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
L050228      Bush stem-cell policy attacked
L050228L    Culture of death
L050301      Divorce latest legal path
L050301      Early warning
L050301L    Parents' love
L050303      Before and after
L050305      Pro-life Democrat threatens Santorum

HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR/PERVERSION
H050228      FLORIDA   Lesbian's tux photobanned from annual
H050303      Asking and telling

RELIGION/RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION
R050301      Court to hear Commandments cases
R050301      SOUTH DAKOTA   Marriage measure goes on 2006 ballot
R050301      Thou shalt debate
R050301Va Virginia bill OKs prayers by Christians
R050302      Bush pushes his faith initiative
R050302      Democrats to maintain filibusters on Bush nominees
R050302L    Staying from Episcopal teachings
R050302Md Ex-priest sentenced for abuse 25 years ago
R050303       GOP drive to woo blacks via church alarms Brazile
R050303       Religious displays debated in court
R050304       COLORADO   Trustee faces recall over Pledge refusal
R050304       Judicial pick Boyle gets hearing after 4-year wait
R050304       LOUISIANA   School boards pray, defy judge's ruling
R050304       Science, 'frauds' trigger a decline in atheism
R050304C    Supreme Judge and the Supreme Court
R050305C    Promoting religion?

EDUCATION
E050301Md Schools chosen for sex course in Montgomery

MEDIA
M050303     Rather party

OTHER
O050301      CALIFORNIA   Teacher arraigned in student-sex case
O050305      66 accused in pedophile case
O050305      U.S. warns U.N.on sex scandal
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

By Christina Bellantoni
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Members of municipal bodies in Virginia will be able to say Christian prayers just before the beginning of their official meetings under a measure the General Assembly unanimously approved this session.
    The measure, sponsored by Delegate Robert D. Orrock Sr., creates a period for "meditation" immediately before an official government body is called to order. The measure also allows local government officials to invoke the name of Jesus Christ and say sectarian prayers without violating the separation of church and state.
    Mr. Orrock said the prayers will be protected by free-speech laws.
    "Under the First Amendment, you can say whatever you want to say," the Caroline Republican said. "It's a minor modification of a long-standing practice."
    The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia opposes the bill.
    Kent Willis, executive director of Virginia's ACLU, said the bill would allow local governments to circumvent a recent ruling by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals that prohibits sectarian prayers at the start of meetings.
    "Unconstitutional prayers will appear to be constitutional," Mr. Willis said.
    Last year, the 4th Circuit Court unanimously ruled that the practice of town council meetings beginning with a prayer that includes references to Jesus in South Carolina was an unconstitutional government advancement of a single religion.
    The ruling came after a Wiccan high priestess sued the town council of Great Falls, S.C., because its leaders refused to lead prayers that didn't invoke a single religion or to allow members of different faiths to lead the prayers. The woman, who regularly attended the meetings, had said she was ostracized for refusing to stand and bow her head during the Christian prayers.
    The ruling also led council members in Culpeper, Va., who for decades allowed local ministers to give prayers, to start their meetings with a moment of silence in August when they were advised that those leading the prayers should avoid any references to Jesus.
    Mr. Orrock's measure is headed to Gov. Mark Warner. Yesterday, the governor's staff said the measure is under review. Mr. Warner, a Democrat, has a month to review all the bills approved by the state legislature.
    If the governor signs the measure, any governing body in Virginia will be able to give sectarian prayers before a meeting officially begins.
    Mr. Warner also can propose an amendment to the bill or veto it. The Republican-controlled legislature will consider his vetoes and amendments April 6.
    The issue came up over the summer when a council member in Fredericksburg, Va., opened a meeting with a Christian prayer. His actions drew criticism from some local residents and the ACLU.
    Critics argued that the prayers gave the impression that the government prefers one religion over others. The ACLU said it violated the 4th Circuit Court ruling, which applies to legislative bodies in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and the Carolinas.
    Fredericksburg City Council member Hashmel C. Turner Jr., who is an associate minister at the First Baptist Church of Love, defied the court's ruling and continued to lead a prayer that mentioned Jesus. After further criticism, Mr. Turner stopped giving the prayers.
    Mr. Turner said yesterday with the legislature's actions, he will now ask the council to put his name back on the rotating list of members who pray before meetings.
    "It seems like there is victory in the air," he said.
    Mr. Orrock said he disagrees with the 4th Circuit Court ruling, and that he hopes his bill clarifies the issue for municipal bodies. His bill does not dictate the type of religion that can be used in prayer.
    He said his bill says that officials can begin a meeting immediately after the word "Amen" is uttered.
    Before each daily session, the Virginia General Assembly has an opening prayer, delivered by clergy from each member's district on a rotating basis. Those delivering the prayers are advised to stay nonsectarian and avoid political speech.
    Last month, a lesbian pastor scolded the legislature during her opening prayer. The Rev. Debra Peevey, pastor of the Journey of the Heart Ministries in Reston, said legislators were using their power "not to lead or to guide but to harm gay and lesbian citizens."
    Her prayer irritated many lawmakers.
    Delegate John A. Cosgrove, Chesapeake Republican, told the Associated Press he was frustrated by Miss Peevey's prayer.
    "It's interesting — we're told not to pray in Jesus' name, but this is OK?" he asked.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050302Md   Ex-priest sentenced for abuse 25 years ago
 

By Jon Ward
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

A former Catholic priest from Forestville was sentenced yesterday to 18 months in prison for molesting a 15-year-old boy and sodomizing a 13-year-old girl.
    The sentencing follows a guilty plea in December by the ex-priest, Francis A. Benham, who committed the acts 25 years ago.
    In return for the plea, Prince George's County Circuit Judge Michelle Hotten sentenced Benham, 67, to 10 years each for the molestation and the sodomy, with all but 18 months suspended.
    "It's as if my soul was raped, my youth totally stolen from me," victim Donna Kollars said in emotional testimony before the court.
    Mrs. Kollars, 40, is now married and a mother of eight.
    Army Lt. Col. Matthew Ponton, 42, also testified at length about the emotional damage Benham inflicted and about the struggle to forgive him.
    Col. Ponton asked the judge to limit Benham's sentence to 18 months "to broker a sense of forgiveness and compassion."
    Benham, wearing glasses and dressed in a cream-colored sports jacket over an open-collared white shirt, faced his victims and apologized repeatedly before the sentencing.
    "I always loved you, and I still do," he said, prompting outcries from the victims' relatives.
    "Don't say that," said Mrs. Kollars' mother, who asked that her name not be used.
    "You were always a con artist, and you still are," said Mrs. Kollars' father, who also did not want to be named.
    Benham was the parish priest at Holy Spirit Catholic Church in Forestville from 1975 to 1979. He was known, according to victim testimony, for his charisma, intelligence and willingness to help parishioners.
    "I looked to him as God in my life," Mrs. Kollars testified. "I thought he could do no wrong and could be totally trusted above anyone."
    Benham gained his victims' trust by befriending their families, cooking meals in their homes and giving them spiritual and moral advice, the victims said.
    "He would tell me not to do certain things with anyone except my husband someday," Mrs. Kollars said. "Then he would eventually do these very same things to me, and it was OK."
    Benham also was a pastor at St. Jude Catholic Church in Rockville from 1963 to 1970, and at St. Joseph's Church in Beltsville from 1970 to 1975.
    Mrs. Kollars said there are other victims and wanted her maiden name, Benden, publicized to embolden them.
    Benham acknowledged his actions to a bishop in 1979 when confronted and was sent to St. Nicholas Parish in Zanesville, Ohio. He was then moved to Holy Rosary Parish in Columbus, Ohio, where in 1985 he took a leave of absence due to a "vocational crisis," a Columbus Archdiocese spokeswoman said.
    In the late 1980s, Benham moved to Lincoln, Ill., and worked as a counselor at Tazwood Mental Health Center in Pekin until 2000. His duties included court-ordered counseling for sex offenders. He now owns Cana Catering in Lincoln, Ill.
    Benham's probation supervision can be moved to Lincoln when he has served his jail time in Maryland.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

