We simply must get the word out.

Second, please pray for Norma and the team at The Justice Foundation. Set aside time on January 18, specifically,
to pray.

Third, find out more about this case and how you can impact The Justice Foundation’s efforts here:

http://www.operationoutcry.org
 

Thank you!

Dr. Gary Cass
Executive Director
Center for Reclaiming America

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050123   Faithful standing more firm, poll says
 

By Michael Conlon
REUTERS NEWS AGENCY

CHICAGO — Churchgoing Americans grew less patient in the past four years with politicians making compromises on such issues as abortion and homosexual rights, according to a survey released yesterday.
    At the same time, those polled said they were growing bolder about sharing their beliefs with others — even at the risk of offending someone.
    The trends indicate religion has become "more prominent in American discourse ... more salient," says Ruth Wooden, president of Public Agenda, the nonpartisan research organization that released the survey.
    The results could indicate "more polarized political thinking," Ms. Wooden said.
    "There do not seem to be very many voices arguing for compromise today," she said. "It could be that more religious voices feel under siege, pinned against the wall by cultural developments. They may feel more emboldened as a result."
    On the question of whether elected officials should set their convictions aside to get results in government, 84 percent of those surveyed agreed in a similar Public Agenda survey in 2000. However, that number dropped to 74 percent in the new poll.
    Researchers found a sharper decline on the same question among weekly churchgoers, from 82 percent in the first survey to 63 percent in the second.
    The election indicated voters in 11 states back same-sex "marriage" bans, and President Bush won re-election with heavy support from religious conservatives.
    Those who identified themselves as weekly churchgoers voted for Mr. Bush over Sen. John Kerry 61 percent to 39 percent, a post-election analysis by the Gallup Organization showed.
    The Public Agenda findings came from a telephone survey of 1,004 adults last summer that tracked the same issues covered in a similar survey of 1,507 adults made in 2000. The survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
    Those surveyed were nearly all Christians, not by design but because the sample reflected the makeup of the population, the group said. A 2002 Pew Research Council survey found that 82 percent of the U.S. populace considered itself to be Christian, while 10 percent identified with no religious group.
    About 40 percent of Americans identify themselves as weekly churchgoers, said Corwin Smidt, director of the Henry Institute for the Study of Christianity and Politics at Calvin College in Michigan. Some surveys have placed the figure at 25 percent.
    The Bible teaches believers not to compromise on scriptural principles that reveal God's will.
    In the Public Agenda survey, 32 percent of those who attended church once a week said they were willing to compromise on abortion issues — a 19-point drop in four years. Among the same group, the question of compromising beliefs on homosexual rights was acceptable to 39 percent, down 18 points from 2000.
    The poll found that 37 percent overall felt that the deeply faithful should be careful not to offend anyone when they "spread the word of God," a decline from 46 percent four years earlier.
    vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

E050123   NEA to host pro-life members at march
 

By George Archibald
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The nation's largest school union, despite its consistently pro-choice stance, has agreed to open its headquarters near the White House as a hospitality center for members participating in tomorrow's March for Life.
    At the urging of state National Education Association (NEA) chiefs in Ohio and Pennsylvania who argued "fairness," NEA President Reg Weaver decided last week to invite members participating in the pro-life march to use the headquarters at 16th and M streets NW as a hospitality center, according to documents obtained by The Washington Times.
    Last April, the union joined the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) as co-sponsor of a pro-choice March for Women's Lives. Members of the NEA Pro-Life Educators Caucus objected to the union's decision to co-sponsor the demonstration, and objected to union affiliates in New Jersey and elsewhere that bused teachers to Washington for the march.
    Last week, after continued complaints from members at local and state levels, Mr. Weaver announced that the headquarters would be open to union members participating in tomorrow's March for Life, an event protesting the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that overturned state laws prohibiting abortion.
    Gary Allen, president of the Ohio Education Association (OEA), urged Mr. Weaver to host pro-life union members who come to Washington as a matter of "fairness," according to documents obtained by The Times.
    Delegates to an OEA meeting Dec. 4 in Columbus, Ohio, had rejected a move by Judy Bruns, a language arts teacher and head of the union's national pro-life caucus, to request NEA hospitality for March for Life participants.
    Nonetheless, "the OEA leadership went to bat for us," Mrs. Bruns said. "As a matter of fairness, since they opened up to pro-choice, I brought this up as a new business item. After it went down, some of us spoke to OEA leadership. They saw it as a fairness issue without a doubt."
    Mr. Allen did not return a telephone call requesting comment. But on Jan. 10, Mr. Weaver responded to Mrs. Bruns' request about a hospitality center for pro-life demonstrators.
    "Yes, the NEA can provide refreshments with this [pro-life] group as was done with the other [pro-choice] group," Mr. Weaver told Mrs. Bruns in an e-mail Jan. 10. "It was brought to my attention at the last NEA board meeting and I responded that we would," the NEA president wrote.
    Mr. Weaver did not respond to a request for comment.
    Gaye Barker, an NEA program coordinator, contacted union pro-life leaders Wednesday to inform them that the union's headquarters would provide a buffet lunch to NEA members and their families participating in the March for Life, starting at 11:30 a.m., plus refreshments, shelter and use of headquarters facilities throughout the day.
    "This is a historic moment for all pro-life members of the NEA," said Sissy Jochmann, a teacher near Pittsburgh and head of the NEA Conservative Educators Caucus.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050122   Prayer starts Bush's second term
 

By Bill Sammon
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

President Bush began his second term in office yesterday by praying for guidance at a church service in which the Rev. Billy Graham credited God for the president's re-election.
    "We believe that in Your providence, You've granted a second term of office to our president, George W. Bush, and our vice president, Richard Cheney," the evangelist, 86, said in an opening prayer at the National Cathedral in Washington.
    "Their next four years are hidden from us, but they are not hidden from You," said the preacher, who persuaded Mr. Bush to turn to God and away from the bottle at age 40.
    "You know the challenges and opportunities they will face," he added. "Give them a clear mind, a warm heart, calmness in the midst of turmoil, reassurance in times of discouragement and Your presence always."
    The president, joined by first lady Laura Bush, bowed his head in prayer as Mr. Graham and clergy members from various denominations asked God to bless the second Bush term.
    The president seemed particularly pleased by the sermon of the Rev. Mark Craig of Dallas.
    "We are a compassionate people and a loving people, and we are a moral people," he said as Mr. and Mrs. Bush nodded in approval. "Our compassion is not liberal; our compassion is not conservative; our compassion is not libertarian.
    "Our compassion is in the very heart and soul of every American citizen," Mr. Craig said.
    Mr. Bush, who is keenly aware that he has only a short time in which to enact an ambitious agenda, also seemed to appreciate Mr. Craig's remarks about the preciousness of time, which he described as a gift