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
L050418E    Playing God on the slippery slope
L050418E    Push-polling for euthanasia?
L050419       Court won't rule on clinic buffer zones
L050419       Evaluating Hillary
L050419       Hyde to leave House at end of 16th term
L050421       Senate done with Schiavo memo
L050423       Boxer flanks Republicans on abortion-related law

HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR/PERVERSION
H050421      Bill bans gays as foster parents
H050422      Changes sought in anti-sodomy law
H050422      Traditionalists, gays pan Connecticut civil unions
H050424      Homosexuals lose 2004 gains in 'marriages'

RELIGION/RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION
R050417L     Believers and nonbelievers
R050418        Just lunch
R050418E     Europe's 'morale crisis'
R050418E     The liberal conclave
R050419        ALABAMA   Moore shows fundraising ability
R050419        Dean's attack
R050419        John Paul inspired generation of priests
R050419C      Purging religious influence
R050419E      Election of the next pope
R050421        Criticizing a judge
R050421        Episcopal rift threatens to remove 6 priests
R050421         MASSACHUSETTS   Eyebrow ring called expression of faith
R050421        McCarrick, U.S. cardinals defend selection of pontiff
R050421        U.S. Catholics giving pope time
R050421C     The 'extreme' theme
R050421E      Modern Europe realities
R050422        MISSISSIPPI   Law allows posting of religious documents
R050422        Senate panel approves two judicial nominees
R050422E      Who is Benedict XVI?
R050423        Altered Pledge of Allegiance stuns students
R050423        Cheney pledges filibuster override
R050423M    Store orders cashier not to wear religious attire
R050424C      Two-edged faith 'intolerance'?

EDUCATION
E050423M   Montgomery schools revise sex ed course after backlash
E050424C    School accountability accounting

MEDIA
M050418     Special target
M050419      Rove backs up DeLay, calls critics 'desperate'
M050420      Prefab fury
M050420      The racing media
M050421      TV decency rules show partisan split
M050423      Pelosi pressed for trip records

OTHER
O050419C    The war against abstinence
O050420       Laura touts responsible dads
O050420Md MoveOn vs. Hoyer
O050421E     Learning the ABCs of marriage
O050421Md Steele competitive in Senate race, survey finds
O050422       Fancy footwork
O050422Md Cardin to seek seat in Senate

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 

By Julia Duin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

ROME -- Less than 24 hours after the election of Pope Benedict XVI, American cardinals defended their selection of a pontiff whose public persona is that of an unbending enforcer of church doctrine.
    The less-than-complimentary portraits of the new pope are unfair, the cardinals said yesterday during a press conference at the Pontifical North American College just outside the walls of the Vatican.
    "Look at this Holy Father," Washington Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick said. "Don't make judgments on what you read in the papers."

    The new pope "is maybe a more serious person [than Pope John Paul II], maybe a little shy, a person who has given his life to scholarship in a special way," he added.
    Before being selected as the 265th pope, Benedict served as the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, where he issued no-nonsense summations on many topics. He called rock music a "vehicle of anti-religion," termed other Christian denominations "deficient" and referred to Muslim Turkey's attempts to join the European Union as "an enormous mistake."
    But Los Angeles Cardinal Roger M. Mahoney said the new pope had been mischaracterized.
    "We have to be careful about caricaturizing the Holy Father and putting labels on this man of the church," he said.
    Cardinal Francis George of Chicago called Benedict "a humble genius" and "a true Christian." He said the public should concentrate on "this aspect of the picture of who this man is."
    New York Cardinal Edward M. Egan also lavished praise on Benedict.
    "I suggest you start reading all his books," he said. "I hope you come to know him as extraordinarily intelligent, calm and secure in his faith and a wonderful human being."
    The American cardinals said they know the new pope as a top-notch theologian and a man willing to listen to all points of view.
    "The vision some have of the Holy Father of someone not in dialogue is a skewed vision," Cardinal McCarrick said. "It's not fair."
    He said he worked with Benedict on what American bishops' policies should be on pro-choice Catholic politicians, and "almost every time I've gone to see [Benedict], he's had a number of people there [in his office]. There's always been a round-robin discussion."
    The new pope "is a man who consults, a man who reads up on things, a man who does his homework," Cardinal McCarrick added.
    Although the 115 cardinals vowed to not reveal the inner workings of their brief conclave in the Sistine Chapel, Cardinal McCarrick did describe his amazement at seeing a fellow cardinal transformed into, under Catholic doctrine, an infallible pope.
    "You're in a group of 115 people and you're saying 'your eminence this' and 'your eminence that,' and suddenly he's the Holy Father," he said.
    When the new pope's name was announced, the other cardinals all stood and clapped, Cardinal McCarrick added.
    "Here we were, 115 people, with all this extraordinary grace, with all this extraordinary angst, able to listen to the Holy Spirit," he said. "We applauded for [the new pope] and for the Holy Spirit."
    After Benedict assented to the election and revealed his new papal title, each of the other cardinals knelt before him and pledged his loyalty. As he approached Benedict, Cardinal McCarrick said, he remembered reading a book written by the new leader of the Catholic Church, "The Secrets of Our Joy."
    "I told him, 'Holy Father, I pray we'll always be the servants of your joy so we'll bring joy to your life by our fidelity,'" Cardinal McCarrick said.
    "I was not surprised when the Holy Spirit told us to choose Cardinal Ratzinger," he said. "During the Second Vatican Council, he was one of the great theologians of the council. For 25 years, he's served as the theologian of the church."
    "We all know him. ... How would you not think of Cardinal Ratzinger as someone who should be pope?"
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

H050421   Bill bans gays as foster parents
 

By Hugh Aynesworth
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The Texas Legislature is considering legislation that would ban homosexuals and bisexuals from becoming foster parents.
    If the legislation is enacted, Texas would be the only state in the nation with such a restriction.
    Arkansas had banned homosexuals -- or any family with a homosexual member -- from foster parenting, but a judge ruled the law unconstitutional.
    The Texas version emerged Tuesday as a late House amendment after nearly five hours of debate over a massive overhaul of the state's child and adult protective services.

    Rep. Robert Talton, Pasadena Republican, said he added the proposal as an amendment because it would not get a hearing if he filed it as a separate bill.
    "It's our responsibility to make sure that we protect our most vulnerable children, and I don't think we are doing that if we allow a foster parent that is homosexual or bisexual," he said. "I think a child ought to have the opportunity to be presented to a traditional family as such.
    "And if they choose to be homosexual or lesbian, then that's their choice when they are 18."
    Several Democrats argued against the amendment, but it passed by a 81-58 vote in the heavily Republican-controlled House.
    "We are here to put children first, not ideology," said Rep. Mike Villarreal, San Antonio Democrat. "How are we going to implement Representative Talton's inquisition?"
    "The system is broken and together we must fix it," said Rep. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, Lampasas Republican who sponsored the House bill's widespread overhaul of the state's programs for children.
    In addition to revamping the system of handling abuse or neglect cases, the Hupp bill would add about $250 million to the agency's budget for 848 more investigators, increased monitoring of foster homes and a streamlining of services.
    Private companies, which now handle three of every four foster homes in Texas, would manage them all under the bill.
    The realignment bill passed by a 126-16 vote.
    Mrs. Hupp said she agreed "with the philosophy" of the Talton amendment, but was not sure whether it would remain part of the legislation.
    The Senate has passed a more moderate approach to Child Protective Services reform.
    Rep. Carlos Uresti, a Democrat and co-sponsor of the Hupp bill, is expected to be a member of the House-Senate conference committee that will iron out the final legislation.
    He said he was not sure the anti-homosexual portion would remain.
    "I would hope the Senate will have a little more sense, and be a little more sensitive," he said.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050421   Episcopal rift threatens to remove 6 priests

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) -- Connecticut's Episcopal bishop contends a dispute with six local priests over his support for the denomination's first openly homosexual bishop is part of a broader battle over control of the church.
    Bishop Andrew Smith says he has not decided whether to begin the process of removing the six from their pulpits. A four-hour meeting Monday night ended with no resolution.
    "It is their intention to be under the direction and authority of a bishop different than me," Bishop Smith, who oversees 177 parishes and about 450 clergy members, said Tuesday. "That is something that is not possible."
    Disagreements similar to the one in Connecticut are playing out nationwide in response to the November 2003 consecration of Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, who lives with his longtime male partner.
    Parishes in Alabama and Kansas have split from the 2.3-million-member Episcopal Church, the U.S. province of the 77-million-member Anglican Communion. They want to associate with the Anglican Communion, which traces its roots to the Church of England.
    The six Connecticut priests have sought since May to report to a different bishop. They also cut financial ties with the diocese and requested control over who is ordained.
    One of the priests, the Rev. Christopher Leighton of St. Paul's Church in Darien, asserts he and his five counterparts are being silenced.
    "As long as Andrew Smith makes decisions that lead to the health and well-being of the church, we will support him, but when he makes decisions that are bad for the health of the church, we can't support him," Mr. Leighton said.
    Bishop Smith, however, says his dispute with the priests is their refusal to recognize his authority, not their opposition to Bishop Robinson.
    "There's a sense that I'm trying to remove them, to quiet them -- and that's absolutely not the case," he said.
    Bishop Smith says what is happening in Connecticut mirrors a strategy outlined in a widely distributed memo from a conservative priest in Pennsylvania.
    The memo, released last year, details a plan for conservative parishes to challenge the authority of Episcopal bishops with the ultimate goal of realigning Anglicanism in North America.
    "What has happened here certainly is similar to the memo," Bishop Smith said. "I do believe it's about power."
    Mr. Leighton insists the parishes are not following a playbook and do not intend to split with the Connecticut diocese or the Episcopal Church.
    "We're not threatening to leave," he said. "We're threatening to stay, and that's very frustrating for Andrew Smith because he's trying to get rid of us."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050421   U.S. Catholics giving pope time
 