E050301Md   Schools chosen for sex course in Montgomery
 

By Jon Ward
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The Montgomery County [Md.] public sachool system yesterday announced the three high schools and three middle schools that will participate in a pilot program for a sex education curriculum that has riled some parents and activist groups throughout the county.
    Bethesda Chevy-Chase High School in Bethesda, Seneca Valley High School in Germantown and Springbrook High School in Silver Spring will take part in the high school course in which 10th-graders will be shown how to put condoms on cucumbers.
    Martin Luther King Middle School in Germantown, Tilden Middle School in Rockville and White Oak Middle School in Silver Spring will participate in the middle school curriculum in which eighth-graders will learn that homosexual couples are the newest American family.
    School system officials have noted that some schools were unenthusiastic about testing the new curriculum, which also will teach students to "develop" a sexual identity and that gender identity is "a person's internal sense of knowing whether he or she is male or female."
     "We have some schools that stepped up to do it, and we have some schools that were recruited to do it," Russ Henke, the county school system's health education coordinator, said in an interview days before yesterday's announcement.
    "A school may not be real pleased because of the controversy involved, but we need the representation from that area," Mr. Henke said.
    Bethesda Chevy-Chase's acting principal, Sean Belson, yesterday said his school did not volunteer for the curriculum but was selected "by central office folks."
    "We were asked so that different folks around the county would be represented," Mr. Belson said. "I felt it was something we could do."
    Seneca Valley Principal Suzanne Maxey said her school also was selected. "They were looking for schools in different geographic areas," she said.
    Mrs. Maxey said she and the school's health teacher met with 30 parents on the parent-teacher association's executive board, and there was "no controversy" about the curriculum.
     "It was the same kind of feedback you're going to get from the kids: 'OK, thank you,'Â " she said.
    Principals at Springbrook, Martin Luther King and Tilden were not available yesterday, according to their staff. White Oak's principal did not return phone calls seeking comment.
    Advocates supporting and opposing the curriculum agreed yesterday that the pilot schools are well-distributed across the county.
    "I think it's great. It sounds like a representative sample," said Christine Grewell, a parent and organizer for Teach the Facts.org (TTF), which backs the curriculum.
    Steve Fisher of Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum (CRC), which opposes the curriculum, said: "You can make the case that the schools are representative of the county as a whole."
    Mr. Fisher said his group is "disappointed that the pilot program is going forward. We think there's a lot of misinformation, biased information. We would have preferred that the county would have gone back to the drawing board and made it more balanced before they tested it."
    The pilot program will be the first chance for parents to see how the curriculum will be taught and to provide feedback.
    The county school board unanimously approved the curriculum in November.
    The new curriculum was crafted with materials provided to the schools by a citizens advisory committee of about 20 people. The committee will collect feedback from students, teachers and parents, and include it in its report to the board this summer before a final vote on the curriculum is taken.
    TTF and other curriculum supporters say the new course introduces information about homosexuality that students will find out regardless of whether they are taught about it. They have said morality has no place in the debate.
    CRC and other curriculum opponents say schools are trying to displace the parents' role in teaching their children about morality and its implications on sexuality. They say the curriculum does not include all the facts about the health effects of homosexuality and the moral and religious objections to homosexuality.
    The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington has said the curriculum is "clearly not reflective of our values."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050228L   Culture of death
    Florida Circuit Court Judge George Greer has given Terri Schiavo's husband permission to withdraw her feeding tube on March 18 ("Court gives date to pull Schiavo's feeding tube," Nation, Saturday). If she were a prisoner on death row, there would be candlelight vigils. If she were a prisoner at Guantanamo, what is being done to her would be considered torture.
    It shows how far we have slid down the slippery slope in the culture of death when a court will grant permission to Michael Schiavo to literally starve his wife to death.
    In 1990, Mrs. Schiavo suffered a 10-minute loss of oxygen and suffered brain damage which left her severely handicapped. She cannot feed herself, but neither can a newborn infant. She is not dying. She has no terminal illness.
    Her family loves her and is willing to take care of her. Yet her husband and the courts are trying to kill her. Those who want Mrs. Schiavo to die say it would not be murder but something called "death with dignity," even though there is no dignity in death by starvation.
    Sarah Scantlin was once in a similar position, having been struck in 1984 at age 18 by a drunken driver who left her confined to a hospital bed unable to communicate or feed herself, oblivious to the world around her. Suddenly, inexplicably, 20 years later she has regained her ability to speak and her memory, to the delight of those who cared for her, loved her, and didn't try to kill her.
    If Terri Schiavo is starved to death, who's next? Alzheimer's victims? The elderly in nursing homes? The handicapped? The 2000 Census reported that almost two million people are living in nursing homes.
    Will we be allowed to do to people what is illegal to do to dogs?

    DANIEL JOHN SOBIESKI
    Chicago
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050301L   Parents' love
    Terence Jeffrey's Saturday Commentary column, "Protection for all," deserves to be read by every person, every doctor, legislator and judge in America.
    Mr. Jeffrey points out that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution requires that all persons be counted in the census and that no person is disqualified from the count based on disability or illness.
    My brother Michael counts, too. He is 37 years old and has been severely brain damaged since birth. Because he is unable to communicate or care for himself, my parents have been his lifeline to the rest of the world.
    He had to be moved out of our parents' home in January 2004. In the year since Michael was placed in a state-run facility, our family has witnessed the dedication of his doctors, nurses, therapists and caregivers.
    Recently, because of aspiration pneumonia and severe weight loss, Michael had to have a feeding tube inserted to prevent food and liquid from entering his lungs. Otherwise, he would have starved to death in a matter of weeks.
    In many ways, Michael is like Terry Schiavo in that both are completely dependent on others to take care of their disabled bodies -- but that does not make Michael or Terry less deserving of life.
    Judge George Greer's ruling to allow Terry Schiavo's husband to order her feeding tube removed is a slippery slope certain to have serious implications for every disabled, elderly or ill American. Though any person who is able to make his or her wishes known deserves to have those wishes honored, when a person is unable to communicate such wishes, we have an obligation to protect that person's life.
    The Declaration of Independence states that "all men are endowed ... with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." One judge should not be able to decide the Declaration of Independence is meaningless when it comes to disabled people.
    God bless Terry Schiavo and her parents. I pray her parents will be allowed to care for their daughter before it is too late. Judge Greer and Michael Schiavo are dead wrong, and Terence Jeffrey is right. Our legislators should move with quick and deliberate speed to protect the lives of Americans before more disabled people are sentenced to die through starvation and dehydration -- cruel and unusual punishment indeed.

    MARY CLARKE
    Stafford, Va.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050302L   Staying from Episcopal teachings
    Referencing two recent comprehensive articles, "Anglican schism feared over gays" (Page 1, Thursday), by Al Webb, and Julia Duin's "Flocks in U.S., Canada face split" (Page 1, Friday), and other articles concerning the U.S. Episcopal Church (ECUSA) that appear in your pages from time to time: A significant event already has occurred that the church routinely fails to recognize (and of which little of the public is aware).
    That event was a 1977 conference in St. Louis that resulted in the Affirmation of St. Louis and a schism within the ECUSA, with the spawning of other churches that maintain the disciplines of historic Anglicanism remaining to this day — stronger than ever.
    This conference and its affirmation resulted from decisions in the ECUSA to destroy the historic Book of Common Prayer (and its guidance), the departure of the clergy from the traditional apostolic succession, diminished importance of confirmation and the opening of the Eucharist to those unprepared to receive it.
    Thousands of worshippers and hundreds of clergy "resigned" from the Episcopal Church. Events in that church since have proved that they took the correct path.
    Since then, the ECUSA has seen fit to re-interpret Scripture to suit its needs and desires, particularly in the realms of marriage, divorce and human sexuality. It has changed or ignored ancient doctrine and canons (and just plain good sense) to meet societal and political goals.
    That is not the purpose of a church. This is apostasy. Now, ECUSA must pay the price — by being removed from the Anglican Communion.

    DR. MARK A. H. SMITH JR.
    Chairman, Committee on Growth
    Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic States
    Anglican Catholic Church
    Linden, Va.

    •

    Regarding Robert Barr's article "Archbishop: Anglicans Could Face Division" (Web site, Friday): It is disturbing to read of the most recent division within the Anglican communion over homosexuality.
    More and more, we are living in a society that rejects immutable principles. Reason dictates, however, that there must be objective standards for discerning the common good. Otherwise, democratic governments can authorize anything that any group asks for, as long as the group phrases the request in the language of "rights," Ultimately, you end up with anarchy.
    Already, we have seen the nihilistic yet impeccably democratic result of such contemporary legislation involving life itself. I am thinking here of legislation — such as that found in Canada and the Netherlands — that legalizes homosexuality, same-sex "marriage," abortion, euthanasia and genetic manipulation.
    No one denies universal moral principles such as those pertaining to life, liberty and property. In the concrete, however, these positions are constantly violated and eroded by exceptions that negate the principle. These destructive exceptions, which consume human dignity, are always justified as a being aimed toward a good end or purpose. They justify what is not able to be justified.
    In his recent book "Memory and Identity," Pope John Paul II accurately refers to same-sex "marriages" as "part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man."
    Homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and evil because they are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.
    I commend John Paul for having the courage to look the truth in the eye and call things by their proper name without yielding to convenient compromises or to the temptation of self-deception, as society is wont to do. May the Anglican Church of Canada and the U.S. Episcopal Church take heed.

    PAUL KOKOSKI
    Hamilton, Ontario
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050305L   'Abstinence is the surest way'
    In an article on preventing sexually transmitted diseases, an advocacy group charged that HIV prevention efforts are "increasingly based on scientifically discredited abstinence-only approaches." ("Gay-rights leader calls to 'redouble' efforts against HIV," Nation, Feb. 24).
    Abstinence education is far from being "scientifically discredited." At least 10 published studies — four in scientific peer-reviewed journals — have shown that such education helps youth delay the onset of sexual activity. That's important because research shows that the longer someone delays the onset of sexual activity, the fewer lifetime sex partners that person will have. The fewer lifetime sex partners, the less likely one is to become a parent out of wedlock or contract a sexually transmitted disease.
    What's more, abstinence education is what teens want. According to the National Campaign to Prevent Teenage Pregnancy, 93 percent of teens believe they should be given a strong message about abstinence. In fact, a 2002 study by researchers at Mathematica Policy Research found: "Youth tend to respond especially positively to programs when the staff are unambiguously committed to abstinence until marriage and when the program incorporates the broader goal of youth development."
    Abstinence education is pro-youth because it empowers youngsters to see themselves in a positive way and make the healthiest choices in life. Waiting has its benefits. In the words of President Bush, "Abstinence is the surest way, and the only completely effective way, to prevent unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted disease."