By Joyce Howard Price
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Many U.S. Catholics are publicly hailing the first new pope in 26 years but acknowledge they have a wait-and-see attitude about the direction of the Church under Pope Benedict XVI's leadership.
    "He is one of the best theologians in the world, and we hope he will be inclusive of all different peoples' perspectives," said Dee Bernhardt, chairwoman of the executive board of the Catholic Campus Ministry Association, which promotes interfaith understanding.
    Officials of CCMA said that within the organization, the new pontiff was not everyone's favorite choice to succeed Pope John Paul II. But they said they were encouraged by Benedict's early comments.
    "He said humanism will be at the top of his agenda. That certainly is a good thing," said Ed Franchi, the group's executive director.
    Other organizations were more positive.
    "I think we got the right man, since the proper direction [for the Church] is to ratify orthodoxy," said William A. Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. "It would be institutional suicide to adopt the policies of so-called progressives."
    Ray Flynn, who heads Catholic Citizenship, a nonpartisan group that promotes the involvement of Catholic laity in politics, said, ?Pope John Paul II re-established the foundation of Catholic teaching, and it is expected that Pope Benedict XVI will build on that solid foundation."
    However, some homosexual Catholic organizations, women's rights activists and victims of sexual abuse by priests expressed disappointment at the selection of Benedict, an avowed conservative.
    Members of the Catholic homosexual rights group Dignity USA said they are "dismayed" by the choice because it will further alienate homosexuals.
    "The new pope is seen as the principal author of the most virulently anti-gay ... rhetoric in the last papacy," said Dignity President Sam Sinnett.
    He added that the cardinal's assumption of the papacy is seen by many homosexual Catholics as a "profound betrayal by the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church."
    In a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of 616 U.S. Catholics, 59 percent said they don't know enough about Benedict to have either a favorable or unfavorable opinion of him.
    Despite the uncertainty, 61 percent said they anticipate the new pope will do more to unite the Catholic Church than divide it.
    Fifty-six percent said they were bothered that he opposes allowing Catholics to use birth control. But 65 percent said they had either a "great deal" of or "moderate" confidence that he can handle the sex-abuse issues.
    Mary Grant, western regional director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, called on Benedict to "adopt and enforce a worldwide zero-tolerance policy" toward sex abuse by the clergy and to "promptly discipline complicit bishops who transferred and shielded serial molesters."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M050421   TV decency rules show partisan split
 

By Jennifer Harper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Tough-minded conservatives and Hollywood-friendly liberals have markedly different opinions about sex, violence and indecency on television, a Pew Research Center poll shows.
    "Liberal Democrats are least likely to favor stricter control on the media," the poll states, noting that roughly half of the respondents favor measures such as government-enforced decency standards during family viewing times or steep fines for violators.
    "Conservative Republicans, however, strongly favor added sanctions, with more than eight-in-10 favoring an enforced family hour on TV and increased fines," the survey notes.
    Evangelical Protestants and other churchgoers have similar opinions: 70 percent of the evangelicals approve of boycotting offending networks, while 90 percent favor a government-sanctioned family hour and fines.
    "On the fundamental question of whether undue government restrictions -- or harmful content -- presents the greater danger, a solid majority of conservative Republicans [57 percent] cite harmful entertainment," the poll reports.
    "Liberal Democrats, by contrast, overwhelmingly believe excessive government restrictions are the larger concern [72 percent to 21 percent]," it adds.
    The wide-ranging survey finds that overall, the nation is not keen on the content and effect of television and other entertainment on families and culture. Moral standards are "not like the good old days," according to the findings.
    Seventy-five percent of the respondents agree that people do not lead as "honest and moral lives" as they did in the past, while 79 percent feel that teens and children don't have as strong a sense of right and wrong as they did 50 years ago.
    But the nation believes in good, close parenting: 86 percent say that parents are the most responsible for screening children from sex and violence in television and films.
    It's a tough fight, though.
    Among parents, the survey finds that 67 percent are "very concerned" about what their children encounter on television and in video games and music lyrics; 81 percent are equally worried about Internet content.
    Still, only 14 percent of the parents say they "always" watch television with their offspring. Although 67 percent say television programming gives young people wrong ideas about what is acceptable in polite society, almost half say that there are "bigger problems for kids than the media."
    Meanwhile, two-thirds of Americans think television programming has worsened in the last five years, while three-quarters favor tighter enforcement of government decency rules, with seven in 10 approving of violator fines. Another 58 percent approve of a public boycott of offensive networks or producers.
    Too much sex on camera leads the list of the content offenses, followed by violence, reality shows, bad values, pointless plots, bad examples for children and swearing.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050421   Senate done with Schiavo memo
 

By Brian DeBose
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Senate leaders won't further investigate the origins of the memo of Republican talking points about Terri Schiavo distributed on the Senate floor. After losing the battle to save her life and identifying the Republican aide responsible for the memo, key members said nothing further should be done.
    "I don't think its going to continue. I think it's over," said Sen. Trent Lott, Mississippi Republican and chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee. "We spent time on it, and we didn't take it lightly. I was very concerned that it had been put on senators' desks or was being circulated by senators beyond being exchanged by anyone other than the two senators, but I'm satisfied that it was not broadly distributed and was not officially distributed."
    Mrs. Schiavo was the brain-damaged Florida woman who died March 31 after her feeding tube was removed by order of her husband, Michael.
    ABC News reported on March 18 that talking points were circulated among Republican senators containing two paragraphs discussing the political gains that could be made if Congress intervened to save Mrs. Schiavo's life. The Washington Post two days later called the document "an unsigned one-page memo, distributed to Republican senators."
    Neither report cited its sources, but later articles in the Post and the New York Times said the memo was given to reporters by Democratic aides.
    Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg called for an investigation and asked that the rules of the Senate be changed if necessary to prevent any unsanctioned documents from being distributed on the floor. The New Jersey Democrat said yesterday that he has no plans to pursue the matter further.
    "Right now, we've gotten a response, and Senator Lott said they saw no violation of the rules and, at this point, I think if they've satisfied themselves with their research, that is the determination," Mr. Lautenberg said. "I have concerns, but I think the exercise we went through properly shed light on this thing, and I think there will be more care in the future."
    The Washington Times conducted a survey that appeared in its April 6 editions and found that all 55 Republican senators said the memo was not crafted or distributed by their offices. All 44 Democratic senators and the one independent senator also were polled. Two Democratic offices refused to respond. Only one senator,Tom Harkin, Iowa Democrat, said through a spokeswoman that he saw the memo being circulated by Republican members on the Senate floor on March 17.
    The next day, Sen. Mel Martinez, Florida Republican, said his office was the source of the anonymous political talking points on the Schiavo situation and that he unwittingly passed it on to Mr. Harkin.
    Mr. Martinez said his legal counsel, Brian Darling, 39, was responsible for producing the memo. Mr. Darling immediately offered his resignation and Mr. Martinez accepted it.
    Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, Connecticut Democrat, and his party's ranking member on the rules committee also said the matter was closed.
    "I didn't think the rules committee had jurisdiction anyway," he said. "I think Mel Martinez handled the situation very well and handled it expeditiously."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050420   Laura touts responsible dads
 