    WADE F. HORN
    Assistant secretary
    Administration for Children
    and Families
    Department of Health and Human Services
    Washington
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050304C   Supreme Judge and the Supreme Court
 

By Cal Thomas

In the latest culture war battle, the Ten Commandments have reached the Supreme Court.
    One federal court has ruled that displaying the 10 standards God requires for righteousness is constitutional as it is part of the country's legal heritage. Another federal court has ordered them removed from public property because their presence implies government endorsement of religion. The justices will decide if displaying the commandments in government buildings is constitutionally "kosher."
    There are some amusing things about this case. First, a group of conservative Christians is behind the effort. Not many, if any, Jewish groups are petitioning government for this right, though the Ten Commandments are uniquely Jewish. Moses was Jewish: The commandments preceded all the other laws.
    No one ever obeyed them all. That's why the ancient Israelites had to slaughter so many animals and offer blood and other sacrifices and once a year slaughter the Passover lamb to atone for their sin (for younger readers, sin was our condition before we became dysfunctional).
    Christians, who sometimes seem so bellicose about these things, believe Jesus Christ fulfilled every one of the Ten Commandments and thus became the perfect "Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29).
    Christians also believe "a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ" (Galatians 2:16) and "all who rely on observing the law are under a curse" (Galatians 3:10). They believe anyone who wishes to be judged by the law falls short and is condemned.
    If Christians believe such things, why would they "settle" for posting the Ten Commandments through which they believe no one can be saved? Why not lobby for the display of their favorite verse: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16)? The display of that verse on public property would surely be ruled unconstitutional, but at least Christians would be consistent with what they actually believe.
    What puzzles me is how those who want government to endorse their faith seem so ready to compromise their true beliefs to receive an honorable mention from the state.
    Some seem willing to settle for a moment of silent prayer in government schools, a type of religious Miranda right, in which believing students have the right to remain mute.
    Others are willing to place their God as co-unequal with almost anything, just to have his name publicly mentioned, even if that tends to dilute him so much he wouldn't recognize himself, much less be familiar to others.
    Justice Sandra Day O'Connor defended the "under God" clause in the Pledge of Allegiance case the court dismissed last year, calling those words "ceremonial deism." She defined the term as the use of religious idiom for "essentially secular purposes," thus satisfying the court's requirement that basically says Rudolph, Santa and Jesus may co-mingle on public property at Christmas (X-mas?) and Rudolph or Santa may be displayed separately or together, but not Jesus alone.
    Is this what conservative Christians wish to settle for: a governmental genuflection or acknowledgement they exist? Do Christians wish government not only to set the parameters for pubic expression of their faith but to define the faith itself?
    The courts have been wrong for at least a half-century in limiting religious expression, but the way to win back that right of expression is not mainly through courts, but through hearts.
    The first option offers limited power and no guarantee of compliance. The other offers unlimited power and the possibility of changing lives. Which seems better from a biblical standpoint? WWJD (What would Jesus do)? WWMT (What would Moses think)?

    Cal Thomas is a nationally syndicated columnist.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050305C   Promoting religion?
 

By Terence P. Jeffrey

The American Civil Liberties Union argued in the Supreme Court this week that two Kentucky counties violated the First Amendment ban on Congress establishing a religion by posting the Ten Commandments in their courthouses.
    "They have erected displays highlighting the religious nature of the Ten Commandments," quotes Knight-Ridder from the ACLU's brief. "They have announced their purpose of demonstrating 'America's Christian heritage.' " But so far, the ACLU has not made a peep about the Smithsonian's new federally funded National Museum of the American Indian, which posts Native American prayers on the federal Mall.
    The museum also features exhibits critical of Christianity — a faith embraced by the majority of American Indians, including the great Apache leader Geronimo, who Samuel Eliot Morrison noted "became a Christian convert and lived both to write his autobiography and take part in the Inaugural procession of President [Theodore] Roosevelt in 1905." Is this federally funded institution treating all religions equally?
    The museum admits to an "agenda." In its "Our Peoples" exhibit, a man on a video explains the museum's approach: "This gallery is making history, and like all other makers of history, it has a point of view, an agenda." he says. "We offer self-told histories of selected Native communities. Other communities, other perspectives, would have achieved different results. ... So view what's offered with respect, but also skepticism. Explore this gallery. Encounter it. Reflect on it. Argue with it." A "mission" statement on the museum's Web site says it aims "to protect, support and enhance the development, maintenance and perpetuation of Native culture and community." But where does it draw the line between supporting Native "culture" and supporting Native religion?
    The "Our Universes" exhibit explains the religions of some Native peoples. At the entrance, a contemporary Native American is quoted: "Our elders have created for us / A sacred way of being in the universe. / It is our responsibility / To pass this understanding on / To the next generation." Native prayers are painted prominently on walls.
    One section discusses the "machi" clergy of Chile's Mapuche people. "They are mediators — between gods and people, ancestors and the living, sickness and health — and between the Mapuche and other peoples," says a panel.
    A contemporary machi's prayer adorns a wall: "In a new morning, my begging begins. / You, Father of Wenu Mapu (the Land Above)... ."
    By contrast, in the "Our Peoples" exhibit, a narrator says ambivalently: "Christianity: A weapon of forced conversion, slavery and oppression, a weapon of liberation and social justice, salvation and eternal life. Today, many of us are Christians, and many are not."
    On a display titled, "God's Work — Churches as Instruments of Dispossession and Resilience," a panel says: "Today, the majority of Native people call themselves Christian. How Indians became Christians is a story not only of choice, but also of adaptation, destruction, resistance and survivance."
    Nearby is a section on Mexico's Nahua people. The entrance says: "Our lives and way of thinking shall continue." A panel says: "We were forced to convert to Catholicism, but traditional rituals and beliefs survived." Another shows a figure in a black robe, wearing the mask of a priest. "The Mecos dancers symbolically kill the priest figure wearing this mask to reflect our belief that priests cannot give us good harvests, wealth and other things our ancient deities provide," it says.
    Another panel: "Since the Europeans arrived in 1521 there has been a great deal of cultural and religious repression of the Nahuas and other native peoples. That is why we have a long tradition of banishing priests from our village — especially when they have behaved inappropriately or disrespected our culture and people. Churches are still persecuting healers today."
    A Native American museum is an important addition to the Mall, and it should highlight true injustices Westerners inflicted on Indians. But Christianity is not one of them.
    NMAI Spokeswoman Amy Drapeau told me the content of these exhibits "is presented through the Native voice, and so in these examples, the entities are speaking in first person, from their own perspective, but not necessarily speaking on behalf of the Smithsonian Institution as a whole."
    Are there any exhibits critical of Native religions the way these exhibits are critical of Christianity? I asked. "I am not sure that there are, per se," she said.
    Promoting religion is not envisioned by the museum's mission statement, she said. "However... religion and spirituality are inextricably connected to Native history and culture, therefore you see the inclusion of different aspects that touch upon spirituality in the [display] media."
    Fair enough. But I wonder if the ACLU would keep quiet if the museum presented the religious tradition most American Indians embrace as uncritically as the one they left behind?

    Terence P. Jeffrey is the editor of Human Events and is a nationally syndicated columnist.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050305   U.S. warns U.N.on sex scandal
 