By Bill Sammon
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

First lady Laura Bush last night credited President Bush with helping successfully raise their twin daughters, Jenna and Barbara, and said more men should become responsible fathers.
    "Children need fathers in their lives," Mrs. Bush said at an awards ceremony sponsored by the National Fatherhood Initiative. "George and I were fortunate to grow up in families where our parents -- both of our parents -- were always in our lives.
    "And we're proud of the young women that our girls have become," she said of their 23-year-old daughters. "A big reason for their success is that their dad has always been involved, and he's never been embarrassed or afraid to show his love for them."
    Mrs. Bush pointed out that men are much more likely than women to separate from their children. "At every stage of parenting, it's easier for fathers than mothers to get disconnected," she said at the Willard InterContinental Hotel in Washington.
    "Fathers aren't always encouraged to trust their paternal instincts," she added. "Hugs are a hurdle some fathers can't cross -- and kisses are out of the question."
    Mrs. Bush has been focusing on fatherhood since February, when she took the reins of her first national initiative, a three-year, $150 million program aimed at keeping boys out of gangs. Her husband announced the initiative in his State of the Union address, saying it was designed to "show young men an ideal of manhood that respects women and rejects violence."
    Last night, Mrs. Bush said absentee fatherhood is a problem that affects all sectors of society. "Every father faces challenges, regardless of his circumstances -- the father who's absent because he's in prison, or the father who's absent because he works 80 hours a week," she said.
    "Both have children who wish they could see their dads more," she added. "It's important for dads to know that they can still offer love and guidance, even if it's in a weekly visit or phone call."
    Mrs. Bush and the president were praised by Sen. Evan Bayh, Indiana Democrat, "for their steadfast support of this issue." Mr. Bayh, who preceded the first lady to the podium at last night's award ceremony, noted that the number of homes without fathers in the U.S. has increased 300 percent over the last 40 years.
    "Here in the nation's capital, more than half of the families with young children -- more than 50 percent -- have no fathers present," said the author of "From Father to Son: A Private Life in the Public Eye," a book about his relationship with his father, who was also a Democratic senator from Indiana.
    Among the men honored last night as outstanding fathers was Pat Williams, vice president of the Orlando Magic basketball team. Mr. Williams and his wife, Ruth, have 19 children, ages 18 to 32, including 14 adopted from four countries.
    Also honored were country music star Buddy Jewell, Atlanta Falcons defensive back Allen Rossum and Weekly Standard Executive Editor Fred Barnes.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M050420   Prefab fury
    Literacy-impaired liberals are getting help from the MoveOn.org Web site, which offers angry Democrats prefabricated letters-to-the-editor — letters that newspapers all over the country seem eager to publish, syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin writes at her Web site (www.michellemalkin.com).
    The blogger said that MoveOn.org's "fake 'grass-roots' letter writers" have flooded newspapers with letters denouncing Republican plans to change Senate rules to end Democratic filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees.
    "So far, we've submitted 11,388 letters to 1,292 newspapers," MoveOn.org boasts. And editors keep printing the letters, which declare that the proposed Senate rules change "is about radical Republicans grasping for absolute power so they can appoint Supreme Court justices who favor corporate interests and an extreme-right agenda."
    The prefab letters urge senators "to stand up for the centuries of checks and balances that have made this country great."
    Using the Nexis database, Mrs. Malkin found that letter (sent by different "writers") in the Herald News of Passaic County, N.J., on April 14; in the Charleston (W.Va.) Gazette on April 15; and in the Palm Beach Post on April 16.
     This is a standard tactic for MoveOn.org, which last year waged a similar letter-writing campaign on behalf of Michael Moore's film "Fahrenheit 9/11."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M050420   The racing media
    The news media have started applying the horse-race style of campaign coverage to daily reporting on government, leading to adversarial reporting that can obscure the truth just to create conflict, President Bush's chief political strategist said Monday.
    Speaking at a forum at Washington College in Chestertown, Md., Karl Rove said the influx of media outlets and the shrinking shelf life of news in a 24-hour news cycle are to blame.
    "We are substituting the shrill and rapid call of the track announcer for calm judgment, fact and substance," Mr. Rove told the crowd of roughly 600 students and local residents.
    Naming specific reporters and news organizations, Mr. Rove said the media unfairly created the impression that President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act, introduced early in his first term, was stalled in Congress at every step before its passage.
    But the legislation was passed by the House and Senate with wide margins and was signed by Mr. Bush less than a year after it was introduced, Mr. Rove said. He said the news media have taken a similar approach to the current debate over Social Security.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050420Md   MoveOn vs. Hoyer
    House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer, the Maryland Democrat who can boast a perfect 100 percent liberal rating from Americans for Democratic Action in 2004, has nonetheless drawn fire from the liberal activist group MoveOn.org over his support of the bankruptcy bill President Bush signed into law yesterday.
    MoveOn's political action committee is spending nearly $100,000 on local radio ads that hit Mr. Hoyer for not helping Democrats defeat the law that makes it harder for individuals to file for bankruptcy. The ad mentions that Mr. Hoyer has accepted about $300,000 in political donations from the credit card industry over the years.
    "The point of the ad is to send a signal that it's not appropriate for a Democratic leader to be cooperating with Tom DeLay's agenda," MoveOn PAC's Washington director Tom Matzzie said, referring to the House majority leader. "We couldn't stand the odor of the bill and the mass of Democratic support for something that is so obviously part of the Republican agenda."
    Mr. Hoyer was one of 73 Democrats who voted for the bill, despite being warned by MoveOn that doing so would have consequences.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050421   Criticizing a judge
    House Majority Leader Tom DeLay says Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's work from the bench has been "incredibly outrageous," the Texas Republican's latest salvo at the federal judiciary in the weeks after the courts' refusal to stop Florida patient Terri Schiavo's death by starvation.
    Mr. DeLay also labeled a lot of the courts' Republican appointees "judicial activists," the Associated Press reports.
    "Absolutely. We've got Justice Kennedy writing decisions based upon international law, not the Constitution of the United States? That's just outrageous," Mr. DeLay told Fox News Radio on Tuesday. "And not only that, but he said in session that he does his own research on the Internet? That is just incredibly outrageous."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050421   MASSACHUSETTS   Eyebrow ring called expression of faith
    WEST SPRINGFIELD -- A woman who was fired by Costco in 2001 for refusing to remove her eyebrow ring has accused the company of religious discrimination, saying she is a member of the Church of Body Modification.
    Kimberly M. Cloutier said she wears her eyebrow ring as a sign of faith. She has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to consider hearing the case.
    The church, established in 1999, counts about 1,000 members who participate in practices such as piercing and tattooing, according to a December ruling by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld a trial judge's finding in Costco's favor.
    Lynn A. Kappelman, an attorney for Costco, declined to comment. The company has argued that Miss Cloutier's beliefs are political or social instead of religious.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M050419   Rove backs up DeLay, calls critics 'desperate'
 

By Bill Sammon
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The White House yesterday stepped up its defense of embattled House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, dispatching political strategist Karl Rove to deride Democratic attacks as "drivel."
    "They're just desperate," Mr. Rove said of Democrats on CNN. "They're not offering ideas in the debate, they're not being constructive, and so some of their members are taking potshots at Tom DeLay."
    The broadside came in response to Republican complaints that President Bush has been too tepid in his defense of Mr. DeLay, the Texas Republican who is being accused by Democrats and the press of ethical lapses.
    "I'm looking forward to working with Tom," Mr. Bush told newspaper editors on Thursday. "He's been a very effective leader. We've gotten a lot done in the legislature, and I'm convinced we'll get more done in the legislature."
    Those remarks were critiqued on Sunday by Sen. Trent Lott, Mississippi Republican.
    "I read very carefully what [Mr. Bush] had to say," Mr. Lott said on ABC. "I wish it had been more, frankly."
    Mr. Lott resigned his position as Senate majority leader in 2002 amid criticism over his praise of Sen. Strom Thurmond, a former segregationist, at the South Carolina Republican's 100th birthday party. The president helped fuel that uproar by publicly chiding Mr. Lott.
    "I do think the White House needs to remember that people [who] fight hard for you as a candidate and for your issues as a president deserve your support," Mr. Lott said Sunday.
    The president did not have any comment yesterday in support of his fellow Texan, but Mr. Rove went on television to defend Mr. DeLay.
    "We strongly support Tom DeLay," he told CNN from the White House North Lawn. "He's a good man; he's a close ally of this administration.
    "He was down here last week, visiting with the president a couple of times," he added. "Tom DeLay's going to continue to be a strong and effective majority leader for the Republicans in the House."
    Mr. Rove criticized Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean for saying recently that his party would exploit Mr. DeLay's support for Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged Florida woman who died last month after her feeding tube was removed amid a bitter family dispute.
    "This is going to be an issue in 2006, and it's going to be an issue in 2008, because we're going to have an ad, with a picture of Tom Delay, saying, 'Do you want this guy to decide whether you die or not?' "Mr. Dean said.
    Yesterday, Mr. Rove returned fire.
    "I'm sorry that the Democratic Party has been reduced to this kind of drivel," he said. "If you don't have ideas, if you're not articulating a vision for America, if you're doing nothing but obstructing as Dean and others in his party seem to be intent upon doing, I guess you're stuck doing this kind of thing."
    Meanwhile, the DeLay campaign has counterattacked against the congressman's critics in a letter mailed to his supporters.
    "Democrats have made clear that their only agenda is the politics of personal destruction, and the criminalization of politics," the DeLay campaign wrote in a letter obtained yesterday by the Associated Press.
    Along with a point-by-point rebuttal of each accusation against Mr. DeLay, the AP reported, the letter summarizes the Texan's defense in simple terms: "Tom DeLay does not stand accused of any violation of any law or rule in any forum and has never been found to have violated any law or rule by anyone."
    Some Democrats and the press have criticized Mr. DeLay for hiring his wife and daughter to help run his political campaigns. Yesterday, Mr. Rove said he suspected "partisan reasons" were behind such attacks.
    "Think about it: They're attacking him for having his wife and daughter on the campaign payroll," he said. "Many Democrats have relied upon their family members to help campaign for them and serve as members of their staff."
    As for other complaints against Mr. DeLay, including those arising from overseas trips he has taken, Mr. Rove said they will be adjudicated by the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
    "I'm very confident that this issue's going to be resolved to everybody's satisfaction — well, to Tom DeLay's satisfaction and those of the Republicans," he said.
    Although the White House values Mr. DeLay for his ability to shepherd conservative legislation through the House, he and the president have never been particularly close.
    In 1999, when he was running for president, Mr. Bush said Republicans in Congress should not "balance their budget on the backs of the poor."
    Mr. DeLay replied: "It's obvious Mr. Bush needs a little education on how Congress works."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050419   John Paul inspired generation of priests
 

By Julia Duin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

ROME -- Among the crowds awaiting the new pope are Catholic clergy who say John Paul II was their primary inspiration.
    "The first time I met this pope, I was 13 years old," said the Rev. Donald Tremblay, a Montreal priest in town for the funeral and conclave.
    "I had goose bumps," he said. "There was an energy. He radiated. I told myself, 'This man is worth following.' "
    The cardinals failed to select a new pope yesterday during their first round of voting -- evident by the black smoke that rose from a chimney above the Sistine Chapel, where they are participating in a conclave to select the new leader.
    They will vote again today.
    Whoever is selected pontiff, one of his most important jobs will be to boost the comparatively small number of men studying for the priesthood -- 113,000 worldwide at last count -- to minister to the 1.2 billion Catholics around the globe.
    Only 4,800 of those seminarians are from the United States, the world's third largest Catholic country at 67 million adherents after Brazil and Mexico. The number of seminarians in the U.S. is far less than in powerhouse countries such as Poland, which has 7,000 in training, many of whom were influenced by the example set by the world's first Polish pope.
    "The personal example of John Paul II was enough to inspire two generations of priests," said Harvard Law School professor Mary Ann Glendon, speaking to reporters last week at the Vatican. "John Paul II's progeny are coming along."
    In terms of American men considering the priesthood, things are looking up, said Monsignor Kevin McCoy, rector of the North American College, the Rome-based seminary that is educating 150 Americans this spring and anticipates 170 to 175 seminarians in the fall.
    Just before the April 8 papal funeral, many of his seminarians gave up their comfortable apartments barely five minutes from St. Peter's Square to sleep outside so they could meet with pilgrims from around the world, he said.
    Dave Brown, 34, a candidate for the priesthood from St. John's Catholic Church in McLean, was one of those who spent the night on the square.
    John Paul II, he said, "is the only pope I can remember."
    Mr. Brown was first nudged toward the priesthood during a World Youth Day rally in 1993 in Denver, where he saw the pope for the first time.
    "That event had a huge impact not only on myself but on all the youth there," he said.
    The training process for the difficulties that a priest faces is improving, Monsignor McCoy said. Every Thursday, men get "psychological training" to find out "who they are as a male, their need for intimacy, their sexual urges -- this is not a pill they take. This is an education for the charism of celibacy."
    The Rev. Steven Lopes, a priest from the Archdiocese of San Francisco who is studying in Rome, is optimistic about the seminarians he sees.
    "They're younger," he said. "I am profoundly edified by their relationship with Jesus Christ. They bring an energy, a drive and a sense of life."
    The 230 Catholic seminaries in the United States will get an overhaul later this spring when a Vatican official known as an "apostolic visitor" will visit various seminaries to come up with new criteria for applicants, including a clearer standard on whether men who have committed homosexual acts can be admitted.
    The issue also will be dealt with in a document to be drawn up by the U.S. Catholic bishops during their annual spring meeting in Chicago. It's expected to deal with sexual experimentation that seminarians may have done in their teens and will look for sexual patterns.
    vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050419   Court won't rule on clinic buffer zones
 

By Guy Taylor
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The Supreme Court yesterday declined to take up the question of whether states are in violation of the Constitution when they enforce "buffer zones" around abortion clinics to keep protesters away.
    The justices offered no comment in their move to let stand a 2000 Massachusetts law that forces protesters to stay at least 18 feet from the clinics and at least six feet from women entering them.
    In other action, the high court agreed to hear arguments in a case that centers on whether a New Mexico church can continue serving its members a hallucinogenic tea during religious services.
    Blending Christianity and indigenous South American beliefs, the Brazil-based church has about 140 members in the Santa Fe area. It has been locked in a years-long battle with federal authorities over the legality of the hoasca tea it uses.
    A lower federal court ruled in favor of allowing the church to use the tea -- brewed from plants found in the Amazon River basin -- because of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. But the government argued that it contains the controlled substance DMT, a hallucinogenic drug, and in 1999, authorities seized about 30 gallons of the tea from church leaders in Santa Fe.
    The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments in the case this summer and to rule in the fall.
    In the Massachusetts case, pro-life groups voiced discontent over the court's move not to review the the Massachusetts abortion-clinic law.
    "We're disappointed," said Cheryl Sullenger, a spokeswoman for the national pro-life group Operation Rescue. "What the buffer zones really do is prevent pro-lifers from distributing literature to women who are seeking abortions.
    "A lot of times that literature gives them the information they needed in order for them to make a better decision for them and their baby."
    Several states have buffer-zone laws similar to the one Massachusetts began seeking after two abortion clinic workers were fatally shot in 1994. The state passed the law in 2000, but it was briefly overturned during the ensuing legal battle in Massachusetts federal courts.
    A federal appeals court upheld the law in 2001, at which time Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly, a Democrat, said the "buffer-zone law is a sensible measure that strikes the right balance between public safety and the right to free speech."
    The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case marks the third time in as many months that the justices have declined to wade into politically sensitive abortion waters.
    In February, they refused to reopen Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that made the practice legal nationwide in 1973. Last month, the justices refused to hear an appeal of a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that struck down an Idaho law requiring parental consent for minors seeking abortions.
    In 1992, the last time Roe v. Wade was reviewed, the justices upheld the fundamental constitutional right of women to choose abortion.
    vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050419   Hyde to leave House at end of 16th term

CHICAGO (AP) -- Rep. Henry J. Hyde, the Illinois Republican who steered the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton and championed restrictions on government funding for abortion, announced yesterday that he will retire when his term ends in 2006.
    Mr. Hyde, who serves as chairman of the House International Relations Committee, made the announcement on his Web site on his 81st birthday. He was first elected to the House in 1974 from his Bensenville district near O'Hare International Airport.
    Mr. Hyde also serves on the House Judiciary Committee, which he chaired from 1995 to 2001.
    Aides to Mr. Hyde did not return phone calls seeking comment yesterday. Andrew McKenna, chairman of the state Republican Party, was unable to be reached for comment, his office said.
    Fellow Illinois Rep. John Shimkus thanked Mr. Hyde for his years of service after the announcement.
    "Congressman Hyde has been a standard-bearer for conservative principles, causes and beliefs," Mr. Shimkus, a Republican, said in a written statement. "His leadership will be sorely missed on those fronts."
    Rep. Tom Lantos of California called Mr. Hyde a "respected, dedicated public servant" and a "good friend" in a statement.
    "Although our opinions on some issues have differed from time to time, Henry has always been very straightforward with me when he knows we might disagree," said Mr. Lantos, the ranking Democrat on the International Relations Committee. "And once we have made our opinions known, and once the voting is done, it has never had an adverse effect on our relationship."
    Mr. Hyde grew up in Chicago as an Irish-Catholic Democrat, but by 1952 had switched parties and backed Dwight D. Eisenhower for president.
    He first became a national figure when in 1976, during his second year in Congress, he sponsored a House measure that prohibited federal funding of abortions. The U.S. Supreme Court declared the Hyde amendment constitutional in 1980.
    His national profile rose again in 1998, when he was the chief manager of the House impeachment case against Mr. Clinton.
    "All a congressman ever gets to take with him when he leaves is the esteem of his colleagues and constituents, and we have risked that for a principle, for our duty as we have seen it," Mr. Hyde said in closing arguments before the Senate in 1999. The Senate voted to acquit Mr. Clinton.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050419   Evaluating Hillary
    "Pollster Scott Rasmussen has begun publishing a regular 'Hillary Meter,' Jay Cost writes at www.OpinionJournal.com.
    "The purpose of this is to track Sen. Hillary Clinton's movement to the political center by determining how much of the American public considers her to be middle-of-the-road. I find this to be a fascinating story, because it says quite a bit about Hillary and her political skills -- or lack thereof," said Mr. Cost, a graduate student at the University of Chicago who writes for RedState.org, where his article first appeared.
    "It is, of course, gospel that Hillary Clinton is a political genius, or something to that effect. She is so brilliant that potential Democratic opponents are warned by pundits everywhere that she will work her secret devil arts on the poor fool who dares cross her. She is that good. Ostensibly, the only hope that humble conservatives have to keep her from being the first female president is some tawdry book by Ed Klein.
    "I have never understood this. Where do her political credentials come from? It seems to me that she was a great supporting player to a good (though highly overrated) politician. She played the part of the forgiving, intelligent, driven wife with great effectiveness. When she takes center stage, however, the results are quite mixed.
    "She botched health-care reform so badly that President Clinton got absolutely nothing from a Democratic Congress. She coined the term 'vast right-wing conspiracy' -- guaranteeing that conservatives everywhere would curse her existence until the end of time. She did win that New York Senate seat, but that, to my mind, was pretty unimpressive. She beat latecomer Rick Lazio, who was not a formidable candidate, to say the least (the word 'sophomoric' comes to mind).
    "If her political accomplishments are unimpressive, why is she so feared? Why is she seen to be a political genius? The answer to this question eluded me for a long time, perhaps because it is so simple. The plain fact is that Hillary Clinton is actually one of the worst politicians in national politics today. She is feared as a brilliant politician only because she is such an obvious politician, which is actually the key mark of a bad politician."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050419   Dean's attack
    Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, who has accused congressional Republicans of "grandstanding" in the Terri Schiavo case, said his party will use it against the GOP in coming elections.
    "This is going to be an issue in 2006, and it's going to be an issue in 2008 because we're going to have an ad with a picture of [House Majority Leader] Tom DeLay saying, 'Do you want this guy to decide whether you die or not? Or is that going to be up to your loved ones?'" Mr. Dean said in West Hollywood, Calif.
    Mr. Dean, answering questions at an Access Now for Gay and Lesbian Equality event on Friday, went on to say: "The issue is: Are we going to live in a theocracy, where the highest powers tell us what to do? Or are we going to be allowed to consult our own high powers when we make very difficult decisions?'"
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050419   ALABAMA   Moore shows fundraising ability
    MONTGOMERY -- The Foundation for Moral Law, where Ten Commandments activist Roy Moore serves as board chairman, raised $1.3 million in donations in its first year.
    It is evidence that the ousted Alabama Supreme Court chief justice would not have any trouble financing a campaign for governor, political analysts said. Mr. Moore has not announced those intentions, however.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050418   Just lunch
    Justice Sandra Day O'Connor invited a handful of House Republicans to a private lunch at the court several months ago in an attempt to quell tensions between some members of Congress and federal judges, Newsweek reports.
    In a small dining room outside Justice O'Connor's chambers, the group discussed judicial philosophy over sandwiches and a salad sprinkled with walnuts. "It was just the two branches of government reaching out, trying to keep the lines of communication open," said Rep. Steve Chabot, Ohio Republican, who has been highly critical of judges like Justice O'Connor, who he thinks stray from a strict reading of the Constitution.
    It was a second visit to the court for Rep. Steve King, Iowa Republican, who dined alone with Justice O'Connor last year. Because the justice could not talk about any specific cases -- or even controversial issues that might come before her -- the conversation had its limits. "We didn't quite get to the meat of our discussion," Mr. King told the magazine. "But it opened the dialogue."
    The unusual private sessions suggest that concern over the rising tide of anti-judge rhetoric has rocked even the Supreme Court, Newsweek Deputy Washington Bureau Chief Debra Rosenberg said.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M050418   Special target
    "The truth is that Tom DeLay is a special target because he is the first legislative power broker to be an authentic Red State conservative," Jeffrey Bell writes in the Weekly Standard.
    "He is an unhyphenated Reaganite: militantly pro-life and pro-values on social issues, a pro-growth tax cutter on economic issues, and an unapologetic, spread-American-values interventionist abroad. In the years since the GOP's congressional realignment victory of 1994, no other GOP leader in either the House or Senate fully fits this description," Mr. Bell said.
    The writer added: "Since the 2000 election and the accompanying Red State/Blue State polarization, Red State conservatives have grown in strength in tandem with the alternative Red State media: talk and Christian radio, conservative bloggers, Fox News, and all the rest who have put older, Blue State media on notice that they are no longer capable of unilaterally defining the national debate.
    "DeLay is the most important of a small but growing group of conservative leaders who are willing and able to operate without permission or praise from Blue State media. The fact that House Speaker Dennis Hastert, DeLay, and their allies have maintained unbroken operational control of the House, never losing a significant floor vote in the four-plus years since Bush became president, has (to put it mildly) opened the door for other ambitious leaders to consider doing the same, either on selected issues or across the board.
    "If DeLay goes down because of overseas trips and/or fundraising practices that have never caused the slightest political problem for anyone else, the lesson to other Red State leaders will be clear. The four-year House winning streak, so widely taken for granted among conservatives, will not long survive DeLay. That is why Democrats and Blue State media (despite some half-hearted efforts to depict DeLay as a GOP albatross) so fervently desire his career to end as soon as possible."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050421C   The 'extreme' theme
 