By Sharon Behn
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

U.S. lawmakers yesterday called on the United Nations to swiftly tighten up the vetting and disciplining of peacekeepers amid a growing scandal of "widespread" sexual exploitation and abuse.
    Women and girls -- some as young as 11 and already the victims of rape in Congo's civil war -- have been the victims of rape and sex-for-food acts by a number of U.N. peacekeepers deployed there.
    Rep. Christopher H. Smith, New Jersey Republican, said he deplored the lack of successful prosecutions of U.N. military and civilian personnel accused of misconduct, and denounced the organization's slowness to react.
    "The continued toleration of sexual exploitation and abuse by U.N. leaders is severely damaging the reputation and effectiveness of the organization," Mr. Smith said at a hearing of the House International Relations Africa, global human rights and international operations subcommittee, of which he is the chairman.
    U.N. Undersecretary-General for Peacekeeping Jean-Marie Guehenno told editors and reporters at The Washington Times Friday that he is expanding an investigation of staff and troop conduct to 15 other missions, warning that additional sex scandals are likely to be discovered.
    Mr. Smith said yesterday he will introduce legislation that would link U.S. contributions to any peacekeeping mission to measures taken to prevent sexual exploitation and punish those who engage is such acts.
    The scandal has rocked the United Nations, which is already the focus of a massive corruption investigation of its Saddam Hussein-era oil-for-food program in Iraq.
    Jane Holl Lute, U.N. assistant secretary-general for peacekeeping, told the committee that, as a professional soldier herself, she shared the lawmakers' outrage and vowed to stamp out the practice.
    "It is simply unacceptable," she said.
    Mrs. Lute added that past training and personal-conduct units clearly had not been enough for the roughly 80,000 peacekeeping troops from 100 nations that are deployed around the world.
    The United Nations is investigating the accusations and talking with member nations at the highest levels of government to ensure that appropriate disciplinary measures are taken, Mrs. Lute said.
    "We are determined to deal with them," she said.
    She dismissed Mr. Smith's suggestion that U.N. peacekeeping could be seen as "sex tourism for soldiers," and noted that male U.S. soldiers also have been accused of rape within their own ranks.
    One suggestion being put forward by U.N. members is to have suspects face court-martial by their own military -- but in the country where the charges against them are made.
    Currently, those U.N. peacekeepers accused of wrongdoing are sent home to be dealt with by their own governments.
    Contributing governments earn $1,080 per soldier for every month the soldier is deployed, a factor that could be used to leverage countries to better discipline their troops, said Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, Nebraska Republican.
    Meanwhile, the U.N. special representative to Congo, former U.S. Ambassador William Lacy Swing, is likely to step down shortly, according to U.N. officials.
    Mr. Swing will be in New York this week to brief the Security Council on the Congo peacekeeping mission.
    U.N. Deputy Secretary-General Louise Frechette yesterday traveled to Liberia and explained the organization's zero-tolerance policy on sexual abuse and exploitation to civilian and military personnel in the capital, Monrovia.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050305   66 accused in pedophile case
 

By Verena von Derschau
ASSOCIATED PRESS

ANGERS, France -- France opened one of its most horrific trials yesterday, with 66 persons accused of participating in a pedophile ring in which babies and children were raped, sexually abused and prostituted by their parents for food and small sums of money.
    The defendants, some facing life imprisonment, were brought before a court in Angers, western France, that was specially built to hold them.
    One by one, the 39 men and 27 women were asked to stand and give their age, occupation and address.
    Investigators say 45 children -- from 6 months to 14 years old -- were raped and sexually abused from 1999 to 2002 by their parents or others who paid money or offered food.
    People who are thought to have worn masks while they raped the children still are feared to be at large.
    "The children speak of one tattooed woman who is not in the defendants' dock," said Pascal Rouiller, an attorney for five suspects.
    The victims will not appear in court; their testimony has been videotaped.
    Many of the defendants are from low-income households in the working class Saint-Leonard neighborhood of Angers, 165 miles southwest of Paris. Some reportedly were abused themselves as children.
    Three couples thought to be at the heart of the ring lured their children and those of their relatives "to play doctor" with the adults, the newspaper Le Monde reported. One young girl reportedly was raped 45 times.
    Psychological counseling was being offered to the jurors and the six judges to help them cope with sordid testimony expected from the trial, which is scheduled to last four months.
    Defense attorneys planned to argue that government social workers, who worked with many of the suspects, failed in their responsibilities or turned a blind eye to signs of abuse.
    Some of the defendants cited in the 420-page legal filing are illiterate and don't fully understand the charges against them, attorneys said.
    In French trials, defendants do not plead guilty or not guilty at the start of proceedings. But court officials said that about half of the accused had admitted their involvement during questioning.
    Three persons face life imprisonment if convicted of raping children younger than 15 and of active participation in the prostitution ring.
    Thirty-six persons face 20 years in prison for similar charges.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050304   Science, 'frauds' trigger a decline in atheism
 

By Uwe Siemon-Netto
UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL

GURAT, France — Godlessness is in trouble, according to a growing consensus among philosophers, intellectuals and scholars.
    "Atheism as a theoretical position is in decline worldwide," Munich theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg said in an interview.
    His Oxford colleague Alister McGrath agrees.
    Atheism's "future seems increasingly to lie in the private beliefs of individuals rather than in the great public domain it once regarded as its habitat," Mr. McGrath wrote in the U.S. magazine, Christianity Today.
    Two developments are plaguing atheism these days. One is that it appears to be losing its scientific underpinnings.
    The other is the historical experience of hundreds of millions of people worldwide that atheists are in no position to claim the moral high ground.
    British philosopher Anthony Flew, once as hard-nosed a humanist as any, has turned his back on atheism, saying it is impossible for evolution to account for the fact that one single cell can carry more data than all the volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica.
    Mr. Flew still does not accept the God of the Bible.
    But he has embraced the concept of intelligent design — a stunning desertion of a former intellectual ambassador of secular humanism to the belief in some form of intelligence behind the design of the universe.
    A few years ago, European scientists snickered when studies in the United States — for example, at Harvard and Duke universities — showed a correlation between faith, prayer and recovery from illness.
    Now 1,200 studies at research centers around the world have come to similar conclusions, according to "Psychologie Heute," a German journal, citing, for example, the marked improvement of multiple sclerosis patients in Germany's Ruhr District because of "spiritual resources."
    Atheism's other Achilles' heels are the acts on inhumanity and lunacy committed in its name.
     "With time, [atheism] turned out to have just as many frauds, psychopaths and careerists as religion does. ... With Stalin and Madalyn Murray O'Hair, atheism seems to have ended up mimicking the vices of the Spanish Inquisition and the worst televangelists, respectively," Mr. McGrath wrote in Christianity Today.
    The Rev. Paul M. Zulehner, dean of Vienna University's divinity school and one of the world's most distinguished sociologists of religion, said atheists in Europe have become "an infinitesimally small group."
    "There are not enough of them to be used for sociological research," he said.
    Mr. Zulehner cautioned, however, that the decline of atheism in Europe does not mean that re-Christianization is taking place.
    "What we are observing instead is a re-paganization," he said.
    The Rev. Gerald McDermott, an Episcopal priest and professor of religion and philosophy at Roanoke College in Salem, Va., said a similar phenomenon is taking place in the United States.
    "The rise of all sorts of paganism is creating a false spirituality that proves to be a more dangerous rival to the Christian faith than atheism," he said.
    After all, a Satanist is also "spiritual."
    Mr. Pannenberg, a Lutheran, praised the Roman Catholic Church for handling this peril more wisely than many of his fellow Protestants.
    "The Catholics stick to the central message of Christianity without making any concessions in the ethical realm," he said, referring to issues such as same-sex "marriages" and abortion.
    In a similar vein, Mr. Zulehner, a Catholic, sees Christianity's greatest opportunity when its message addresses two seemingly irreconcilable quests of contemporary humanity — the quest for freedom and truth.
    "Christianity alone affirms that truth and God's dependability are inseparable properties to which freedom is linked." As for the "peril of spirituality," Mr. Zulehner sounded quite sanguine.
    He concluded from his research that in the long run, the survival of worldviews should be expected to follow this lineup: "The great world religions are best placed," he said.
    As a distant second he sees the diffuse forms of spirituality. Atheism, he said, will come in at the tail end.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050228   FLORIDA   Lesbian's tux photobanned from annual
    GREEN COVE SPRINGS -- County school officials are backing a principal's decision to bar a picture of a lesbian student dressed in a tuxedo from the high school yearbook.
    Sam Ward, principal of Fleming Island High School, said he pulled the senior class picture because Kelli Davis was wearing boy's clothes. His decision was debated Thursday at a Clay County school board meeting that drew 200 people, but the board took no action, and Superintendent David Owens said the decision will stand.
    Most of the 24 persons who spoke at the meeting supported the girl.
    "This is not to be treated as a gay rights issue," said her mother, Cindi Davis. "Rather it's a human rights issue."
    Others applauded Mr. Ward's decision, including Karen Gordon, who said, "When uniformity is compromised, then authority no longer holds."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050228   Bush stem-cell policy attacked
 

By Amy Fagan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

A Republican congressman will try to repeal President Bush's policy on embryonic stem-cell research when the House Energy and Commerce committee considers a bill to reauthorize the National Institutes of Health budget.
    Rep. Charles Bass, New Hampshire Republican, will offer a proposal to repeal the policy Mr. Bush outlined in an August 2001 speech.
    Mr. Bush's policy granted federal funding to embryonic stem-cell research for the first time, but limited such funding to research involving a group of stem-cell lines already created at the time. Mr. Bass' proposal would lift that limitation and allow any stem-cell line to be eligible for such funding, as long as it meets certain medical and ethical standards.
    The panel has not yet scheduled the NIH bill for consideration, but Mr. Bass is working to garner support for his proposal.
    "The congressman feels that this is an area of potentially life-saving research," said Bass spokeswoman Margo Schideler. "He believes that lifting these restrictions would pave the way for medical breakthroughs."
    His proposal is taken from a bill -- sponsored by Reps. Michael N. Castle, Delaware Republican, and Diana DeGette, Colorado Democrat -- that has 171 House members supporting it. A Senate companion bill is sponsored by Sens. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican, and Tom Harkin, Iowa Democrat.
    Supporters of the bill say embryonic stem-cell research holds the key to breakthrough cures and that the government should invest as much as possible in it. Their effort to roll back Mr. Bush's policy appears to have momentum, but conservative forces are gearing up to fight it.
    "We will be up on the Hill stopping Mr. Bass' bill," said Connie Mackey, vice president for governmental relations at the Family Research Council. "We are preparing what we can to stop him in that effort."
    One of the main arguments of FRC and other conservative supporters of the Bush policy is that those promoting embryonic stem-cell research exaggerate its promise. Conservatives say more important results are emerging from adult stem-cell research.
    "There's little evidence at this point that embryonic stem cells will make good on the promises for treatment," said David Prentice, FRC's senior counsel for life sciences. "The evidence is all on the side of adult stem cells, which are already treating thousands of patients."
    Mr. Prentice said that at least 56 diseases, including heart disease, diabetes and sickle cell anemia, are being treated with adult stem cells, which do not require the destruction of human embryos. By contrast, he said, embryonic stem-cell research has not produced results even in animal tests.
    House Republican aides said that if Mr. Bass manages to attach his proposal to the NIH bill it could be bad news for the measure, because leadership probably will not bring legislation to the floor that overturns Mr. Bush's policy.
    "I don't think this is something that leadership would support," agreed Rep. Joseph Pitts, Pennsylvania Republican. "So if this amendment were tacked on, I think it would be a poison pill for the NIH bill. ... Plus, I don't think this bill is the right forum to debate a repeal of the president's stem-cell policy."
    Aides also noted that Mr. Bush would veto anything that goes against his wishes.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050301   CALIFORNIA   Teacher arraigned in student-sex case
    SACRAMENTO -- A California high school teacher was arraigned yesterday at a Sacramento court on charges that she had sex with a student in a car while her 2-year-old son was strapped into the back seat.
    Margaret De Barraicua, 30, a teacher trainee, was charged with four counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, a 16-year-old student. The married woman was caught having sex in the late afternoon last week in what was apparently a consensual agreement, officials said.
    "We received a call about a suspicious parked vehicle at a school here in Sacramento," said local police spokesman Justin Risley. "They got there and observed two people, windows-steamed-up type of thing."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050301   SOUTH DAKOTA   Marriage measure goes on 2006 ballot
    PIERRE -- South Dakotans will vote next year on a constitutional amendment aimed at ensuring the state will not recognize homosexual "marriages" performed in other states.
    The state Senate yesterday approved the proposed amendment, which had already passed the House 55-14, for placement on the 2006 general election ballot by a 20-14 vote.
    "When we become unwilling to stand against certain things, we will not stand for anything," said Sen. John Koskan, a Republican. "Marriage is the foundation of the family."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050301   Early warning
    "Under the circumstances, the pro-life movement would never — absolutely never — support Rice, Giuliani, McCain, or anyone like them."
    So pledges Douglas R. Scott, president of Life Decisions International, shooting down suggestions by pundits and conservative activists that the pro-life movement could be convinced to accept a pro-abortion or "weak" pro-life Republican nominee for president if necessary to retain the White House in 2008.
    Possible candidates whose names are being floated include Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and Sen. John McCain of Arizona.
    Mr. Scott says Mr. Giuliani would be a "disaster" for the party's abortion opponents, while Mr. McCain "would give us little more than lip service." As for Miss Rice, who has not publicly declared her stance on abortion, Mr. Scott doesn't think she will run for president.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050301   Thou shalt debate
    Supporters of displaying the Ten Commandments in public places will descend on Washington today, including Rob Schenck, who has organized large-scale demonstrations in support of one controversial display removed from Alabama's Supreme Court building.
    He'll be participating today in a National Press Club legal forum, in anticipation of related arguments tomorrow before the U.S. Supreme Court. Others to argue in support of displays include Steve Elliott, who has gathered hundreds of thousands of petition signatures, and Bernie Reese, a lawyer of more than 50 years and author of two amicus briefs in support of the Ten Commandments.
    As for the opposition, who more outspoken than Barry Lynn, director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and author of court briefs opposing displays.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050301   Court to hear Commandments cases
 

By Guy Taylor
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The Supreme Court will listen to arguments tomorrow on whether the presence of the Ten Commandments on government property violates the U.S. Constitution.
    The justices will weigh two cases, one involving a 6-foot-high Ten Commandments monument on state grounds near the Texas Capitol and the other in which the Ten Commandments are posted on the walls of two state courthouses in Kentucky.
    Both cases center on the question of whether the First Amendment's "establishment of religion" clause makes such symbolism -- which some say is bluntly religious and others say is merely historical -- illegal when it appears on government property.
    The Texas monument is not an endorsement of the Ten Commandments, says Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who will argue on behalf of the state in favor of allowing the monument to remain between the state Capitol and state Supreme Court in Austin, where it has stood since 1961.
    The monument is "commemorating the historical role of the Ten Commandments in the United States," said Mr. Abbott, who maintained that public interest in the matter has become so intense that he held a press conference on his position yesterday.
    The case stems from a lawsuit filed by Thomas Van Orden, a homeless Austin man seeking the monument's removal on the grounds that it is an unconstitutional establishment of religion by the state.
    Mr. Van Orden reportedly has lived on the streets since losing his law business to a malpractice claim and his family to depression in the mid-1990s. He is said to have taken interest in the monument after passing it on daily walks to the state law library.
    The library, a few blocks from the Capitol, was where he later prepared his case filings. He appealed to the Supreme Court after personally arguing the case before U.S. District Court and federal appeals court judges. He lost both times.
    Tomorrow's oral argument will be made by Duke University law professor and First Amendment scholar Erwin Chemerinsky.
    Mr. Chemerinsky said the core of his argument "is that the Ten Commandments are profoundly religious and to put them between the state Capitol and the state Supreme Court violates the establishment clause."
    "The Supreme Court has said the government can't endorse religion," he said. "The Supreme Court has said that putting the Ten Commandments on state property is a direct violation of the Constitution."
    The Supreme Court declined to hear a separate appeal last year from Roy Moore, who was ejected as Alabama Supreme Court chief justice in 2003 after overseeing the installation of a Ten Commandments monument, then disobeying his own court's order to remove it.
    In other business yesterday, the Supreme Court said it would use a lawsuit filed by two Virginia apartment renters against a Texas-based corporate landlord with Virginia subsidiaries to clarify when plaintiffs can sue in federal or state court.
    Federal rules allow a defendant to move a case from state courts, which tend to make larger payouts in class-action cases, to federal courts when the two parties are citizens of different states and the claimed damages exceed $75,000.
    The justices also:
    •Heard arguments on whether foreign cruise lines sailing in U.S. waters must comply with a federal disabilities law requiring better access for passengers in wheelchairs.
    •Said they will consider whether a whistleblower prosecutor can sue his former employers for retaliation.
    •This article was based in part on wire-service reports.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050301   Divorce latest legal path

TAMPA, Fla. (AP) -- Terri Schiavo's parents asked a judge yesterday to allow the brain-damaged woman to divorce her husband, accusing him of adultery and not acting in his wife's best interests during the 15 years in which she has been incapacitated.
    It was one of a flurry of 11 motions filed by Bob and Mary Schindler, who have less than three weeks to find a way to keep their daughter alive.
    Her parents have fought efforts by Michael Schiavo to remove his wife's feeding tube and starve her to death, but Pinellas Circuit Court Judge George Greer ruled that Mr. Schiavo can have her feeding tube removed on March 18.
    The Schindlers' attorney, David Gibbs, said Judge Greer had indicated he will not hear the divorce request and five of the other motions filed yesterday, but that only means that the matters are now on their way to being appealed.
    Appearing at a rally in Jacksonville, the Schindlers called on Gov. Jeb Bush to look into the circumstances that led to their daughter's 1990 collapse and asked Attorney General Charlie Crist to investigate whether Mrs. Schiavo's civil rights have been violated.
    "We have filed divorce proceedings because of [Mr. Schiavo's] total disregard for Terri as his wife," Mr. Schindler said. "He is married to Terri, but he is living with another woman and he has two children by her. It has become quite obvious that his priorities are not in Terri's best interest."
    "Remaining married to him is an embarrassment," Mr. Gibbs said.
    Mr. Schiavo's attorney, George Felos, called the new motions little more than an attempt to clog the case with further delays.
    Mr. Felos has said even if Mr. Schiavo were to divorce his wife, any new guardian would be obligated to remove Mrs. Schiavo's feeding tube because the court has ruled it is her wish not to be kept alive artificially.
    "I think everyone knows the parents are going to try anything, including throwing in the kitchen sink, to frustrate the court's final judgment and Terri's wishes," Mr. Felos said.
    Mr. Schiavo said his wife once told him, though he has provided no evidence, that she never wanted to be kept alive artificially.
    Other motions by the Schindlers ask that some reporters be allowed to see Mrs. Schiavo's interactions with her parents, since they contend she responds to them; that they be allowed to take pictures with her before she dies and that those photos not become Mr. Schiavo's property, as a court order now requires; that she be allowed to die at home; and that they be allowed to bury her rather than have her cremated, as her husband has planned.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050302   Democrats to maintain filibusters on Bush nominees
 