By Don Feder

When liberals use intimidation to stifle a debate, it's a sure sign of their position's intellectual bankruptcy.
    On April 14, Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York, Harry Reid of Nevada, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan and Dick Durbin of Illinois demanded President Bush and Republican congressional leaders "denounce" so-called "inflammatory comments" that "openly threaten sitting judges."
    The object of their invective was a Washington conference the week before (sponsored by the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration). From the tone of their letter, you would think the gathering was snarling mob brandishing nooses.
    In fact, speakers included a former state chief justice, members of Congress, an Orthodox rabbi, a niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, and a number of legal scholars.
    Mr. Schumer et al are in a frenzy over conference-proposed reforms, including withdrawing jurisdiction (under Article III of the Constitution) and impeaching the worst judicial offenders.
    Judges have never been sacrosanct. From Thomas Jefferson to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, presidents have scathingly rebuked the judiciary. Jefferson warned that the Federalist judges of his day were becoming "an oligarchy' whose objective was to establish "despotism."
    Abraham Lincoln excoriated Chief Justice Roger Taney for the Dred Scott decision. Taking its cue from Lincoln, the Republican press of the 1860s referred to the Taney court as "a diseased member of the body politic" worthy of "amputation."
    In a 1937 radio address, FDR — furious when the Supreme Court declared several New Deal programs unconstitutional — proclaimed, "We must save the Constitution from the court and the court from itself." Was this inflammatory rhetoric that "might encourage violence against judges"?
    Critics of judicial activism are trying to defend representative government against the violence done by judges who have turned constitutional law into a game of how-much-can-I-get-away-with, in the guise of interpreting the Constitution.
    Last month, the Supreme Court struck down the laws of 18 states allowing the execution of minors. Justice Anthony Kennedy had the audacity to write that in interpreting the Constitution, it was entirely proper to "acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the death penalty" — as if the Founding Fathers intended their words to be informed by the views of the French and the Germans.
    Four days earlier, California Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer threw out a state law restricting marriage to a man and a woman (enacted by referendum), on the grounds that, "It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage ... to opposite sex partners." Judge Kramer didn't even try to frame a constitutional argument. In essence, what he said was: This doesn't make sense to me. Therefore, I'm going to nullify the will of 61.4 percent of voters.
    The clearest example of judicial juggling to arrive at a predetermined result is Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's position in two Supreme Court sodomy cases. In Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), O'Connor sided with the majority in upholding the constitutionality of Georgia's anti-sodomy law. In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), she went with the majority again — this time striking down a nearly identical Texas law.
    The Constitution didn't change in the intervening 17 years. Neither did the justice's understanding of the Constitution. (Does her 2003 vote suggest she was incapable of reading the First Amendment in 1986?) What changed was Justice O'Connor's attitude toward homosexuality — which she then read into the Constitution to arrive at the desired conclusion.
    For Schumer and company, the courts are a giant pinata. Liberals strike it, and out fall abortion on demand, a constitutional "right" to sodomy, rights for illegal aliens and foreign terrorist suspects, racial preferences, limitation of the death penalty and (at the appellate court level) a prohibition on display of the Ten Commandments and God in the Pledge of Allegiance. One more good, hard whack at the right time and same-sex "marriage" will magically pop out.
    Democrats won't debate judicial activism because they can't — what judges are doing to the Constitution (to liberal approbation) is indefensible. So they resort to a smear campaign to silence swelling demands for judicial reform.

    Don Feder is a former syndicated columnist who helped to organize the Confronting The Judicial War on Faith Conference.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050419C   Purging religious influence
 

By Bruce Fein

Liberal legal culture frowns on religion. The notoriously liberal Colorado Supreme Court is exemplary. The core message of its ill-reasoned decision in People v. Harlan (March 28) is that relying on religious law or teachings in determining the death penalty's appropriateness as a punishment taints the verdict as prejudicial or irrational.
    Accordingly, Justice Gregory J. Hobbs Jr. writing for a 3-2 majority, invalidated a death sentence for first degree murder because jurors might have been influenced by biblical passages prescribing "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" and commanding obedience to civil authorities. In other words, the free exercise of religion carries a price in Colorado -- the risk of disqualification from jury service where moral yardsticks are pivotal to punishment.
    In 1995, a Colorado jury convicted Robert Harlan of first-degree murder, two counts of attempted first-degree murder, two counts of second-degree kidnapping, and assault. The jury unanimously agreed death was the proper punishment, a moral judgment pivoting on aggravating and mitigating circumstances introduced by the prosecution and defense. In deliberating on the death penalty, jurors consulted neither extrajudicial facts nor law at variance with jury instructions of the trial judge. The latter emphasized that jurors must resist a decision based on a "passion, prejudice or other irrational or arbitrary emotional response against Robert Harlan."
    One or more jurors sought to inform their moral consciences by reference to the Bible. It was brought into the jury room, and the following was examined from Leviticus 24:20-21: "Fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, as he who has caused disfigurement of man, so shall it be done to him. And whoever kills an animal shall restore it, but whoever kills a man shall be put to death." Leviticus champions a retributive punishment untroubling to imposing the death penalty -- for example, the execution of Timothy McVeigh.
    The jurors also consulted Romans 13:1: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities for there is no authority except from God and the authorities that exist are appointed by God." The passage simply reinforced the obligation of the jury to adhere to the death-penalty instructions of their governing authority -- the trial judge.
    The presence of the Bible in the jury room was unworrisome. A juror's education might as easily have entailed memorization of the respective passages from Leviticus and Romans. They could have been recited to co-jurors with passion and conviction. Indeed, well educated adults -- whether believers, agnostics, or atheists -- routinely master the death penalty teachings of the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Holy Koran or the Bhagavad-gita and would bring that learning into the jury cloister. But that would not threaten theocracy. Secular law builds on moral principles inculcated by religion. Thus, Moses and the Mosaic Code are celebrated in the magnificent building of the U.S. Supreme Court.
    Justice Hobbs insisted the precepts of Leviticus and Romans constituted extraneous evidence that had not been admitted by the trial judge. But beliefs about right and wrong are ideas, not evidence. It would be preposterous, for instance, to censure a juror for memorizing Pope John Paul II's or Mahatma Gandhi's moral opposition to the death penalty on the ground inadmissible evidence had been smuggled into the juryroom. Neither a lobotomy nor amorality should be a prerequisite for jury service.
    Justice Hobbs erroneously maintained that juror consideration of Leviticus and Romans might have influenced the decision for death in lieu of a life sentence to the prejudice of Harlan. Both teach morality fully consistent with the jury's instructions and are common to both believers and nonbelievers. Not a single juror testified that the biblical passages required them to vote for death or risk damnation. A juror might have voted for capital punishment because retribution and obedience to civil authority as taught in the Bible were thought proper moral guides in punishing first degree murder. But a defendant is not entitled to disqualify jurors who subscribe to those legally legitimate guideposts.
    Justice Hobbs absurdly asserted that his reasoning with regard to the Bible cast no cloud over jurors who have mastered religious texts for recitation during jury deliberations: "We do not hold that an individual juror may not rely on and discuss with the other jurors during deliberation his or her religious upbringing, education and beliefs in making the extremely difficult 'reasoned judgment' and 'moral decision' " [in death penalty cases]. ... The written word, [however], persuasively conveys the authentic ring of reliable authority in a way the recollected spoken word does not."
    The contrary is true. Memorization of entire passages entails intellectual labors that make the moral message indelible. Oratory in recitation, moreover, moves more than the written word. Compare Winston Churchill's electrifying addresses during World War Ii with the dry prose of the Atlantic Charter.
    In sum, the anti-religious principle of Harlan categorically condemns a juror whose morality is informed by religion. God is dead, at least in the chambers of the Colorado Supreme Court.