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Democrats made plain yesterday their intention to continue their filibusters against President Bush's judicial nominations -- all but assuring a dramatic parliamentary duel over long-standing Senate practice.
    Their intentions became clear after the Senate Judiciary Committee held a new hearing yesterday morning for William G. Myers, whose nomination to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was filibustered last year.
    Republicans picked Mr. Myers for the first hearing because they thought he was the most likely to garner the 60 votes needed to break through a Democratic filibuster.
 Will Congress Pass Medical Liability Reform?
President Bush agrees the only way to stop this crisis is for Congress to pass common-sense medical liability reform now!
Save the U.S. Healthcare System.
Click here.
    "I think he's worse off than he was before," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said within hours of Mr. Myers' hearing. "I don't think Myers' vote is going to be any different."
    Mr. Reid also indicated that the filibusters will continue against all seven of Mr. Bush's resubmitted nominees to the federal appeals bench.
    "On the judges that have been brought forward previously, we're going to treat them just the same as we have in the past," he told reporters yesterday.
    The Democratic promises all but guarantee that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, will have to make good on his promise to employ the so-called "nuclear option" to break the impasse.
    That rarely used parliamentary procedure requires just 51 votes to break a filibuster and force a final vote on a judicial nomination. Democrats say using the "nuclear option" would end the Senate tradition of collegiality and paralyze the chamber with partisanship.
    Republicans faced another rude awakening yesterday when Sen. Ken Salazar, a Colorado Democrat who has crossed party lines to support Mr. Bush's nominees, sent a letter to the White House asking Mr. Bush to withdraw his filibustered nominees.
    "I am concerned with your decision to re-nominate judicial nominees previously nominated and not confirmed by the Senate in the 108th Congress," the freshman senator wrote to Mr. Bush.
    "The decision reflects a sentiment contrary to the cooperative working relationship we need to develop to confront the many challenges we face. The decision to re-nominate these individuals will undoubtedly create the animosity and divisiveness between the President and the United States Senate as an institution that is not helpful to our Nation and will sidetrack our collective efforts to work on other crucial matters," Mr. Salazar wrote.
    Yesterday's developments were a slap in the face of the new Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Sen. Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who has tried to defuse Democratic filibusters by continuing negotiations and implying that his own party shared the blame for the impasse.
    Mr. Specter led with the nomination of Mr. Myers -- former Department of Interior solicitor -- based on the 58 votes that he told The Washington Times last month that he had counted in favor of the nomination.
    With 58 votes in the bank, he said then, finding two more to invoke cloture -- or move to a vote for final confirmation -- would not be difficult. But the 58 included Mr. Salazar.
    Although a spokesman said the Colorado Democrat has not decided how he will vote on the Myers nomination, his letter yesterday to the White House strongly suggests that he will oppose it.
    Mr. Specter also hoped to woo support from Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York, a Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee who opposed Mr. Myers last year.
    The Pennsylvanian said last month that Mr. Schumer had indicated a willingness to reconsider Mr. Myers because of his concern for "balance" and the need for a conservative on the liberal San Francisco-based 9th Circuit bench.
    But at yesterday's hearing, Mr. Schumer was in no wooing mood.
    "As far as I can tell, little has changed," he told Mr. Myers. "If anything, your nomination should be in more trouble than it was last year."
    Sen. Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the panel's ranking Democrat, said Mr. Myers is the "the most anti-environment nominee sent to the Senate in my lifetime."
    Mr. Myers, a former lobbyist for ranchers and the mining industry, endured more than two hours of questions from Democrats about his conservative views on private property and his concerns about the federal government's ability to protect the environment and properly run the vast expanses of public land out West.
    "What should we cling to should we want to support you?" Mr. Schumer asked at one point. "All of your statements are over the top."
    After the hearing, Mr. Specter departed through a back door and appeared to be less optimistic about working out a solution with Democrats.
    "Senator Schumer's opening statement was as tough an indictment as I've heard in that room," he said in a bleak tone of voice.
    Mr. Specter said Mr. Schumer previously had made a statement suggesting a willingness to reconsider Mr. Myers, whose nomination came seven votes short of breaking the filibuster in the 108th Congress.
    "He has since totally backed off that," Mr. Specter said.
    But not everything that happened yesterday on judicial nominations was acrimonious.
    Just hours after Mr. Reid signaled his party's intention to continue filibustering Mr. Bush's nominees, the White House nominated Nevada Attorney General Brian Sandoval to the federal district court bench for Mr. Reid's home state.
    Because Mr. Reid had recommended Mr. Sandoval for the post, yesterday's nomination served as a not-so-subtle reminder that the White House is willing to work with Democrats -- at least sometimes.
    "Brian Sandoval has served Nevada with distinction in a variety of offices and as a private practice attorney. He is a man of character and integrity and will be a fine federal judge," Mr. Reid said in a statement issued after the nomination. "I would predict that Brian's nomination will move quickly through the Senate and will be an example of what Democrats and Republicans can achieve on judicial nominations when we work together to advance qualified consensus candidates."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050302   Bush pushes his faith initiative
 

By James G. Lakely
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

President Bush yesterday called for the expansion of his multibillion-dollar faith-based initiative, urging Congress to increase funding and pass "one of the tests of character for America."
    Mr. Bush addressed hundreds of people attending the White House Faith-Based and Community Initiatives Leadership Conference at the Omni Shoreham Hotel amid growing concern that his long-held vision for the program has not been matched by the results.
    "It is said that faith can move mountains," Mr. Bush said. "Here in Washington, D.C., those helping the poor and needy often run up against a big mountain called bureaucracy. I'm here to talk about how to move that mountain so that we can reach out and partner with programs which reach out to people who hurt."
    Mr. Bush, an evangelical Methodist, has struggled since early in his first term to get enthusiastic congressional support for his faith-based initiative -- which amounts to allowing organizations such as the Salvation Army to more easily compete for federal grants to provide social services to the public, regardless of religious affiliation.
    Organizations such as Americans United for Separation of Church and State oppose the president, arguing that the program violates the Constitution, and some religious leaders are wary of allowing the government to get too close to their religious missions.
    Mr. Bush, however, insists that he only wants to allow the government to encourage "the helping hand offered by the armies of compassion."
    "It's important for our fellow citizens to understand that the efforts that I've spoken about today do not involve the government establishing religion," he said. "The state should never be the church and the church should never be the state, and everybody in America understands that."
    Mr. Bush assured faith-based organizations that "interfacing with the government will not cause [one] to lose their mission."
    "We've got to rid people of that fear," he said.
    Religious groups, if they take government money, also cannot administer only to people of their faith nor can they overtly promote their faith.
    "What that means is if you're a Methodist church and you sponsor an alcohol treatment center, they can't say, 'Only Methodists who drink too much can come to our program,' " Mr. Bush said to the laughter of the crowd. "Â 'All drunks are welcome,' is what the sign ought to say. Welcome to be saved, so they become sober."
    One attendee of the conference, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said he was encouraged by the president's words, but was disappointed in the progress of the program.
    "You can hear the passion in his voice, but you wonder why that isn't backed up more strongly in action," he said.
    The attendee said he understands that the president has been "busy fighting the war on terror," but noted that Mr. Bush has spent political capital for other domestic agenda items, such as tax cuts, the new Medicare prescription-drug program and now Social Security reform.
    "This program always seems to be on the back burner," he said.
    Mr. Bush told The Washington Times in an Oval Office interview in January that he would be "rigorous" in trying to expand the faith-based programs.
    "I think we'll look back and say, 'Gosh, the Bush administration, after eight years, recognized it and invigorated this important aspect of our society in helping people who feel like, perhaps, maybe society has gone beyond them and that they're lost and empty and lonely,'Â " he said.
    Congress, however, has been less enthusiastic about the idea. Mr. Bush asked for $8 billion a year for faith-based programs when he proposed the idea in 2001, but received about $600 million in 2002, $1.17 billion in 2003 and $2 billion last year.
    David Kuo, former deputy director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, resigned in December 2003 over "promises unfulfilled in spirit and in fact."
    "Unfortunately, sometimes even the grandly announced 'new' programs aren't what they appear," Mr. Kuo wrote last month on the Web site Beliefnet.com in an essay that complained about a lack of funding.
    Jim Towey, director of the faith-based office, said, "David is entitled to his opinion," but the former official's real beef is with Congress and not the White House.
    "From my standpoint in the three years that I've been director of this initiative, President Bush has made the faith-based and community initiative a top priority," Mr. Towey said. "Each year of the president's first term, the president proposed a budget that had a package of incentives for charitable giving well in excess of $8 billion. That's a matter of record.
    "In December of 2002, it was blocked by the Senate minority leader," he said. "And then the legislation was reintroduced in 2003 again, well in excess of $8 billion. The legislation passed the House and Senate by large margins -- and the Senate minority leader continued to block its consideration."
    Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, South Dakota Democrat, was defeated in November, in part because of Republican charges of obstructionism
    The lack of congressional action has forced Mr. Bush to write and sign executive orders to put the program in motion because the Senate was reluctant to put it on its agenda.
    "Charitable choice is something I've supported every year, and every year it's got stuck," Mr. Bush said. "That executive order still stands, but I believe that executive order ought to be codified into federal law, and Congress needs to act this year to do so. I think it's important."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M050303   Rather party
    Atlanta-based author, pundit and media consultant Phil Kent, former president of the Southeastern Legal Foundation, tells this column that he's hosting a party on the evening of March 9 in the Buckhead section of the city to honor popular Internet blogger "Buckhead" — otherwise known as prominent Atlanta lawyer Harry MacDougald.
    "Harry is the bathrobe-clad guy — literally — who 'outed' Dan Rather and CBS less than four hours after they broke the phony Bush National Guard papers" story, Mr. Kent says.
 Will Congress Pass Medical Liability Reform?
President Bush agrees the only way to stop this crisis is for Congress to pass common-sense medical liability reform now!
Save the U.S. Healthcare System.
Click here.
    Mr. Rather, who will relinquish his anchor chair after 24 years next week, is accused by conservative critics of being motivated by politics in developing the now infamous — and discredited — segment on President Bush's Guard service.
    "We'll be watching Dan Rather's last broadcast," Mr. Kent says of his party, "and I'll present Buckhead a framed certificate for 'going above and beyond his patriotic duty.' "
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050303   Before and after
    Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean went full tilt before a group of Mississippi Democrats assembled in Jackson Tuesday night, saying the party needs to embrace pro-life Democrats.
    "I want to reach out to people who are worried about values. We are going to embrace pro-life Democrats because pro-life Democrats care about kids after they're born, not just before they're born," he told the crowd, which included former Govs. Ronnie Musgrove, Ray Mabus, Bill Allain and William Winter.
    The Rev. Frank Pavone of the District-based Priests for Life has some thoughts on that.
    "If pro-life Democrats care about kids after they're born as well as before, it's because they're pro-life, not because they're Democrats," he pointed out yesterday.
    "I certainly hope the outreach of the Democratic Party to its pro-life members will not continue to echo this highly unfair implication that the rest of the pro-life movement does not care about born children."
    He added, "The real question is how long the Democratic Party will continue to pretend that it can champion any human rights while undermining the most basic one: life itself."
    The Mississippi state Republican Party issued the following statement in honor of Mr. Dean's visit: "AIEEEHHHH!!! The incredible shrinking party: The great Dean exodus from the Mississippi Democratic Party begins," noting that a local county sheriff was switching from Democrat to Republican.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050303   Asking and telling
    Rep. Martin T. Meehan is leading his own brigade these days.
    Yesterday, the Massachusetts Democrat introduced the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which would repeal don't ask, don't tell, the military's 12-year-old policy of dismissing known homosexual personnel.
    The policy "is as senseless and counterproductive militarily as it is un-American," Mr. Meehan said.
    He claimed the support of 55 co-sponsors, along with some brass: Maj. Gen. Vance Coleman, U.S. Army, retired; Rear Adm. John Hutson, U.S. Navy, retired; Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy, U.S. Army, retired; Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr, Army, retired; Brig. Gen. Evelyn Foote, U.S. Army, retired; Brig. Gen. Virgil A. Richard, U.S. Army, retired; Maj. Gen. Charles Staff, U.S. Army Reserve, retired; Rear Adm. Alan M. Steinman, U.S. Coast Guard, retired.
    In December 2003, Gens. Kerr and Richard and Adm. Steinman acknowledged in the New York Times that they were homosexuals.
    The District-based Servicemembers Legal Defense Network thinks America should emulate policies elsewhere.
    "The U.S. continues to be one of the last original NATO countries to ban gays from the military. Since don't ask, don't tell was implemented, Great Britain and Canada have lifted their bans, joining Israel and other nations around the world," the group stated yesterday.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050303   GOP drive to woo blacks via church alarms Brazile
 