    Bruce Fein is a constitutional lawyer and international consultant with Bruce Fein & Associates and the Lichfield Group.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050419C   The war against abstinence
 

By Robert Rector

Yearly, more than 3 million teenagers contract a sexually transmitted disease. In addition to the risk of disease and pregnancy, sexually active teens are 3 times likelier than the sexually inactive to become depressed and attempt suicide.
    Clearly, it's in society's interest to discourage teen sex. Teens themselves realize this: According to a Zogby poll, more than 90 percent of teens say society should teach kids to abstain from sex until they have, at least, finished high school. Parents want a stronger message: Almost 9 in 10 want schools to teach youth to abstain from sex until they're married or in an adult relationship that is close to marriage.
    Given the almost universal popularity of abstinence education, it seems strange Sen. Max Baucus, Montana Democrat, soon will introduce legislation that would effectively abolish federal abstinence education programs. These programs supply nearly all the governmental support for teaching abstinence.
    The Baucus anti-abstinence plan would take federal funds for teaching abstinence and turn them over to state public health bureaucracies to spend as they will. Since these bureaucracies have been wedded for decades to "safe sex" and fiercely opposition to teaching abstinence, the implications are obvious.
    "If the goal is to remove abstinence from classrooms across the country, the Baucus plan will do it," says Leslie Unruh, president of the National Abstinence Clearinghouse, an umbrella group that includes nearly all abstinence educators in the U.S.
    Government officials now spend at least $12 promoting contraception for each $1 they spend teaching abstinence. Virtually every teen in the U.S. receives classroom instruction about contraception. But programs that seriously urge youth to delay sexual activity are rare. And even students who are taught about abstinence almost always are taught about contraception as well, through a biology or health class.
    If contraception is already taught in nearly every school, and condom promotion gets nearly all the government funds, why the push to kill the limited funds for abstinence?
    The answer lies with certain interest groups that often heavily influence decisions of key lawmakers. The two main groups leading the crusade for the Baucus plan and against abstinence are Advocates for Youth and the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States. (SIECUS).
    SIECUS has a history of promoting the far boundaries of sexual permissiveness. One article published in its SIECUS Reports periodical actually encouraged society to overturn the "taboo" against sex among 9-year-olds. The article also asked readers to consider if society should arrange for "services of prostitutes for older teenage children who are not in a position to seek out sexual partners themselves."
    Another SIECUS Reports article urged society to re-examine the "social taboo" against incest, suggesting many girls victimized by it are, "in the truest sense of the word their father's lovers." Elsewhere, SIECUS argues sex educators have unfairly neglected the pleasurable aspects of teen sex and should learn to "advocate good sex for teens."
    Advocates for Youth is a close ally of SIECUS. Both groups vigorously oppose abstinence education and promote something they call "comprehensive sex ed." Not surprisingly, a review of "comprehensive" programs reveals they trample on parental and social values. Far from encouraging young people to wait until they're older before having sex, their message is that it's OK for teens to have sex so long as they use condoms. Only 7 percent of parents approve of that message.
    Some of the content in these programs borders on pornography. One heavily promoted curriculum, "Be proud. Be responsible," teaches high-school students to: "Brainstorm ways to increase spontaneity and the likelihood that they'll use condoms. ... Examples: ... Eroticize condom use with partner. ... Use condoms as a method of foreplay. ... Think up a sexual fantasy using condoms. ... Act sexy/sensual when putting the condom on. ... Hide [it] on your body and ask your partner to find it. ... Wrap them as a present and give them to your partner before a romantic dinner. ... Tease each other manually while putting on the condom."
    The goal of SIECUS and Advocates for Youth is to put this type of curriculum in every classroom. The first step? Eliminate abstinence programs that send the opposite message.
    It's a mystery why such off-the-wall groups should have any influence over federal lawmakers. But one thing's clear: Their radical agenda is diametrically opposed to what parents and teens say they want in classroom sex education.

    Robert Rector is a senior research fellow in domestic policy studies at the Heritage Foundation.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050418E   Playing God on the slippery slope
 

By Sauzanne Fields
 
 

    Most of the debate over the cultures of death and life is about process. The debate focuses on the technology available to determine how we prolong life and how and when we end it. The generations that went before us would not understand what we're talking about. Infant mortality, death from pregnancy and childbirth, routine disease and the infirmities of old age in an earlier time were perceived to be natural and inevitable, the inexorable will of God.
    It's one of the terrible ironies of modern times -- and a sobering caution -- that extermination of physically healthy, able-bodied men, women and children was done by the state not in the backward provinces of a backwater satrapy, but in Germany, one of the most civilized and technologically advanced societies in the world.
    In only 12 years the Third Reich executed theories of eugenics that had circulated with considerable respectability in Europe and the United States. After the Nazis killed the disabled and the mentally ill in "hospitals," death camps swelled with Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and the politically suspect. New meaning was given to the slippery slope, blurring right and wrong, and it was only a short way from moral decline to a descent into horror.
    The death of Pope John Paul II led many of different faiths and of no faith to acknowledge their debt to the Roman Catholic Church for holding on to absolutes that enable the rest of us to measure ourselves against. Holding the line is a theme that runs as well through the writing of Leon Kass, the chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics. He worries that our culture is in danger of slipping down another slope by redefining the pursuit of happiness with biomedical technology.
    We all want to look younger, become stronger and healthier and live longer. Such goals are laudable when they "do no harm," but we must be wary of unintended consequences. Hidden harm becomes ever more difficult to discern. That's what major-league baseball's steroid scandal was all about, the hidden harm in competitive sports that sends the wrong message to the young.
    As we consider the impact of new technologies on the physical body, we must consider how these new technologies impinge on what we understand about our own humanity, dignity and ultimately our freedom. "For bioethical dilemmas, though generated by novel developments in biomedical science and technology, are not themselves scientific or technological matters," writes Dr. Kass in "Being Human," the book of readings from the President's Council. "They are human dilemmas individual, familial, social, political and spiritual -- confronted by human beings at various stages in the human lifespan, embedded in networks of meaning and relation, and informed by varying opinions and beliefs about better and worse, right and wrong, and how we live." Rushing willy-nilly into the future without giving deep thought to the influences of biotechnology in the way we treat each other, and the impact it makes on social behavior, would be foolish indeed.
    What are the moral tradeoffs at the intersection of biology and biography? What does it mean for adult children when parents add decades to the average lifespan? This could prolong adolescence much farther into adulthood. (Some parents might tell you that this has already happened.) Dr. Kass suggests that age enhancements of the old foster in the next generation "protracted youthfulness, hedonism, and sexual license." Class warfare, such as it is, would give way to biotech battles. Older people who refuse to retire would block younger people from getting employment."
    Instead of helping their juniors begin careers and families, tomorrow's rich oldsters will expend disposable income enhancing memories, senses, and immune systems, refashioning their flesh to ever higher levels of performance," writes Charles C. Mann, in the Atlantic magazine, in a terrifying article entitled "The Coming Death Shortage." His thesis is wildly speculative, but it can't be ignored.
    Dr. Kass urges us to bring "wisdom-seeking reflection" to these issues. The future opens a postmodern Pandora's box, manipulating biotechnological innovation to clone spare body parts, design babies, select sex, rearrange genes, medicalize personality traits and re-engineer bodies to radically expand lifespans. The world witnessed the pope's suffering at the same time Terri Schiavo's food-and-water feeding tubes were removed, making us all acutely aware of the moral and spiritual debates we must confront to plumb the mystery of life and death. Such moral debates must continue, if we want to resist the slippery slope that would take us where none wants to go.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050418E   Europe's 'morale crisis'
 

By Tod Lindberg

George Weigel is the nation's most important lay Catholic thinker and writer, and the author of "Witness to Hope," the massive authorized biography of John Paul II that he is now revising to offer an account of the final years of this historic papacy. Along the way, however, Mr. Weigel has dropped off a slender and eloquent volume on a subject of keen concern to the pope in his last years: the state of Christianity in Europe and, in particular, the place for religion in the emerging European Union.
    The EU today, whose member-states have before them for ratification a Constitutional Treaty that will further bind them into a supranational whole of pooled sovereignty, is a thoroughly secular project. And, of course, it has been true for some time that throughout much of its territory on Sundays (Poland being a notable exception), churches are largely empty. The precipitating occasion for this little book, "The Cube and the Cathedral," and the cry from the heart that recurs throughout, is the refusal of the drafters of the Constitutional Treaty to include anywhere among its 70,000 words a reference to Europe's Christian heritage.
    It is not as if it simply failed to occur to the secularly minded drafters. The pope, among others, pressed for a reference. The request was rebuffed, supposedly out of a deep commitment to official EU neutrality on all religious matters, what the French call laicite. Mr. Weigel's point is that neutrality crosses over into outright hostility toward religion when officials are no longer able to acknowledge such basic historical facts as that religion played an enormous role in shaping European civilization as it is today.
    Mr. Weigel's title refers to the stark contrast in the Paris of today between the 14th century Cathedral of Notre Dame and the supremely modernist, 40-story open glass cube monument to fraternity, La Grand Arche de la Defense — into whose central open space, as the guide books all note, Notre Dame could fit. "Which culture, I wondered," the one that built Notre Dame or the one that built the Grand Arche, "would better protect human rights? Which culture would more firmly secure the foundations of democracy?" To Mr. Weigel, it seems clear that a thoroughly secular Europe, a place for "politics without God," offers only an uncertain foundation for securing the freedom and equality before the law that modern, secular man has come to think of as a birthright.
    Mr. Weigel writes, "European man has convinced himself that in order to be modern and free, he must be radically secular. That conviction has had crucial, indeed lethal, consequences for European public life and European culture. Indeed, that conviction and its public consequences are at the root of Europe's contemporary crisis of civilizational morale." The most conspicuous sign of this "crisis of morale" is the decline of European birth rates to the point at which European civilization may be said to be literally failing to reproduce itself — to create subsequent generations of human beings willing to carry on the project.
    As things stand, religious conviction of a traditional sort has become a bar to holding high public office in the European Union. Mr. Weigel recounts the story of the Italian Catholic philosopher Rocco Buttiglione's rejection as European Commissioner for justice. Mr. Buttiglione professed his commitment, amply justified by his years in public office, to uphold and enforce European laws protecting gays against discrimination and women's rights. But he would not repudiate his personal religious conviction, in keeping with Catholic doctrine, that homosexuality, abortion and contraception are immoral. This attack on conviction, not action, Mr. Buttiglione called a "new totalitarianism." Mr. Weigel agrees, and notes, "That this new totalitarianism flies under the flag of 'tolerance' only makes matters worse." Mr. Weigel is gloomy about Europe's future prospects in the absence of a resurgence of religious belief. He sketches four scenarios, the most pessimistic of which he calls "1683 Reversed," a reference to Christian Europe's defeat of the Islamic Ottoman Empire at the gates of Vienna.
    It is possible that Mr. Weigel's concerns are overstated and that the secular Europe now emerging will be a secure home for the Western world's most cherished political values. But where Mr. Weigel is at his most persuasive is in the pages he devotes to the Middle Ages, the heyday of Christian Europe. According to the Enlightenment propagandists who came later, this was a time of benighted stagnation and meaningless religious war. In fact, as Mr. Weigel shows, it was the working out of conflict between church and state in this period that created the basis of the societies we are fortunate to live in today.
    Mr. Weigel is right about the debt of gratitude even a secular world owes to its religious heritage. And he is also right that a world in which religious faith as such is a disqualification from serving in public office is its own species of (anti-) religious tyranny.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L050418E   Push-polling for euthanasia?
 

By Nat Hentoff
 
 

    During the intense national debate about the worth of Terri Schiavo's life, a majority of Americans agreed with her husband that they would not want to continue living. But when the pollsters called, did they describe the actual facts of her condition to get the responses that created and confused the national response?
    One of the most widely circulated telephone polls was the ABC News poll. Its interviewers told those who picked up the phone: "Schiavo suffered brain damage and has been on life support for 16 years. Doctors say she has no consciousness, and her condition is irreversible." Although Terri was brain-damaged, she was not on a respirator or any other machinery. She was breathing naturally and was fed three times a day through a feeding tube. This was not "life support," as most of us interpret that term.
    Furthermore, a considerable number of neurologists claimed that she was conscious and responsive in ways that were more than just reflexes. They and a number of radiologists also noted that her condition was not irreversible and might be improved through new and advanced methods of therapy (which her husband had denied her for years).
    Other pollsters flatly said in their calls that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state, but that, too, was denied by dissenting neurologists whose affidavits are also part of the court record. The definition of PVS in Florida Statute 765.101 is: "The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of any kind, and an inability to communicate or interact purposefully" with other people.
    I have statements from people who spent time with Terri during her final weeks, and they describe decidedly meaningful and purposeful interaction with her environment.
    But with these inaccurately worded polls creating a grave misconception of her condition around the nation and worldwide, it was inevitable that, as one person in Detroit told a BBC interviewer: "There's too much talk about life, and not about the quality of life." Those who support euthanasia, or "merciful pulling of the plug," believe that certain people's "quality of life" does not warrant their staying alive.
    These are compassionate Americans, who, this time, have been misled by the polls and the media's careless, lazy reporting on the Terri Schiavo case.
    In the March 24 Newsday, before Terri died, Cathy Cleaver Ruse, of the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, accurately and bluntly revealed the inexcusable incompetence of the pollsters: "The (ABC News) poll also says the family disagreement is whether she would have wanted to 'be kept alive.' But Schiavo is not dying or wasn't, while she was being fed. So the question isn't whether she should be 'kept alive' or 'allowed to die,' but whether to stop feeding her, in which case she will die." And so she did.
    And how many Americans knew from the polls that her husband who provided hearsay "evidence" of her wishes, corroborated only by his brother and sister-in-law, has for years been living with another woman, with whom he has fathered two other children? The polls, which so confused so many millions about Terri Schiavo's actual quality of life and her further potential, are by no means the only polls that have misinformed Americans on a wide range of vital public issues.
    It is long past time for newspaper, cable and network operations and wire services that mechanically circulate alleged public-opinion polls to do more than continue to be accomplices to misinformation. Whenever a poll is printed or reported, the results should be preceded by the full contexts of the questions asked of those responding.
    The ABC News poll, for example, led to this penetrating response by a valuable blogger, Ed Morrissey (captainsquartersblog.com): "Since when does ABC conduct push-polling for euthanasia?" The polls also assured us that a great majority of Americans objected to congressional involvement in Terri's case through the federal courts. How many Americans knew that the very liberal Sen. Tom Harkin, Iowa Democrat, supported bringing in federal courts, because, he said: "State courts vary in their evidentiary proceedings and in their process 50 different ones. Iowa differs from Florida or Missouri. So sometimes a person might get caught in a certain evidentiary proceeding, in a state court, that does not really tell the whole story."
    That is exactly what happened to Terri Schiavo because the entire "process" that led to her cruel death was based on the fatally wrong ruling of one state judge, George Greer. He ruled that Terri's "wishes" as told by her husband, with all of his conflicts of interest, were "clear and convincing evidence," while he ignored a precisely contrary account, sworn before him by a close friend of Terri. A federal court review which, while Terri was alive, was denied all the way up to the Supreme Court was badly needed to assess Terri's "wishes" and for many other reasons.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050421E   Learning the ABCs of marriage
    In a recent report on the success of welfare reform, NYU Professor Hirokazu Yoshikawa acknowledged more low-income mothers were choosing marriage, yet claimed President Bush's welfare reform proposal "explicitly exclude(s) poverty reduction as a route to increasing marriage." ("Welfare-reform program led moms to wed, study finds," Nation, April 10) Far from it.
    In the welfare-reform reauthorization bill before Congress, $16.7 billion in block grants would be given to states each year for the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program, compared with $200 million for marriage education. Since welfare rolls have fallen by 54 percent since 1996, while the annual funding has essentially remained the same, it is difficult to see how Mr. Yoshikawa could conclude that poverty reduction activities have been excluded from the overall plan.
    Moreover, Mr. Yoshikawa seems content with a mere rise in marriage rates as long as mothers have "more income." The Bush administration, on the other hand, believes that when it comes to promoting marriage among low-income couples, quality, not just quantity, matters. That is why we have put an emphasis on increasing access to marriage education where couples can learn healthy communication and conflict resolution skills, thereby reducing the risk of future domestic violence.
    Offering greater access, on a voluntary basis, to marriage education services in which couples can develop the skills and knowledge necessary to form and sustain healthy marriages is a small, yet integral, part of the president's welfare-reform proposal. Far from sacrificing anti-poverty activities, the plan would continue to promote employment and self-sufficiency while strengthening families around the nation.

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

R050421E   Modern Europe realities
    Tod Lindberg's "Europe's 'morale crisis', " (Op-Ed, Tuesday) quotes a lay Catholic thinker and writer, George Weigel, as his source in making the case that Europe will suffer "crucial ... lethal consequences in public life and culture" as a result of growing secularism.
    Perhaps the Europeans recognize that nationalism and religious fervor have been central to the wars they have fought and the death and destruction they have experienced for the past 500 years.
    The most conspicuous sign of this moral crisis is in the declining birthrates, according to Mr. Weigel. Has Mr. Weigel not traveled throughout the world and seen poverty, starvation and infant mortality rates among deeply religious nations? Is Europe not part of a capitalist economy that requires ever more money to rear a healthy moral family? Or is his idea of family the Dickensian tale of little children begging in the streets or joining outlaws to steal what they need?
    Religion as a moral concept in shaping our lives must include modern reality, not fealty to rules that haven't changed in 1,000 years.

    J. SALEMI
    West Springfield
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050419E   Election of the next pope
 

By Roger A. McCaffrey

The rapid emergence of the patriarch of Venice, Cardinal Angelo Scola, 63, as a leading figure going into the papal conclave is a fresh new illustration of Italian political marksmanship.
    Venice has long been a strategic posting, and two of the last four popes held Cardinal Scola's see (three popes since 1900). Therefore Cardinal Scola, who was only made a cardinal in 2003, quickly assumed a strong position.
    What the cardinal has done in the past few months has heightened his visibility in a startling way. Cardinal Scola attracted the international media's attention in February when he spoke of the danger of Muslim immigration in Europe. In February, he visited the United States and addressed the World Jewish Congress on Catholic-Jewish relations.
    Cardinal Scola's confident appearance on the international scene is large with implications. There is a widely acknowledged move to re-establish the papacy in Italian hands, for a very practical reason: They know how to govern the church. It has been whispered by a couple of retired cardinals to this writer that Pope John Paul II could not govern and did not try.
    Were the patriarch of Venice to say absolutely nothing at all in the years leading up to a conclave, he'd still be strongly considered for the papacy. Yet Cardinal Scola's appealingly smooth demeanor, his multi-lingual ability and his I.Q. have now been put on display in so deft a manner as to take him from obscurity two years ago to the most-noticed of the Italian cardinals. Cardinal Scola is not given to grandstanding and would never advance his own cause crassly, any more than Karol Wojtyla -- John Paul I I-- did his.
    So why is he visible at this time? It's overwhelmingly likely that a large segment of the College of Cardinals has signaled Cardinal Scola that they think he might be elected. So, they have asked him to "go public." Cardinal Scola's utterances, in a media age, are really a prelude to the first conclave in which it is "impossible to hide" (or so it is said) from the hordes of television, Web and print reporters. What used to be done in private is now -- alas -- conducted partly in public.
    Beyond the Cardinal Scola issue, pre-conclave "discussion" among the principals, from the mid-1990s onward, was at times remarkably public:
    • When in the mid-1990s the respected leader of the world's largest Catholic archdiocese -- Milan, Italy -- implied that the church could still discuss the matter of women priests, he spoke for a significant minority of his colleagues.
    • When the German cardinal who heads a key Vatican office declared that things have gone too far in a liberal direction at many Catholic Masses, he spoke for a diverse group of colleagues who have also had it up to here with hip liturgy.
    • When at Georgetown University the church's leading Third World cardinal criticized the trend toward acceptance of homosexuality, he echoed the views of most of his colleagues. (When he refused to back down, he showed himself too tough for some.) Still and all, the question for conclave watchers is not which sub-set of cardinals prevails, but which group is able to knit together enough allies to elect a man acceptable to the whole.
    In conclaves of recent centuries, that acceptability was measured by a two-thirds majority vote. This time around, because of a rules change by Pope John Paul II, if the first 28 ballots elect no one, the church's leaders can switch to a simple 51 percent majority vote. The rule change favors the Italians.
    With no more than 17 percent of the votes in the next conclave and a marginally diluted influence in the current regime, the Italians are supposed to be finished as a force. If this were so, their influence in papal elections would have long since waned, because for many decades they have lacked anything close to a majority of votes. Talk of their diminished influence began in the 1950s. Three Italian popes were promptly elected in succession.
    A papal conclave, which is an event almost, but not exactly, sacred to Catholics, is also one of the most fascinating exercises of political skill and resourcefulness in the Western world. The conclave that elects a new pope is often the final act of a protracted consideration for the job that involves, as often as not, a choice who didn't envision the outcome. But few men have refused what Catholics regard as a call from God. Nevertheless, we are not required to suspend our belief in human nature. Man is a political creature. Most popes are not elected by accident. Italians are masterful at politics.
    Basta. Time will tell.

    Roger A. McCaffrey, a Catholic publisher, is currently assisting in the launch of Ave Maria University Press in Naples, Fla.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050418E   The liberal conclave

The College of Cardinals meets today to pick the 265th pope of the Roman Catholic Church. Because John Paul II was the first non-Italian pope in 455 years, speculation is high that church fathers may break new ground again -- perhaps by picking a non-European, an African or the first Latin American to be pope. The media constantly states that the only certainty is that this supposedly conservative college will pick a conservative pope. This prediction is unlikely because the cardinals are actually very liberal.
    John Paul II appointed more than 95 percent of the cardinals. Paradoxically, however, most of the prominent cardinals hold leftist positions that depart from the traditional Catholic moral teachings he defended. In 1978, when John Paul II became pope, radicals and conservatives were fighting over what the church would become when the dust settled from the revolutionary Second Vatican Council of 1962?65. Today, there are no pre-Vatican II traditionalists left in the hierarchy.
    Forty percent of Catholics worldwide come from Latin America, which has a powerful clique of 21 voting cardinals. Most of these have been decades-long backers of liberation theology, the dangerous concoction of twisted religious tenants and Marxist principles that espouses class warfare and proletariat revolution. Brazil is the largest Catholic country in the world, putting Sao Paulo Archbishop Claudio Hummes at the head of the pack of frontrunners. Cardinal Hummes is outspokenly anti-American and supports confiscation and redistribution of property belonging to the rich. Likewise, Honduran Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga supports Third World debt relief and the "equalizing" redistribution of global wealth.
    European ecclesiastical leaders are as liberal as their secular counterparts. Four prominent cardinals from the old world are Brussels Archbishop Godfried Danneels, Scot Keith O'Brien, and Germans Walter Kasper and Karl Lehmann. These European cardinals have opened the door for changing church law against divorce, contraception, women and married clergy and more flexible positions on abortion and homosexuality.
    At 20, Italian cardinals comprise the largest national voting bloc. Many cardinals lean toward tapping an Italian because they have centuries of experience running the Rome-based church bureaucracy. Milan Archbishop Dionigi Tettamanzi backs condom distribution and has spoken supportively to anti-globalization rioters. Venice Patriarch Angelo Scola thinks the church should loosen up bioethical rules on issues such as stem-cell research. Vatican Secretary of State Angelo Sodano, the most powerful prelate behind the pope, handpicked a majority of the bishops responsible for covering up clerical sex abuse.
    Two relatively conservative cardinals considered to be papal possibilities are Nigerian Francis Arinze and German Joseph Ratzinger. But as Cardinal Ratzinger has explained, this is a matter of perspective. One of the most liberal theologians at Vatican Council II, he insists he has not shifted positions over the years but that the world has moved so far to the left that even a committed progressive such as himself is considered conservative. Overall, John Paul II's cardinals are poised to take the Catholic Church leftward.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R050417L   Believers and nonbelievers
    My letter is in response to the three-part series "Faithless: God under fire in the public square." "Secularists" cite Thomas Jefferson's "wall" in their fight to exclude God from public life, proposing to ban creches at city hall, Christmas carols in public schools, graduation prayers at colleges and grace over meals at military academies -- as well as the more than 4,000 stone and concrete testaments to the Ten Commandments across the country ("Religion under a secular assault").
    God save us from the secular extremists who disregard America's religious history and shamelessly quote Thomas Jefferson out of context. Especially those on the United States Supreme Court.
    Jefferson did write of a "wall of separation between church and state," but he did not believe that governmental property could not be used for religious purposes.
    Two days after writing his reassuring "wall" letter to a small religious group in Connecticut that feared the kind of governmental persecution that "wall" was intended to prevent, President Jefferson began attending nondenominational church services in the House of Representatives on Sundays.
    Thepodium of the speaker of the House was used by the minister conducting the service. When James Madison became president, he too attended the regular religious services in the Capitol. Atheists were not to be forced to participate in religious practices, but God and religion were not to be banned in the public square and on public property.
    The message atop the Washington Monument, once the world's tallest structure, is Latin for ... praise God.

    MICHAEL J. GAYNOR
    Greenlawn, N.Y.

The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, credits bans on abortion as galvanizing him to vigorously oppose religious viewpoints having any place at the table of American democracy ("Why Bush threatens secularism," Page, 1, Thursday). As he phrases it, policies dictating "what rights a woman has to make an intimate moral decision on her own" triggered his worry that "religious decisions that guide our country's policy" cause damage to the fabric of our nation.
    Strange that he should view the matter that way. Religious decisions also guide our country's policy against first-degree murder, an act involving "intimate moral decisions" by those who commit homicide.
    It would certainly damage the country's fabric were government to condone murder. Mr. Lynn has expressed no qualms with this aspect of policy. Yet he condones one form of taking a life (abortion), but opposes another form of taking a life (murder).
    Still, a murder analogy may be too harsh. Some argue abortion is a "compassionate" means of terminating babies with birth defects who otherwise would suffer hardship and diminished quality of life.
    Let's stipulate this point -- though data show most abortions are elective rather than medically necessary. Are we then to say people living lives of hardship and diminished quality ought to be terminated? (Americans United objected to congressional action in the Terri Schiavo matter, so Mr. Lynn's organization appears to be in the vanguard of the march down that road.)
    It seems religion, per se, is not what causes Mr. Lynn angst, but rather religion's (or, specifically, Christianity's) opposition to his apparent views regarding "inconvenient" lives.
    Not all moral systems are equally valid or desirable. Our government is charged with defending the common good, not every perversity. Sixty years ago, we won a war against a country that believed some lives were unworthy of living. Our country is now fighting another war, again over the question of which lives are worthy of living. That is why life-affirming religion must continue to inform our government's policy and why Americans United opposes it.

    SCOTT A. BYRD
    Vienna
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O050421Md   Steele competitive in Senate race, survey finds

BALTIMORE (AP) -- Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele would run a close race against any of three prominent Democrats to fill Maryland's open U.S. Senate seat in 2006, a new poll shows.
    In a matchup against Mr. Steele, U.S. Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin would fare better than former NAACP head Kweisi Mfume and Rep. Chris Van Hollen, edging Mr. Steele by four percentage points. Against the other two Democrats, Mr. Steele, a Republican, was in a statistical tie in the telephone poll conducted April 11 to 13 by Potomac Survey Research for the Baltimore Sun.
    "He's a political force to be reckoned with," Keith Haller, president of Potomac Survey Research, said of Mr. Steele. "You're looking at him against the most-known Democratic leaders, and he's still going toe-to-toe against them at this point."
    If the Democratic primary were held now, the poll shows Mr. Mfume would have a narrow lead over Mr. Cardin and a large edge over Mr. Van Hollen.
    Mr. Mfume is the only major candidate who has declared for the opening created by Democrat Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes' decision not to seek another term. But Mr. Cardin, whose district straddles the Baltimore city-Baltimore County line, and Mr. Van Hollen, of Montgomery County, have made clear their interest.
    Steele spokeswoman Reagan Hopper said the lieutenant governor is considering the race seriously but hasn't made a decision.
    The poll sampled 1,000 likely voters and has a margin of error of 3.2 percentage points. Questions about the Democratic primary for Senate are based on a smaller sample and have a ma