By Donald Lambro
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

An aggressive Republican campaign to court black voters with the help of church leaders "should be cause for alarm" among Democrats, who risk losing a larger share of their most loyal political constituency, says Democratic strategist Donna Brazile.
    Miss Brazile, one of her party's most respected voter outreach specialists, warned Democrats at the start of the 2004 election cycle: "Don't take African-American voters for granted." At the end of that cycle, President Bush had increased his share of the black vote to 11 percent nationally and by 13 percent to 16 percent in battleground states such as Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania.
    Now, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman is leading a stepped-up drive to lure black voters into the party, with the help of influential ministers in black Baptist churches. And Miss Brazile is sending her party a new warning: The Republicans could make deeper inroads in the black community by the next election.
    "It won't take much for the GOP to garner 12 percent to 15 percent of the black vote in future elections, as some blacks are starting to believe the community is not well-served when one party takes their votes for granted and the other party doesn't work to earn them," she wrote in this week's Roll Call, the Capitol Hill newspaper.
    What alarmed her was a civil rights forum she attended last week in Atlanta, sponsored by the black PBS talk-show host Tavis Smiley, where "we found ourselves discussing new players in the dialogue -- blacks who lean Republican."
    Notably, politically independent Bishop Eddie Long, the forum's host and the black pastor at New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Atlanta, "who with other leading pastors has met with President Bush, was quick to point out he enjoyed the new relationship and dialogue" with Republicans, she said.
    Bishop Long is one of a growing list of black preachers who Mr. Mehlman hopes "will undertake a new mission within the GOP," Miss Brazile said.
    Mr. Mehlman's outreach work began as soon as he took over the helm of the RNC in January, speaking in quick succession before an assortment of black forums, business organizations and other groups. Speaking to the National Black Chamber of Commerce in Trenton, N.J., last week, he told several hundred black business owners that "the party of Lincoln and Frederick Douglass is not complete without more African-American support and participation."
    Mr. Mehlman plans to meet with other black groups in the weeks and months to come, RNC officials said yesterday.
    Miss Brazile, who managed Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign, boosted black turnout in that election by enlisting pastors, a technique she says Mr. Mehlman and the Republicans are employing.
    "While Democrats continue to rebuild after their setbacks in the 2004 elections, GOP leaders are quietly being escorted and introduced in the black community by leading ministers, like Bishop Long," she said.
    Democratic officials reacted cautiously yesterday to Miss Brazile's warning, acknowledging they were going to have to work harder to block the RNC's attempted inroads into their party's base.
    "The Democrats cannot take the African-American vote for granted. While they have been a traditionally Democratic voting bloc, neither Democrats nor Republicans can rest on tradition," said Jano Cabrera, press secretary for the Democratic National Committee. "Both need to make the case why they are better suited to represent and fight for African Americans."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050303   Religious displays debated in court
 

By Guy Taylor
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Opponents of government displays of the Ten Commandments told the Supreme Court yesterday that such monuments are an endorsement of Christianity, while state officials and their supporters maintain that the displays are historical and acknowledge the roots of U.S. law.
    "The Ten Commandments have an undeniable religious significance, but they also have a secular significance as a source of the law, a code of the law and a well-recognized historical symbol of the law," acting Solicitor General Paul Clement said.

    In two cases expected to have wide impact on the relationship between governments and religion, the justices heard oral arguments about whether such Ten Commandments displays on government property violate the First Amendment's prohibition on the establishment of religion.
    One case centers on a 6-foot-high Ten Commandments monument that has sat on the grounds of the Texas Capitol since 1961, and the other involves framed posters of the Commandments in two Kentucky courthouses.
    The government can erect religious symbols such as the Ten Commandments, but "it must do so in a way that does not endorse or support any particular religion," said Erwin Chemerinsky, the lawyer arguing that the Texas monument is unconstitutional.
    "Here you have a monument that claims not only is there a God, but God has dictated 10 rules for behavior," he said.
    Because it is the only symbol of its kind on statehouse grounds, Mr. Chemerinsky said the Texas monument marks a clear endorsement by the state of a particular brand of religious beliefs.
    Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott disagreed, saying his state's monument is in "a museum setting" near 17 other monuments around the Capitol. It fits, he said, within an overall theme of "historical influences" on the state.
    Similar battles have been fought in dozens of lower courts and in communities across the country, where monuments or references to the Commandments pepper an unknown number of courthouses and other government buildings.
    A wide carving high on the wall inside the Supreme Court depicts several classic figures from the history of law. Among them is Moses, shown carrying a tablet with the Commandments written in Hebrew.
    Repeatedly during yesterday's arguments, litigants and Supreme Court justices gestured toward the carving to make their points.
    "There's an obvious theme," said Justice David H. Souter as he pointed toward the carving, which shows Moses next to 17 other figures including Confucius, Napoleon and Muhammad, who holds the Koran. "Anyone who looks at this scene says, 'They're getting at lawgivers.'
    "On the Texas grounds, as far as I can see, there is no common theme," he said.
    But Justice Antonin Scalia disagreed, noting that legislative proclamations and prayer invoking God's name are permissible.
    "I don't see why the one is good and the other is bad," he said.
    The Supreme Court has taken on the Ten Commandments only once before, when in 1980, the justices struck down a Kentucky law requiring the Commandments be posted in all classrooms of the state's schools.
    The justices declined an appeal last year from Roy Moore, who was ejected as Alabama Supreme Court chief justice in 2003 after overseeing the installation of a Ten Commandments monument, then disobeying court orders to remove it.
    The Supreme Court is expected to rule in the Texas and Kentucky cases by late June.
    The justices -- whose court sessions begin with a marshal shouting, "God save the United States and this honorable court" -- made no ruling last year on the constitutionality of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, dismissing an atheist's challenge on technical grounds.
    Although Justice Souter appeared to openly agree with Mr. Chemerinsky yesterday, the other justices were more guarded, delivering an exhaustive and critical round of questioning to litigants on both sides.
    Justice Anthony M. Kennedy noted an "obsessive concern with religion" in the case and said that ordering the Texas display removed might "show hostility to religion."
    "If an atheist walks by, he can avert his eyes," he said of the memorial.
    Justice John Paul Stevens asked whether the furor might be remedied if a "disclaimer" were attached to Ten Commandment monuments, saying they don't represent a given state's views.
    When arguing the Kentucky case on behalf of the Bush administration, which intervened in the state dispute, Mr. Clement said, "The idea of having a fence around the Ten Commandments to make clear the state has nothing to do with it, I think that is bending it too far."
    One exchange centered on the thoughts of a Muslim who enters a U.S. court and sees a carving of the Ten Commandments on the wall.
    "Imagine the Buddhist or Muslim who walks into the Supreme Court. He will realize this is not his government," Mr. Chemerinsky said.
    "I thought that Muslims accept the Ten Commandments," Justice Scalia said.
    "No, your honor, they don't," Mr. Chemerinsky responded.
    However, in an editorial published yesterday, Arsalan Iftikhar, the national legal director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said, "The Quran, Islam's revealed text, contains injunctions similar to all the commandments."
    A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released this week found that 76 percent of respondents support displaying the Commandments, while 21 percent were opposed.
    The Kentucky case, meanwhile, arose after officials in two counties posted privately donated copies of the Ten Commandments in courthouses. When the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky challenged the displays, the officials added copies of other documents such as the Declaration of Independence.
    David Friedman, who argued the Kentucky case for the American Civil Liberties Union, said during yesterday's arguments that "an assertion that the Ten Commandments is the source, the foundation of our legal system ... is simply wrapping the Ten Commandments in the flag, and that's endorsement."
    Lower courts sided with the ACLU, prompting county officials to appeal to the Supreme Court to weigh in on the matter.
    A throng of demonstrators from church groups in Kentucky and Tennessee braved the cold outside the Supreme Court yesterday.
    "I came here to support the Ten Commandments," said Izora Stover, 73, who was with a group from her church in Albany, Ky.
    "I have a right to see that in my schools, in my courthouses or on the sidewalk, anywhere," she said, adding, "Judges and the ACLU have no right to sit here and destroy the foundation that this country was built on."
    ACLU Legal Director Steven R. Shapiro, who also appeared outside the court, disagreed, saying, "The Supreme Court has the right and the responsibility to interpret the Constitution."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050304   COLORADO   Trustee faces recall over Pledge refusal
    DENVER -- A town trustee in Estes Park, Colo., who refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance is back on the recall ballot after a judge ruled that voters have the right to decide whether to retain or oust him.
    U.S. District Court Judge Edward Nottingham lifted a temporary injunction blocking the recall election of trustee David Habecker, saying that although Mr. Habecker enjoys certain rights, "citizens have the right to disagree with him, and they have the right to petition to recall him."
    The town board is expected to decide March 15 when to reschedule the recall. The election originally was slated for Feb. 15.
    Mr. Habecker, a 12-year trustee, last year refused to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance before board meetings, saying he considered the phrase "under God" to be unconstitutional.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050304   LOUISIANA   School boards pray, defy judge's ruling
    ALEXANDRIA -- School board members from across Louisiana opened their annual convention with a prayer here yesterday, a common practice that took on an aura of defiance one week after a federal judge banned public prayer at school board meetings in a district north of New Orleans.
    "Let it be known, and let the ACLU know, that this meeting started with the Pledge and a prayer," said Freddie Whitford, executive director of the Louisiana School Boards Association.
    Last Friday, U.S. District Judge Ginger Berrigan of New Orleans ruled in favor of a parent who sued the Tangipahoa Parish School Board to stop prayers at board meetings. The American Civil Liberties Union backed the lawsuit.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050304   Judicial pick Boyle gets hearing after 4-year wait
 

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Three judicial nominees from North Carolina had hearings yesterday before the Senate Judiciary Committee after waiting as long as four years under a blockade by Sen. John Edwards.
    One of the judicial nominees, Terrence W. Boyle, currently the chief U.S. District Court judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina, was first nominated nearly 15 years ago to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals by President George Bush. He did not receive a hearing before Mr. Bush was voted out of office.
    Judge Boyle was nominated again on May 9, 2001, by the current President Bush, but his hearing was stalled by Mr. Edwards, his home-state senator and last year's failed Democratic nominee for vice president.
    With Mr. Edwards replaced by a Republican in November, Judge Boyle -- along with two nominees for the district bench in North Carolina -- had their hearings. Judge Boyle was the last of Mr. Bush's first batch of 11 judicial picks nominated in 2001 to get a hearing.
    Mr. Edwards delayed a vote on Judge Boyle in retaliation against Jesse Helms, the Republican senator from North Carolina who blocked several of President Clinton's nominees to the Richmond-based 4th Circuit. Mr. Helms, in turn, was retaliating against Democrats for not confirming Judge Boyle -- a former Helms Senate staffer -- when he was first nominated in 1991.
    "That's part of what I have characterized as the escalation of the controversy over judges where I have said that I think both parties there share some of the blame," Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican, said during yesterday's hearing.
    Opposition to Judge Boyle also stems from his record on the bench.
    Liberal groups have gone to great lengths to argue that Judge Boyle is more unacceptable than other Bush nominees -- a clear indication that they think he should be filibustered.
    "As troubling as many of the president's appellate court nominations have been, Boyle's nomination is among the worst," said a report by People For the American Way (PFAW), which holds considerable sway over Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee. "His nomination should be rejected."
    In its analysis of Judge Boyle's record and background, PFAW said he has the highest rate of overturned decisions of any nominee on the federal district court nominated to the higher appellate bench -- placing that reversal rate at 12 percent.
    Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, had tough questions for Judge Boyle yesterday.
    "As you know, Mr. Boyle, your record raises a number of serious questions," Mr. Kennedy said. "You've been reversed on appeal far more than any other district judge in the 4th Circuit. Often those reversals have come because you made the same mistake more than once."
    But Republicans said the PFAW information -- and Mr. Kennedy's questions -- were off base.
    Judge Boyle's reversal rate is 7.5 percent, according to a Republican analysis of numbers provided by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. That would make Judge Boyle's reversal rate lower than the national average of 9.7 percent.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050305   Pro-life Democrat threatens Santorum
 

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIME

Pennsylvania Treasurer Bob Casey, a pro-life Democrat, said yesterday that he will challenge Republican Sen. Rick Santorum in next year's election.
    The race would pit two ardently pro-life candidates against each other in a state that has a huge, grass-roots pro-life community, yet often votes Democratic in national elections.
    It also reveals a deepening divide within the Democratic Party, with some thinking that in order to reverse its current losing streak, the party must compromise on certain values issues that go to the heart of the party. Since last fall's election losses, some have argued that the Democratic Party should rethink its unwavering support for abortion rights.
    While most Democratic leaders bristle at out-and-out compromise on the issue, some have suggested that the party should at least convey that it will be open-minded about abortion rights.
    Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, former Vermont governor and failed candidate for his party's presidential nomination in 2004, has emphasized the need to reach across the aisle into the ranks of pro-life Republicans.
    "There's nobody who's pro-abortion in America," Mr. Dean said upon accepting the chairman's seat last month. "Democrats aren't pro-abortion. Our belief is not that we're pro-abortion, but we do believe that a woman has a right to make up her own mind."
    Before any battle is pitched between Mr. Casey and Mr. Santorum, Mr. Casey must win his party's nomination. If former State Treasurer Barbara Hafer gets into the race as expected, for instance, Mr. Casey could have a hard time winning. Mr. Casey also could get edged out in a primary by former Rep. Joseph M. Hoeffel, who just lost a hard-fought statewide election against Sen. Arlen Specter.
    If Mr. Casey does snag the nomination, it could prove deeply troublesome for Mr. Santorum, the No. 3 Republican in the Senate.
    A poll released last month conducted by Quinnipiac University showed Mr. Casey beating Mr. Santorum 46 percent to 41 percent. The same poll showed Mr. Santorum beating Ms. Hafer and Mr. Hoeffel if either of them secures the party's nomination.
    Mr. Casey shares his name -- along with his looks and his voice -- with his father, a legendary Democratic governor who was pro-life. Former Gov. Bob Casey, who died in 1995, secured his status as a darling in the pro-life community when he was denied a speaking engagement during the 1992 Democratic convention despite hailing from the nation's fifth-largest state.
    But in announcing his intentions to run for the Democratic nomination for Senate, the younger Mr. Casey did not promote his pro-life views.
    "Pennsylvanians have seen first-hand the devastating effects of unfair federal trade policies that are causing us to hemorrhage jobs and of rising health-care costs that are squeezing family budgets and destroying the ability of our businesses to make a profit and hire new workers," he said. "Instead of confronting these problems, the current Republican leadership in Washington views the results of the November election as a mandate to increase the speed and severity of their push to undermine policies that protect middle-income working families."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv