« March 2007 | Main | May 2007 »

April 30, 2007

Leaders should ask more of us to sacrifice for the common good

April 30, 2007

The presidential election is more than 18 months away, and already the poor have been set aside.

The Republicans will fight to keep President Bush's tax cuts, and the leading Democratic contenders say only households with incomes over $200,000 or $250,000 should be asked for greater financial sacrifices for the common good.

Once again, no political leaders have the courage to say the obvious: Any real effort to provide universal health care or decent public education and First World infant mortality rates in poorer areas will require all of us to give more of our time, talent and treasures.

We should be having great moral debates about what our responsibility as one of the most powerful and wealthiest nations in the world should be in terms of increasing aid to developing countries. How much more should we be doing to provide clean drinking water, immunizations for deadly diseases and economic opportunities for people living on the edge of starvation?

Yet our two major political parties will talk more about balancing the budget than addressing the massive social needs within our country.

A report in last Saturday's New York Times reveals how far Democrats have moved from the New Deal and the War on Poverty.

The major tax cuts approved in President Bush's administration are to end in 2010, but John Edwards is the only leading Democratic candidate who has said he will not wait before repealing them for households with incomes of more than $200,000, about the top 3 percent of the population.

Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign said she would let the cuts expire for households earning more than $200,000, while Sen. Barack Obama would let the tax cuts expire for households earning more than $250,000. Sen. Joseph Biden Jr. would let them expire for only the top 1 percent of earners, campaign officials told The Times.

The big lie is that the candidates are doing this for middle- and low-income voters.

The estimated median household income is $24,100 for Cleveland, $39,750 for Cuyahoga County and $46,240 for the nation, according to the Census Bureau's 2005 American Community Survey. This is the heart of middle-income America.

The truth is that the Democratic candidates are asking only a minuscule percentage of Americans, few enough to have value as a political punching bag but not great enough to swing electoral votes, to take responsibility for meeting social needs.

Forget for a moment that extending the tax cuts for families that earn less than $200,000 is projected by one nonprofit research group to cost about $900 billion over the next decade.

We will never have the political will to take on issues such as universal health care if we say it is the responsibility of only the top 1 percent to 3 percent of the nation's wealthiest individuals.

It is not the American way to ask only a few to do the work most of us can do. As we measure a society by how it treats its neediest citizens, so must we measure ourselves in terms of our contributions -- personal and financial -- to the common good.

So call candidates on their claims that they are protecting low- and middle-income Americans when they refuse even to rescind tax cuts to households with incomes more than four or five times the national median.

These candidates are trying to avoid alienating most upper-class voters, and denying many of us the opportunity to become our own Greatest Generation that will take the moral responsibility to our neighbors here and abroad seriously.

What is more shameful: that politicians choose to appeal to our base instincts by promising everything will be all right without any additional sacrifice on our part, or that we choose to believe them?

How little we know about religion

April 30, 2007

It has been a season of consternation about the religious illiteracy of America. Prompting fresh knowledge of our ignorance is Stephen Prothero's new book, Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know — And Doesn’t . The book cites research showing that even Christians are poorly acquainted with the Bible. Familiar with Benjamin Franklin's aphorism "God helps those who help themselves"? Three-quarters of us, Prothero reports, wrongly believe it comes from the Bible. Only one-half of us can name one of the four gospels of the New Testament. (For the record, they are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.) Only a third can identify who delivered the Sermon on the Mount. (Answer: Jesus.)

The worry about religious illiteracy is well justified given the powerful influence of faith on American culture and politics. So it's understandable that we're also witnessing a renewed determination to teach about religion in public schools. The Georgia Legislature has approved a law allowing the teaching of the Bible in public schools. According to a recent Time cover story endorsing Bible instruction, public-school courses on the Bible, while far from numerous, are increasingly popular around the country.

That's all well and good, provided the curricula and instructors respect the crucial difference between promoting religion and teaching about religion. But here's a suggestion that will test our seriousness about developing religious literacy in this country. Let's also teach about Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism and the world's other major religions. Especially, let's teach students about Islam.

Out of sight in Oregon

The necessity of learning about the world's second most-popular religion was driven home for me on a recent visit to a small Muslim K-8 school in Oregon, operated by the Muslim Educational Trust. I initially noticed the conspicuous absence of an address — even a city — on the school's website. Upon arrival, I was struck again by the school's deliberate obscurity: Tucked behind a fence, it bore no sign and gave no indication whatsoever that students and teachers (many of them Caucasian, incidentally) were busy at work behind its non-descript white walls.

You can guess the reason why the school keeps its profile low. Islam is reviled in many quarters, equated with terrorism and iron-clad theocracy. Muslims and their mosques have been the targets of occasional violence and vandalism since the 9/11 attacks, and polling data show that nearly half the American public harbors negative views of Islam.

Muslims and their faith are also on the receiving end of some harsh rhetorical attacks. Consider evangelical Christian leader Franklin Graham and his notorious post-9/11 comments about Islam — a "very evil and wicked religion," in the estimation of Graham, the son of the revered evangelist Billy Graham and the man who delivered the invocation at President Bush's first inauguration. Also joining in the tarring-and-feathering of Islam is author Craig Winn, who has argued that the war on terror should be reconceived as the war on Islam because, as Winn sees it, terrorism is not a misapplication of the Muslim faith but its truest expression.

Awash in these negative images of Islam, I found it fascinating to see a different face of Islam as I toured the Oregon school and listened to Wajdi Said, the executive director of the Muslim Educational Trust. Said, who has lived in this country for almost 20 years, contends that Americans dwell in near-complete ignorance of Islam, especially what it teaches about relations with other religions.

"The Islamic faith accepts the marriage of Muslims to Christians and Jews," Said points out. In fact, Said adds, Islam's history with other faiths hasn't always been adversarial. Just the opposite, he says.

"Christianity and Judaism flourished under the protection of Muslim leaders through most of our history. We have a great history, and a great faith that accepts everybody. We need to educate Americans about the loving and caring face of Islam," Said says.

Unfortunately for Said and his colleagues, it's a different face of the religion we tend to see in the West today — Islamic fundamentalists committing violence in the name of their faith and supposed followers of the prophet shouting their hatred of "infidels." The emergence of al-Qaeda and its leader, Osama bin Laden, only reinforces the dangerous face of Islam. The slaying of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh. Riots over the publishing of the prophet Mohammed cartoons. The list goes on. Scholars and pundits may debate the scriptural legitimacy of these expressions of the Muslim faith. But there's no denying Islam's image problem in the West.

How to counter that with appreciation for the hundreds of millions of Muslims who go about their business and religious practice in peace? It all points back to education. Thankfully, many U.S. colleges and universities have programs in Islamic studies and Arabic-language instruction. But while higher education is responding to the national need, "we have a long way to go" when it comes to teaching about Islam in America's public schools, says Charles Haynes, who directs public education programs for the Freedom Forum's First Amendment Center in Arlington, Va. Teaching effectively about the Muslim faith, according to Haynes, has become all the more difficult post-9/11, in part because of conservative political pressure.

From a practical standpoint, teaching about Islam offers compelling benefits for effective military and diplomatic strategy. The world is "aflame in faith," as Yale University professor Jon Butler has written. The men and women of the U.S. military tend to know little about religions other than their own, Butler notes, "yet they have been asked to fight wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq over the past 15 years in which religion has stood at the very center of each conflict."

A hopeful view of the world

Call it extreme optimism, but it is my hope that greater understanding of the world's religions could eventually make the military argument moot. Understanding can lead us away from seeing only the worst in our ostensible "enemies," and away from the religion-fueled violence that scars our time. Maybe hope can be drawn from a change that's about to happen at Said's school. Anti-Muslim sentiment has calmed to the point where he feels he can finally mount a sign at the small campus, and he is moving ahead with plans to do precisely that.

Is it true that "Islam is peace"? That's as over-simplified as saying Islam is inherently violent. In truth, the essence of Islam is a complex and contested issue. Much the same could be said about Christianity.

Yes, let's teach our students about the Bible. But if we're going to offer the kind of education that can make a difference in our divided world, let's not stop there. Let's make sure our students go into the world with some understanding of the Quran.

Tom Krattenmaker, who lives in Portland, Ore., specializes in religion in public life and is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.

Democrats hit Southern stride

April 29, 2007

COLUMBIA, S.C. — The Democrats' appetite for an increased share of the political pie in 2008 was on full display this weekend, and never more than at Rep. Jim Clyburn's annual fish fry here.

Even the presidential field's most seasoned candidate was struck by the Southern spectacle of it all.

"I've been all over the world. I've been to all kinds of political events," Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York conceded. "I can honestly say I've never seen anything like Jim Clyburn's fish fry, ever."

Some 4,000 of the party faithful jammed the first floor of a municipal parking deck for the fish fry Friday night, the highlight of four days of strenuous presidential campaigning in the state that ended Saturday.

Vying for the backing of Clyburn — the House majority whip and top-ranking black member of Congress — as well as the support of his constituents, they made mini-stump speeches before sampling the fried filet of whiting, served with peach and pepper sauce and white bread, just the way the influential congressman likes it.

"There's star power on that stage," Georgean McConnell said of the six Democratic presidential candidates sharing the tiny stage with Clyburn at the fish fry Friday night. She should know. For most of her adult life, McConnell worked as the secretary for the late James Brown, the Godfather of Soul.

Clyburn's fish fry was just one of many opportunities during the past four days that grass-roots Democrats in the Palmetto State got for up-close looks at their party's presidential field: the MSNBC debate, the Jefferson-Jefferson dinner, the state convention and town hall meetings from Charleston to Greenville.

And unlike state Republicans, who are uneasy with their field of 10 candidates, the Democrats here like their choices for a presidential nominee. They even think their next nominee can be competitive in the general election in South Carolina, one of the most reliably Republican states in presidential voting during the last three decades.

State GOP officials scoff at such a notion. Democrats have "about as much chance [of winning South Carolina in a general election] as we have of carrying Massachusetts," South Carolina Republican Party Chairman Katon Dawson told reporters.

Even so, the timing of South Carolina's 2008 presidential primary — it is Jan. 29, part of the first wave of voting along with Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada — and the diversity of its candidates (the field includes the first woman and the first African-American with a good shot at being elected) have given new energy to the South Carolina Democratic Party.

Forty-nine percent of the voters in the state's Democratic presidential primary in 2004 were African-American. And that percentage is likely to be even higher in 2008, with Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois seeking the party's nomination.

Obama has the support of McConnell, also an African-American. "If he doesn't win, what do we end up with? Another white man," she said.

Or maybe a woman.

"My choice would be a Clinton-Obama ticket," said Mary James Brown, who cares for Alzheimer's patients in Columbia. "That would really change things at the White House. It would bring a different perspective and a different complexion."

Brown commented at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner while posing in front of a full-sized door set up to advertise Clinton's campaign. The address on the door was "1600" and the name on it was "Madam President."

More than 1,000 attended the Jefferson-Jackson dinner, and more than 3,000 delegates and alternates were on hand Saturday for the state Democratic Party's annual convention. Four years ago, the state convention drew 2,000 delegates and alternates.

"People are coming out of the woodwork," Gayle Phillips of Gafney, chairwoman of the Cherokee County Democratic Party, said at the convention. "Even some closet Democrats are coming out of the Republican closet.

"It's our candidates, but it's also George Bush. They think he's done a terrible job," said Phillips, who supports former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.

Also, there may be a backlash to the Republican Party's alliance with religious conservatives, said Chris Rhodenbaugh, an 18-year-old Catholic from Spartanburg who was at the convention handing out bumper stickers reading, "I Am A Christian And A Democrat."

"Democrats are too often labeled as not welcoming to religious people," said Rhodenbaugh, who will be a freshman at Notre Dame this fall. "But the Democrats are all about giving and respecting individuals, and that is what Christianity is all about."

Jack Bass, a professor at the College of Charleston and a longtime historian of Southern politics, said South Carolina is "a red state, but it's getting pinker."

"I don't want to suggest that the Democrats are about to take over in this state, but there's new energy."

Polls show Clinton and Obama in the lead in South Carolina with Edwards, who won the 2004 primary and eventually became the party's vice presidential nominee, running third.

But at the fish fry, the applause registered loudest for Obama, and the crowd surged around him as he made his way to the stage to join Clyburn, Clinton, Edwards, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico.

"This is one of the most exciting fields we've ever had in the Democratic Party," Clyburn said.

Clyburn, who has close ties to labor, in the last presidential election supported Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri. And while Clyburn did not tip his hand on his favorite for the 2008 nomination, he had a special comment in introducing Obama to the crowd.

"Someone asked me whether or not I thought an African-American could be elected president of the United States," Clyburn said, "and what I said to them was this: I don't know but I know this — you can't win if you don't run."

A Candidate, His Minister and the Search for Faith

April 30, 2007

CHICAGO — Members of Trinity United Church of Christ squeezed into a downtown hotel ballroom in early March to celebrate the long service of their pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. One congregant stood out amid the flowers and finery: Senator Barack Obama, there to honor the man who led him from skeptic to self-described Christian.

Twenty years ago at Trinity, Mr. Obama, then a community organizer in poor Chicago neighborhoods, found the African-American community he had sought all his life, along with professional credibility as a community organizer and an education in how to inspire followers. He had sampled various faiths but adopted none until he met Mr. Wright, a dynamic pastor who preached Afrocentric theology, dabbled in radical politics and delivered music-and-profanity-spiked sermons.

Few of those at Mr. Wright’s tribute in March knew of the pressures that Mr. Obama’s presidential run was placing on the relationship between the pastor and his star congregant. Mr. Wright’s assertions of widespread white racism and his scorching remarks about American government have drawn criticism, and prompted the senator to cancel his delivery of the invocation when he formally announced his candidacy in February.

Mr. Obama, a Democratic presidential candidate who says he was only shielding his pastor from the spotlight, said he respected Mr. Wright’s work for the poor and his fight against injustice. But “we don’t agree on everything,” Mr. Obama said. “I’ve never had a thorough conversation with him about all aspects of politics.”

It is hard to imagine, though, how Mr. Obama can truly distance himself from Mr. Wright. The Christianity that Mr. Obama adopted at Trinity has infused not only his life, but also his campaign. He began his presidential announcement with the phrase “Giving all praise and honor to God,” a salutation common in the black church. He titled his second book, “The Audacity of Hope,” after one of Mr. Wright’s sermons, and often talks about biblical underdogs, the mutual interests of religious and secular America, and the centrality of faith in public life.

The day after the party for Mr. Wright, Mr. Obama stood in an A.M.E. church pulpit in Selma, Ala., and cast his candidacy in nothing short of biblical terms, implicitly comparing himself to Joshua, known for his relative inexperience, steadfast faith and completion of Moses’ mission of delivering his people to the Promised Land.

“Be strong and have courage, for I am with you wherever you go,” Mr. Obama said in paraphrasing God’s message to Joshua.

It is difficult to tell whether Mr. Obama’s religious and political beliefs are fused or simply run parallel. The junior senator from Illinois often talks of faith as a moral force essential for solving America’s vexing problems. Like Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and John Edwards, his fellow Democratic candidates, he expresses both a political and a religious obligation to help the downtrodden. Like conservative Christians, he speaks of AIDS as a moral crisis. And like his pastor, Mr. Obama opposes the Iraq war.

His embrace of faith was a sharp change for a man whose family offered him something of a crash course in comparative religion but no belief to call his own. “He comes from a very secular, skeptical family,” said Jim Wallis, a Christian antipoverty activist and longtime friend of Mr. Obama. “His faith is really a personal and an adult choice. His is a conversion story.”

The grandparents who helped raise Mr. Obama were nonpracticing Baptists and Methodists. His mother was an anthropologist who collected religious texts the way others picked up tribal masks, teaching her children the inspirational power of the common narratives and heroes.

His mother’s tutelage took place mostly in Indonesia, in the household of Mr. Obama’s stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, a nominal Muslim who hung prayer beads over his bed but enjoyed bacon, which Islam forbids.

“My whole family was Muslim, and most of the people I knew were Muslim,” said Maya Soetoro-Ng, Mr. Obama’s younger half sister. But Mr. Obama attended a Catholic school and then a Muslim public school where the religious education was cursory. When he was 10, he returned to his birthplace of Hawaii to live with his grandparents and attended a preparatory school with a Christian affiliation but little religious instruction.

Years later, Mr. Obama met his father’s family, a mix of Muslim and Christian Kenyans. Sarah Hussein Obama, who is his stepgrandmother but whom Mr. Obama calls his grandmother, still rises at 5 a.m. to pray before tending to her crops and the three orphans she has taken in.

“I am a strong believer of the Islamic faith,” Ms. Obama, 85, said in a recent interview in Kenya.

From Skepticism to Belief

This polyglot background made Mr. Obama tolerant of others’ faiths yet reluctant to join one, said Mr. Wright, the pastor. In an interview in March in his office, filled with mementos from his 35 years at Trinity, Mr. Wright recalled his first encounters with Mr. Obama in the late 1980s, when the future senator was organizing Chicago neighborhoods. Though minister after minister told Mr. Obama he would be more credible if he joined a church, he was not a believer.

“I remained a reluctant skeptic, doubtful of my own motives, wary of expedient conversion, having too many quarrels with God to accept a salvation too easily won,” he wrote in his first book, “Dreams From My Father.”

Still, Mr. Obama was entranced by Mr. Wright, whose sermons fused analysis of the Bible with outrage at what he saw as the racism of everything from daily life in Chicago to American foreign policy. Mr. Obama had never met a minister who made pilgrimages to Africa, welcomed women leaders and gay members and crooned Teddy Pendergrass rhythm and blues from the pulpit. Mr. Wright was making Trinity a social force, initiating day care, drug counseling, legal aid and tutoring. He was also interested in the world beyond his own; in 1984, he traveled to Cuba to teach Christians about the value of nonviolent protest and to Libya to visit Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, along with the Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. Mr. Wright said his visits implied no endorsement of their views.

Followers were also drawn simply by Mr. Wright’s appeal. Trinity has 8,500 members today, making it the largest American congregation in the United Church of Christ, a mostly white denomination known for the independence of its congregations and its willingness to experiment with traditional Protestant theology.

Mr. Wright preached black liberation theology, which interprets the Bible as the story of the struggles of black people, whom by virtue of their oppression are better able to understand Scripture than those who have suffered less. That message can sound different to white audiences, said Dwight Hopkins, a professor at University of Chicago Divinity School and a Trinity member. “Some white people hear it as racism in reverse,” Dr. Hopkins said, while blacks hear, “Yes, we are somebody, we’re also made in God’s image.”

Audacity and Hope

It was a 1988 sermon called “The Audacity to Hope” that turned Mr. Obama, in his late 20s, from spiritual outsider to enthusiastic churchgoer. Mr. Wright in the sermon jumped from 19th-century art to his own youthful brushes with crime and Islam to illustrate faith’s power to inspire underdogs. Mr. Obama was seeing the same thing in public housing projects where poor residents sustained themselves through sheer belief.

In “Dreams From My Father,” Mr. Obama described his teary-eyed reaction to the minister’s words. “Inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion’s den, Ezekiel’s field of dry bones,” Mr. Obama wrote. “Those stories — of survival, and freedom, and hope — became our story, my story.”

Mr. Obama was baptized that year, and joining Trinity helped him “embrace the African-American community in a way that was whole and profound,” said Ms. Soetoro, his half sister.

It also helped give him spiritual bona fides and a new assurance. Services at Trinity were a weekly master class in how to move an audience. When Mr. Obama arrived at Harvard Law School later that year, where he fortified himself with recordings of Mr. Wright’s sermons, he was delivering stirring speeches as a student leader in the classic oratorical style of the black church.

But he developed a tone very different from his pastor’s. In contrast with Mr. Wright — the kind of speaker who could make a grocery list sound like a jeremiad — Mr. Obama speaks with cool intellect and on-the-one-hand reasoning. He tends to emphasize the reasonableness of all people; Mr. Wright rallies his parishioners against oppressors.

While Mr. Obama stated his opposition to the Iraq war in conventional terms, Mr. Wright issued a “War on Iraq I.Q. Test,” with questions like, “Which country do you think poses the greatest threat to global peace: Iraq or the U.S.?”

In the 16 years since Mr. Obama returned to Chicago from Harvard, Mr. Wright has presided over his wedding ceremony, baptized his two daughters and dedicated his house, while Mr. Obama has often spoken at Trinity’s panels and debates. Though the Obamas drop in on other congregations, they treat Trinity as their spiritual home, attending services frequently. The church’s Afrocentric focus makes Mr. Obama a figure of particular authenticity there, because he has the African connections so many members have searched for.

To the many members who, like the Obamas, are the first generation in their families to achieve financial success, the church warns against “middleclassness,” its term for selfish individualism, and urges them to channel their gains back into the community.

Mr. Obama has written that when he became a Christian, he “felt God’s spirit beckoning” and “submitted myself to His will and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.” While he has said he shares core Christian beliefs in God and in Jesus as his resurrected son, he sometimes mentions doubts. In his second book, he admitted uncertainty about the afterlife, and “what existed before the Big Bang.” Generally, Mr. Obama emphasizes the communal aspects of religion over the supernatural ones.

Bridging Religious Divides

He has said that he relies on Mr. Wright to ensure “that I am speaking as truthfully about what I believe as possible.” He tends to turn to his minister at moments of frustration, Mr. Wright said, such as when Mr. Obama felt a Congressional Black Caucus meeting was heavier on entertainment than substance.

As a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama is reaching out to both liberal skeptics and committed Christians. In many speeches or discussions, he never mentions religion. When Mr. Obama, a former constitutional law professor, does speak of faith, he tends to add a footnote about keeping church and state separate.

But he also talks of building a consensus among secular liberal and conservative Christian voters. Mr. Wallis, the antipoverty advocate who calls himself a “progressive evangelical,” first met Mr. Obama 10 years ago when both participated in traveling seminars on American civic life. On bus rides, Mr. Wallis and Mr. Obama would huddle, away from company like George Stephanopoulos and Ralph Reed, to plot building a coalition of progressive and religious voters.

“The problems of poverty and racism, the uninsured and the unemployed, are not simply technical problems in search of the perfect 10 point plan,” Mr. Obama says in one of his standard campaign lines. “They are rooted in both societal indifference and individual callousness — in the imperfections of man.”

He often makes reference to the civil rights movement, when liberals used Christian rhetoric to win change.

Mr. Obama reassures liberal audiences about the role of religion in public life, and he tells conservative Christians that he understands why abortion horrifies them and why they may prefer to curb H.I.V. through abstinence instead of condoms. AIDS has spread in part because “the relationship between men and women, between sexuality and spirituality, has broken down, and needs to be repaired,” he said to thunderous applause in December at the megachurch in California led by the Rev. Rick Warren, a best-selling author.

At the same time, Mr. Obama’s ties to Trinity have become more complicated than those simply of proud congregation and favorite son. Since Mr. Obama announced his candidacy, the church has received threatening phone calls. On blogs and cable news shows, conservative critics have called it separatist and antiwhite.

Congregants respond by saying critics are misreading the church’s tenets, that it is a warm and accepting community and is not hostile to whites. But Mr. Wright’s political statements may be more controversial than his theological ones. He has said that Zionism has an element of “white racism.” (For its part, the Anti-Defamation League says it has no evidence of any anti-Semitism by Mr. Wright.)

On the Sunday after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Mr. Wright said the attacks were a consequence of violent American policies. Four years later he wrote that the attacks had proved that “people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West went on its merry way of ignoring Black concerns.”

Provocative Assertions

Such statements involve “a certain deeply embedded anti-Americanism,” said Michael Cromartie, vice president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative group that studies religious issues and public policy. “A lot of people are going to say to Mr. Obama, are these your views?”

Mr. Obama says they are not.

“The violence of 9/11 was inexcusable and without justification,” he said in a recent interview. He was not at Trinity the day Mr. Wright delivered his remarks shortly after the attacks, Mr. Obama said, but “it sounds like he was trying to be provocative.”

“Reverend Wright is a child of the 60s, and he often expresses himself in that language of concern with institutional racism and the struggles the African-American community has gone through,” Mr. Obama said. “He analyzes public events in the context of race. I tend to look at them through the context of social justice and inequality.”

Despite the canceled invocation, Mr. Wright prayed with the Obama family just before his presidential announcement. Asked later about the incident, the Obama campaign said in a statement, “Senator Obama is proud of his pastor and his church.”

In March, Mr. Wright said in an interview that his family and some close associates were angry about the canceled address, for which they blamed Obama campaign advisers but that the situation was “not irreparable.” adding, “Several things need to happen to fix it.”

Asked if he and Mr. Wright had patched up their differences, he said: “Those are conversations between me and my pastor.”

Mr. Wright, who has long prided himself on criticizing the establishment, said he knew that he may not play well in Mr. Obama’s audition for the ultimate establishment job.

“If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me,” Mr. Wright said with a shrug. “I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen.”

Reuben Kyama contributed reporting from Nyangoma-Kogelo, Kenya.

A question of faith, politics: Mitt Romney's values shared by many faiths, son says

April 30, 2007

This political season, there's been a lot of talk about Republican Presidential contender Mitt Romney's Mormon faith -- very little of it by the candidate himself.

Taggart Romney, the eldest of the former Massachusetts governor's five sons and a senior aide on the campaign, last week said he doesn't expect a PBS documentary, "The Mormons," that airs this week will have much of an impact on the Presidential campaign.

"What we've found is as people get to know him and who he is, the question of what church he belongs to fades in the background," Romney said.

But doesn't one's faith informs one's politics?

"I think what's relevant are what his values are, and certainly someone's faith helps shape their values, but the values that he holds near and dear to his heart are not unique to the Mormon faith," Romney replied. "They're shared by many faiths: love of God, love of family, love of country, honesty, hard work.

"Those are the values that are important to him and the values he'd bring into office with him."

Romney is not the only member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to have achieved political prominence.

According to The Associated Press, there are 15 current members of Congress who are LDS church members. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is the first Mormon to hold that office.

Here in New Hampshire, Democrat Katrina Swett of Bow, the wife of former congressman and ambassador Dick Swett, is running for the U.S. Senate seat held by John Sununu. A convert to the LDS Church, she last week declined to discuss her faith for this story.

Swett did say members of her sister's family, also Mormon converts, were interviewed for "The Mormons" documentary, but she doesn't know if they made the final film. Noting the four-hour program is by respected filmmaker Helen Whitney, who previously did a biographical film about Pope John Paul II, Swett said she expects it to be "very interesting."

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was born in the hills of upstate New York in 1830, a place and time period when spiritualism was flourishing.

From this fertile religious ground came the followers of Joseph Smith, who as a teenager claimed visions of God the Father and the Son, visits by angels and divine revelations. In the early decades of their history, church members, who became known as Mormons, were persecuted and nearly extinguished. But today, they claim nearly 13 million believers worldwide.

Taggart Romney said his father is "considering" making a speech akin to John F. Kennedy's 1960 declaration that, as a Roman Catholic, he would not take orders from Rome were he to be elected President. But Romney said, "At this point I don't know that he needs to do that."

Meanwhile, while pundits are fond of grouping people into religious voting blocs -- the purported Jewish vote, Catholic vote or evangelical vote -- it's not at all clear that his fellow Mormons automatically will vote for Mitt Romney.

David Bresnahan of Wakefield, a former journalist and public relations expert, who is an LDS member, dismisses the notion of a uniform Mormon voting bloc. "There's as much of a division between Democrats and Republicans within the Mormons as there are within any group of people," he said.

"So I think that there is as much of a need for a politician to inform a Mormon as a Catholic or a born-again Christian or anybody else," he said. "If you want their vote, you're going to need to get them to vote for you because of what you stand for and the policies you espouse."

And Bresnahan said, "I don't think a Mormon is going to vote for a Mormon just because they're Mormon."

Taggart Romney noted his father's faith was an issue early in his campaign for governor, but by the end of his tenure in that job, no one even discussed it anymore. Likewise, he predicted, in the Presidential campaign, "At the end of the day, people won't decide to vote for him or not vote for him based on his religion."

Bresnahan said Romney's candidacy is bringing the same kind of public spotlight to the LDS church as the 2002 Olympics held in Salt Lake City -- for which Romney served as CEO and president of the organizing committee.

He said most church members view that attention as positive, "because it helps people to ask questions and to want to know about us -- not because they want to become a Mormon but because they want to understand us."

"And that's all Mormons want, is for people to say, 'Yes, we understand.'"

The documentary "The Mormons" airs on Channel 2 tonight and Tuesday at 9 p.m., and on Channel 11 Wednesday and Thursday at 9 p.m. For more information about the church, visit www.mormon.org

A Holy-Roller Democrat

April 29, 2007

John Arthur Eaves baptized three of his four sons in the Jordan River, an event he highlights in a radio campaign ad. The candidate for governor of Mississippi thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned, calls for reintroducing school prayer and wants limits on riverboat gambling -- all hot-button issues among evangelical pastors. A baby-faced trial lawyer with a flair for self-promotion, Eaves is employing the same tried-and-true campaign tactics as many Republicans running in the South, the Midwest and other culturally conservative parts of the country.

But Eaves isn't just any old run-of-the-mill evangelical candidate -- he's a Democrat. And he's challenging not just any first-term governor, but Haley Barbour, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee and a Goliath in the GOP, with possible designs on the White House.

At stake is more than the governor's mansion in Jackson, but arguably the future of the national Democratic Party. That's because Democrats have almost completely lost their grip on the South, with the number of Southern Democratic U.S. senators dwindling from 20 in 1980 to five today. In the past two presidential elections, the Democratic ticket lost every Southern state. And despite Democratic Senate pickups in the so-called Upper South states of Missouri and Virginia in 2006, competitive statewide races that year in Tennessee and Florida went to Republicans. A win by Eaves "would be a shot across the bow to the Republican Party that Democrats can compete in the South again," says Mike Mikus, Eaves's chief campaign strategist.

But an Eaves victory would also be a shot across the bow to the Democrats' liberal base, raising the question of how far the party is willing to go in jettisoning its support for abortion rights, gay rights and a high wall of separation between church and state for a chance at electoral success. Eaves's campaign asks: Just how big should the Democrats' tent be?

The political calculus behind Eaves's candidacy is simple. By neutralizing the traditional GOP advantage on social issues, Democrats hope to focus on economic issues, where, particularly in poverty-stricken Mississippi, they believe they have the upper hand. Eaves, a graduate of Ole Miss and now a wealthy lawyer whose dirty-blond mane is a fixture in legal ads across the state, is an unabashed populist. He supports universal health care, large increases in public school funding and a so-called living wage. He attacks Barbour for opposing a "tax swap" that would slash the grocery tax and raise the tobacco tax and for pushing 50,000 low-income residents off state Medicaid rolls.

Eaves roots his populism in the same evangelical Christianity as his social positions. "A lot of people ask me, 'How are you a Democrat and a Christian?' " he says in his Jackson office, festooned with photos from his 1996 trip to Israel to baptize his sons. "And I say, 'Because I'm a Christian, I'm a Democrat.' Christ healed the sick, reached out to the poor and came to tell us the truth, which today would translate into support for health care and education. Christ came to help people, and I believe that's the role of the Democratic Party."

Eaves, whose father also ran -- unsuccessfully -- for governor as a Democrat, faces an uphill climb. At 40, he has already lost a bid for Congress and he aborted a 2003 challenge to the then-governor, a Democrat, after just two months. The most recent public polls, released late last year, put Barbour's approval rating at 59 percent. A longtime tobacco lobbyist with strong Republican fundraising ties, Barbour has said he'll raise $13 million for the race.

But Eaves's internal polls show that with the right messaging, Barbour's support could be brought below 50 percent. And in addition to tapping his trial-lawyer network, Eaves is expected to plow some of his own millions into the race. Eaves's most serious challenger for the Democratic nomination dropped out of the race last week; he will now face three others in an August primary.

Eaves appears to represent the next step in the Democratic Party's plan for making inroads among evangelicals and other serious churchgoers. After its 2004 drubbing, when all five retiring Southern Democratic senators were replaced by Republicans, Democrats reached out to "values voters." In 2005, Timothy M. Kaine, the winning Virginia Democratic gubernatorial candidate, reserved his first ads for Christian radio. In 2006, the Democratic Party persuaded a pro-choice candidate in Pennsylvania to drop her Senate bid to clear the field for the ultimately successful Robert P. Casey Jr., an abortion opponent.

But Kaine and Casey weren't outright religious conservatives. Eaves is.

So far, most liberal groups have kept quiet about Eaves, though he says that some Democratic consultants have declined to lend support because of his conservative social views. National liberal groups such as Planned Parenthood say that Eaves is an anomaly and that despite the successful 2006 candidacies of abortion opponents such as Casey in Pennsylvania and Rep. Heath Shuler, a North Carolina Democrat, the party is fielding more pro-choice candidates. They point out that even culturally conservative states such as Montana and Virginia elected pro-choice Democrats to the Senate last November.

But Democrats took back Congress in 2006 because of dissatisfaction over the Iraq war and congressional corruption scandals, not by riding a pro-choice wave. Being tied to the liberal image of the Democratic Party has become such a liability in states such as Mississippi that its lieutenant governor changed parties in 2002, becoming a Republican.

That deterioration of his party's "brand" provoked Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean to pour tens of millions of dollars into resurrecting the party in the reddest states, including Mississippi. Last year, the DNC hired four full-time staff members on behalf of the Mississippi Democratic Party, which formerly had one. And yet Mississippi's old-guard Democratic county chairmen, like those in other red states, keep grousing that a robust party infrastructure is useless without a top-of-the-ticket candidate whom voters can get excited about.

To hear his campaign tell it, that's where Eaves comes in -- as a gregarious savior, leading flocks to the voting booth while he enthuses about Jesus. If Eaves and similar candidates succeed in opening up red states, their strategy could be the Democrats' ticket to winning back the presidency and a commanding majority in Congress.

But Eaves still has to prove that he can win in a state in which white evangelicals, who make up half the electorate, voted for President Bush over Sen. John F. Kerry by 88 percent to 12. And the party's base still has to decide that the cost of such victories isn't too much to bear.

author@thejesusmachine.com


Dan Gilgoff is a senior editor at U.S. News & World Report and author of "The Jesus Machine: How James Dobson, Focus on the Family, and Evangelical America Are Winning the Culture War."

Kentucky Republican campaign playing up piety

April 29, 2007

At first glance, it's hard to tell from the front of the flier whether it's advertising for a church or for Ernie Fletcher's political campaign.

The cover shows a woman and four children with their eyes closed in prayer and two open Bibles on the table.

The words say, "When we teach our children values ... Kentucky wins." As it turns out, the mailing is for Fletcher, who touts his role as a former pastor and his deep religious beliefs. "Governor Fletcher's commitment to his Christian faith is demonstrated in his life. As a pastor of a small church he has helped others understand God's word," the inside of the mailing says.

Religion, last week, emerged as a theme in this Republican primary for governor among Fletcher, former congresswoman Anne Northup and Paducah businessman Billy Harper.

In addition to the mailing, Fletcher early in the week reversed course and is now saying he would consider calling on the legislature to block universities from offering domestic partnership benefits to gay couples because Kentuckians have complained to him that it's against their beliefs.

The mailing, in fact, claims that Fletcher "led the fight to defend marriage" with a constitutional amendment in 2004 that banned gay couples from being married. (Fletcher, however, in 2004 said little on the subject beyond briefly appearing at a rally on the front steps of the Capitol after GOP House members staged a walk-out as part of their efforts to force the Democrats to take a vote on the constitutional amendment.) And Fletcher's TV ads contain a subtle religious theme with a flame and the standard Bible school song "This little light of mine" playing in the background.

Thus the line between personal faith and public politics has been blurred.

"The unholy linking of campaigning and religious piety is exploitative," said the Rev. Albert Pennybacker, the Lexington-based pastor and head of the Clergy Leadership Network. "We've seen personal piety be used for some very bad candidates."

Marty Ryall, Fletcher's campaign manager, disputed the assertion that such an approach is exploitative. "I think the voters have every right to know where a candidate stands on issues, whether it be prayer in school or displaying the Ten Commandments," he said. "There's no line in the sand. Those are issues that matter to voters."

Pennybacker said at one time that was a driving force for many voters. "Now, our folks are smarter than to be manipulated by that," Pennybacker said. "They're going to ask questions about how the caring at the heart of religion informs policy."

Fletcher did serve as lay minister in the early 1990s for a Primitive Baptist Church, which he later left.

"It belongs on his rŽsumŽ but not in a religiously exploitative campaign pamphlet," Pennybacker said.

Also, Fletcher's flier again falsely claimed that the governor turned a $1 billion deficit into a surplus.

The campaign points to a 2003 study by former Gov. Paul Patton that said the state would need $700 million in extra revenue in the coming years to achieve certain goals in lowering university tuition and meeting education and health care needs.

But the budget deficit Fletcher faced when he took office was $262 million. To Fletcher's credit, he did erase that $262 million shortfall.

Fletcher has opened up his lead in the GOP primary, according to the Tarrance Group's poll commissioned by the governor's re-election campaign and made public through the blog, www.conservativeedge. com.

The poll, taken April 23 and 24 among "likely Republican voters," showed Fletcher with 51 percent, Northup with 29 percent and Harper with 7 percent, while 14 percent remain undecided, according to the polling memo. The margin of error is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points. "Even among those Republicans who know both candidates, Fletcher holds a solid 16-point lead over Northup," the memo says.

State Sen. Tom Buford, R-Nicholasville, said this week that he also received those poll results in an e-mail from Fletcher's campaign.

That is a slight change in policy for Fletcher's campaign, which previously in this race and in 2003 kept polling data closely guarded.

Northup's campaign manager, Michael Clingaman, dismissed the poll results as "another fairy tale" from Fletcher, likening it to the governor's "claim of more people at work when Kentucky has dropped to 46th in unemployment."

Clinton's Family Values

April 30, 2007

It's an unusual day when Senator Clinton is criticizing the Bush administration on "family values" and may actually have a point, but the immigration demonstrations scheduled for tomorrow in New York and Los Angeles are designed to highlight one of them. The latest leaks out of the Bush administration indicate that the administration is prepared to pare back some categories of "family unification" visas in connection with the comprehensive immigration reform it has been seeking. Mrs. Clinton last week wrote to Mr. Bush, citing reports that a new administration proposal would "place caps and waiting periods on the parents of U.S. citizens applying for green cards, force all applicants who have been waiting in a family visa backlog to start again and pay a $500 fee, and create a point system that would deny visas to family members based on their schooling and skill levels."

Said Mrs. Clinton, "While we need to attract skilled workers to this country, we should not do so at the expense of our families and communities. If these reports are accurate, your proposal would tear families apart and exact a lasting toll on the lives of citizens and lawful immigrants in this country. Your proposal would separate husbands from wives, and parents from children. Parents would be denied the opportunity to play an active role in raising their own children, and children would grow up not knowing one of their parents…Separating these families is an affront to our nation's rich immigrant heritage and inconsistent with our principles which value the sanctity of families."

She called on the president to reconsider. Our own sense of the president on the immigration issue is that he is a leader in his party, who, left to his own devices, would expand immigration. But Mr. Bush is trying to get a bill past a Congress that, even with a Democratic majority, has resisted liberalizing the immigration laws. Even so, Mr. Bush is a shrewd enough politician that we'd bet he'll be able to see how silly it would be to back any proposal that would allow Mrs. Clinton to attack him as anti-family with even a scintilla of truth to the charge.

We give Mrs. Clinton credit for calling attention to the issue. It is part of a series of actions she has taken in the past week that have lifted our assessment of her. In the presidential debate, she emphasized the importance of a swift military retaliation against terrorists while Senator Obama maundered on about the importance of making sure the disaster response was better than that which greeted Hurricane Katrina. Also last week, she offered a bill aimed at strengthening American economic sanctions on Iran, a country that she nonetheless says America should negotiate with. These are steps in the right direction.

The Amnesty Slideshow

April 30, 2007

We have all seen how presidential candidates shift positions to impress primary voters. It’s usually as measured and boring as dance instruction: O.K. everyone, now dip to the right — or left — then back to center. But on the volatile topic of immigration, Republicans are lurching, falling over themselves to convince voters that where they stand is not where they stood.

The fakery is hard to watch, as it comes at a time when courage and bipartisan realism are critically important. The Iowa maunderings of two candidates in particular — Senators Sam Brownback and John McCain — have complicated the prospects of a bipartisan immigration bill that would affect millions of lives. While its fate is being decided in difficult closed-door negotiations in the Capitol, they and other G.O.P. hopefuls are on the stump, tying themselves in knots over “amnesty” and dancing farther out to the fringes of public opinion.

Mr. Brownback is a right-wing Republican whose religion teaches compassion for the stranger — immigrants, too. He was a co-sponsor of last year’s bipartisan Senate bill. But this year he bailed out of negotiations, and last week disowned his vote for last year’s bill, to the delight of conservatives who scorned him as “Amnesty Sam.”

Mitt Romney is also going through contortions. The Boston Globe posted audio clips of Mr. Romney praising, in 2005, an immigration bill sponsored by Mr. McCain and Senator Edward Kennedy as sensible and “quite different” from amnesty, then dissing it as amnesty in this year’s campaign. Mr. Romney now wallows in the support of Joe Arpaio, the showboating Phoenix sheriff famous for humiliating prisoners and pushing a round-’em-all-up approach.

Rudolph Giuliani has sharply changed his tone. Once a stout defender of immigrants, Mr. Giuliani now talks about sending people to the back of the line and installing “heat-seeking equipment” at the border. He insists that he opposes amnesty, but the “amnesty” he objects to is an “amnesty” nobody is talking about — blanket forgiveness, a free pass to a green card. Once you hear him talking about helping immigrants who pay fines and back taxes, stay out of trouble, learn English and wait in the back of the visa line, it seems clear that he belongs in the comprehensive-reform fold with Mr. Kennedy and others — whether he admits it or not.

Of all the retreats, the most disheartening may be Mr. McCain’s. This former straight talker once lent his name to the most promising immigration bill in Congress. But as Senator Kennedy has struggled to draft a compromise this year, his former partner has been trumpeting border security on the campaign trail and letting momentum for comprehensive reform stall in Washington.

Mr. McCain and his adversaries may believe that primary politics demands such behavior, but surveys of the larger populace tell a different story. Americans want the immigration issue solved, and they strongly favor “amnesty,” whether you call it that or not. An array of recent polls show powerful support for an earned path to citizenship.

“Call it a banana if you want to,” Mr. McCain said of the amnesty debate last year, in a welcome moment of lucidity. If a good bill emerges, it will be because enough lawmakers stayed focused and kept their heads. If the effort collapses, a large share of the blame must go to amnesty-fixated Republicans lost in the fog of the 2008 presidential race.

The face of Islam: Q&A with Ingrid Mattson

April 22, 2007

Ingrid Mattson, a professor of Islamic studies at the Hartford Seminary in Connecticut, was the first woman, the first North American and the first convert to be elected president of the Islamic Society of North America, an umbrella group of student and religious groups across the United States and Canada.

She took office last August and has been busy since attempting to explain her faith to Americans suspicious of Islamic fundamentalism in the post-Sept. 11 era and to women who question Islam's teachings on the role of women in society.

A native of Ontario, Canada, Mattson was raised Roman Catholic and attended Catholic schools but left the church as a 15-year-old. She met Muslims for the first time eight years later while studying in France - and was drawn to their faith. This year marks the 20th anniversary of her conversion.

Now 43, Mattson lives in Hartford with her husband, a 17-year-old daughter and 15-year-old son.

Are you finding a different expression of Islam within North America, as affected by American culture?

There are some things that are maybe different, or the emphasis is a little bit different.

One thing is we have a very diverse community. That's just the demographic reality because Muslims in North America come from all different places. Besides ethnic diversity, that also includes ideological diversity - different schools of thought within Islam.

An imam [Islamic religious leader] in North America has a different role than he does in a Muslim-majority country. In Muslim-majority countries the imam leads prayer and gives religious speeches, gives sermons. In North America, he does a lot of counseling, marriage counseling, helps with families, crisis counseling, and he is the primary point of access for religious knowledge.

You converted to Islam two decades ago. In that time, has it become harder or easier to be a Muslim in North America?

When I became a Muslim my family had no idea of what that meant. They didn't know Islam; they didn't know any Muslims. In fact some of them were confused between Hinduism and Islam. "Do you have to be a vegetarian now, and do cows have a special place ... ?" Yeah, so they had no idea, and my family's educated.

Islam was just not really in the news. There had been the Iranian Islamic revolution by then but it wasn't touching our lives in the way it is now.

That's good and bad. People of good will want to know, out of necessity, what Islam is. Many of them give the benefit of the doubt to Muslims - "I think all Muslims can't be crazy fanatics." They'd like to have some information so they can be good neighbors. ...

I have to say it's worse now because of the Iraq war than directly after Sept. 11. I think that many Americans were willing to look at that as an aberration and saw the terrorists were people outside of the country. They understood the Muslim community here generally was patriotic and vulnerable to scapegoating.

But the constant stream of bad news from Iraq, and the presentation of the violence, especially recently, as being somehow motivated by sectarian differences has led to a greater association between Islam and violence.

When you to add that to the commercial media, entertainment media having developed in response to this all of those shows with Muslim terrorists on and the impact that has on the general American and his or her view of Muslims ... There's a prejudgment, a collective judgment of Muslims, and a suspicion that well "you may appear nice, but we know there are sleeper cells of Americans," which of course is not true. There aren't any sleeper cells. But they're all over TV, and in the movies. There's that veil of suspicion that falls over individual Muslims.

There are no sleeper cells in the world?

In the world, certainly. I'm not in intelligence ... but it's not the reality of American Islam.

It would be interesting to do a count of how many movies and TV shows have shown some ordinary American Muslim family or Muslims and behind the façade of their neighborliness they're really a sleeper cell. But that hasn't happened in the United States. There has not been any in the six years since Sept. 11, and Sept. 11 itself was committed by foreigners, by people who were not in this country at all. That isn't the reality of the Muslim American community.

What's interesting is the government has recognized that. The head of Homeland Security and FBI and other agencies have actually made statements about the Muslim American community being a significant asset and patriotic and if there's any reality of the Muslim American community it's that so many Muslim Americans have signed up to help the government help to protect their country, I mean our country.

They're not hiding in little places plotting terrorist attacks, so there's a huge distortion of the reality there. Are there some criminals or people plotting things, I have no idea. I hope not; it's always a possibility, but certianly not the proper characterization of the Muslim-Americans.

What do non-Muslims need to know about Islam, or fail to understand about Islam?

First of all they need to know that the vast majority of Muslims are not scriptural literalists, or fundamentalists, that they do not read the Koran in the way that the terrorists do, which is a decontextualized way, which is cherry-picking certain sections or certain sections of verses to justify their violence.

The vast majority of Muslims believe that the Koran requires them to live peacefully and compassionately with their neighbors, that the Koran allows Muslims to intermarry with Christians and Jews ... .

The vast majority of Muslims believe these militant extremists are as much a threat to them, if not more so, than to non-Muslims. Their primary target has been Muslim lands and Muslim governments, and more Muslims have died at their hands than non-Muslims, if you put together the violence, their violent attacks against Muslims.

They are a marginalized group. Their reading of the Koran is a historical aberration as well as completely out of the norm among contemporary Muslims.

As a woman who chose this faith, what does Islam offer to women?

Primarily, the same thing it offers men - a beautiful vision of God being a compassionate, merciful presence to which we can turn, that gives meaning in our lives. The Koran is absolutely clear about the spiritual equality of men and women, that women like men must fully as adults establish their own relationship with God through prayer, through acts of charity, but spiritual practices that enhance their awareness of God.

According to some studies, the biggest sore point America has is their perception of how Islam treats women ... for example, the Taliban's treatment of women. ... Even in [Afghanistan] the Taliban were considered an aberration. There are women currently in that very conservative, traditionalist country ... who are doctors, who are judges, who are members of Parliament.

Muslim women throughout the world - like women everywhere else - do have struggles with patriarchy. There's no doubt that patriarchy is a powerful force wherever men and women get together.

American women had to struggle for years for their own enfranchisement, to get the vote, to be able to be accepted as equals. A huge news item of the year is that a woman is running for president. Well, four majority Muslim countries have had a female head of state: Turkey, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Indonesia. So to make it as if America or the West or Christianity for that matter has never had a problem with patriarchy or the unequal empowerment of men over women, that all of these challenges lie with Islam, is absurd.

Muslim women, like women in other parts of the world, do struggle against their religion and their values being used by some individuals and some conservative groups to keep them back, to deprive them of their rights, but that struggle is not unique and there are many men who are standing with women to try to help them secure their rights and to try to prevent the justification of various cultural practices and norms being used to keep women down.

Often it is not the religion; it's certain cultural practices in some societies that are really problematic.

Talk about your decision to wear a hijab.

My understanding of Islam, my reading of the Koran and my reading of the way the Koranic verses on dress have been interpreted over the centuries, I should cover my body in clothes that aren't form-fitting, including my head. ...

I have a number of students who came from Turkey because they were forbidden from wearing head scarf in their universities. Many of them tried to do that for a while, but they felt so like they were really violating their beliefs, that they decided to come study in the United States.

And these are girls, oh my God, they're just adorable. They have a sense of fashion, they have the cutest outfits and these really colorful scarves. Turkey has this kind of fundamentalist secular view and so they're not allowed to wear those. Teachers are not allowed to wear scarves in the schools, any public employee can't wear a scarf, and none of the girls can wear them in their school.

The real problem is the state involvement in the decision, which should be a personal and family decision. It should be natural, natural in the sense that of course we're all influenced by our culture and our family when we choose what we wear in the morning.

I really find the way I look at my scarf is that it's really analogous to sort of appropriate dress in a particular setting.

This isn't why I wear it, but one benefit is that I don't see a lot of descriptions that are just so focused on my appearance. There's so much attention on how they look, their hairstyle. It does allow in a way for people to focus on other things, especially since I'm not a snazzy dresser.

What are your thoughts on the Koranic view on the place of women in worship?

Having done the research, there are all sorts of possibilities open for women as religious leaders. It's one of the reasons I have men and women in my chaplaincy programs, and certainly I lead prayer and I teach men and women.

My understanding of the prophetic practice is that when there is a mixed-gender congregation, that a man will lead - not because men are superior or have an innate ability but just in the way the prayer is formed. That is the way we were taught by the prophet Muhammad, just as he taught us the form of prayer and the timing of prayer. ... It's not an emotional issue; it's an issue of Islamic law.

What are your hopes for your children?

My kids, at their age, they really are the kind of Sept. 11 generation kids. When that happened, one was in middle school, one was in elementary school. It's been such a seminal event in their own consciousness as Muslims ... it puts the kids in an uncomfortable position. They really do feel that people make assumptions about them. Teenagers always feel that way anyway, feel that people are judging them, and certainly as Muslims they feel that people are judging them and making assumptions about them and scrutinizing them, but they have good friends and their friends are diverse, from all religions.

More than anything they're just really nice and open and tolerant kids whose friends reflect the diversity of America. Some of the negative experiences they've received have made both of them very quick to defend anyone they feel is being picked on or unfairly treated, no matter what it's for. ... Both of my kids are kind of like defenders of the oppressed.

Why genocide is difficult to prosecute

April 30, 2007

The Hague

As public consciousness of the grim situation in Darfur grows, the difficulty of prosecuting what is often popularly called genocide is becoming clearer.

For years, the term genocide was used to describe the ultimate crime. But that crime was rarely – if ever – charged, since international courts were too weak.

Now, the mechanics of international justice are modestly rising to confront man's inhumanity to man: take, for example, the International Criminal Court and the Yugoslavia and Rwanda Tribunals here at The Hague.

Yet at the same time, the political sensitivity surrounding a genocide charge, which requires nations to intervene under international law, is creating friction. The cases of Rwanda, Bosnia, and now Darfur demonstrate this.

Sunday, protesters in 35 nations and more than 280 US cities marched against what a UN mission calls "apocalyptic" scenes still emerging from the Darfur war, now spreading from Sudan to Chad. Protest groups, including Amnesty International, called on Britain and the US to help create a peacekeeping force.

So is Darfur a genocide? A US Holocaust Memorial Museum committee and Colin Powell have said it is. So do at least two human rights reports. One French expert, Marc Lavergne, calls it "worse than a genocide" since mass killings are not done out of racial hatred, but because Darfurians are simply "in the way" of Sudan's plans to control land.

Yet many Sudanese experts and an International Criminal Court (ICC) don't term it genocide. They say it doesn't fit the 1948 Geneva Convention definition to win a case. This requires absolute proof of "mental intent" to kill or displace based on national, ethnic, or religious identity. Hence, an ICC prosecutor this winter did not charge a Sudanese interior minister and a rebel Janjaweed militia leader with "genocide," but crimes against humanity.

'An explicit call to action'

The word genocide raises deep legal and moral conundrums in a globalizing world, experts say: The term has gained popular usage in a media age to describe mass atrocities, as in Darfur, Rwanda, Bosnia. Yet prosecutors and world courts are ever more cautious about leveling the charge, even when it may apply – since it raises a requirement to intervene.

"Genocide is an explicit call to action under the 1948 treaty, a call to prevent and punish," says Diane Orentlicher at American University in Washington. Recent court rulings show that "if you wait until there is a legal certainty to prove genocide, you have waited too long," she adds.

That's where politics enter. A party or state charged with genocide will likely be isolated and stigmatized in the global community, perhaps even making the situation worse. This is disputed on Darfur. Some Darfur activists feel Sudan hasn't been charged with genocide because that would make it impossible for governments to deal with Khartoum.

The politics of genocide rose in a ruling on Bosnia this February. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague did not find Serbia guilty of genocide in the ethnic cleansing of Bosnian Muslims in the early 1990s. Rather, it found Serbia culpable in not preventing genocide in the Srebrenica massacre, and awarded no damages.

The ruling outraged scholars like Ruth Wedgwood of Johns Hopkins University who told the Monitor it "appeared to be a posthumous acquittal of [then President] Slobodan Milosevic for genocide. The court didn't look at a pattern of crimes in Bosnia, but selectively picked its evidence."

Early this month it came to light that ICJ judges did not read and did not seek to investigate a huge range of materials from Belgrade that were used as evidence by the UN-sanctioned Yugoslavia Tribunal, just down the street in this city.

New York Times reporter Marlise Simons wrote that the ICJ ruling "raised some eyebrows because aspects of Serbian military involvement are already known from records of earlier [Tribunal] trials.... In late 1993, for instance, more than 1,800 officers and noncommissioned men from the Yugoslav Army were serving in the Bosnian Serb Army, and were deployed, paid, promoted, or retired by Belgrade [and] given dual identities" through a secret office known as the 30th Personnel Center of the General Staff."

ICJ defenders say it is a civil not a criminal court, and that its purpose is to settle disputes between nations to keep amity and peace intact. Critics say the ruling seemed more about conciliation than justice.

"A lot has changed in the past 12 years; the EU is anxious to normalize relations with Serbia," says an American jurist with ties to The Hague, who requested anonymity. "I'm sure there are political pressures. The court probably didn't want to send Serbia back to the 1990s, isolate it, make it a pariah state in perpetuity.... When it came to the legal standard required to prove genocide, the court shrank."

(Serb fugitives Radovan Karadzic and Gen. Ratko Mladic, architects of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, still face genocide charges at the tribunal.)

Tension between peace, justice

UNHCR head Louise Arbour, who as chief prosecutor at the Yugoslav tribunal charged Mr. Milosevic with genocide, told the Monitor that courts should resist politics: "At the end of the day, there's going to be tension between peace and justice. By saying that genocide is a destabilizing charge [to the country accused], you politicize the justice issue," she said. Regarding Darfur, she said, "The UN embraced a responsibility to protect citizens from genocide…. But in Darfur, [head of the ICC investigation Antonio] Cassese looked for three months with a large staff and could find no genocidal intent. He couldn't find a case."

That document, "The 2005 Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the UN Secretary-General," finds that the brutality in Darfur is for "purposes of counter-insurgency warfare."

Yet legal scholar Nsongurua Udombana at Central European University in Budapest, Hungary, states bluntly that the Cassesse report finds no genocide in Darfur – to avoid an obligation to act.

In a closely argued essay, "An Escape from Reason" in the Spring 2006 issue of The International Lawyer, he says Darfur is prima facie far closer to genocide than the report finds.

One conundrum: "It is impossible to determine genocide while it is actually happening," Mr. Udombana says. He adds, "By not calling it a genocide, it appears to make the issue less urgent than it actually is."

Indeed, mass killings can create new on-the-ground dynamics, he suggests: Whether or not precise causes of intent can be determined by outside investigators, still, as rapes and murders continue on their bloody way, war can breed an intent to exterminate on the grounds of group identity.

He agrees with Samantha Powers, author of "The Age of Genocide," that Darfur has spawned a dynamic in which Arabs are killing Africans, and lighter skinned and darker skinned groups are set against each other. He says a confession by a high ranking Sudanese official isn't needed to prove genocidal intent. It can be shown via a common standard of "practice and pattern" of crime.

Two motives in prosecuting

Mr. Lavergne of the National Center for Scientific Research in Paris says prosecuting mass crimes boils down to two often different motives: an effort to change behavior, or an effort to punish. In the midst of a nightmare like Darfur, he says, a genocide charge may not be the best way to change behavior, though he admits the problem is ambiguous.

He also questions if Darfur is a genocide. The extermination is not aimed at Darfurian identity: "Darfurians who live in Khartoum are not targeted," he notes.

For years "genocide" was a sanctified word, emerging from the Holocaust, and it defined mass atrocities like the Armenian genocide, or the killing fields of Pol Pot in Cambodia. But its popular use rose in the midst of the Rwanda and Bosnia wars.

French scholar Jacques Semelin, author of the book "Purify and Destroy: The Political Uses of Massacres and Genocide," notes that "In Nuremburg, the charges were crimes against humanity. Genocide didn't come into the legal framework until 1948 in Geneva."

Bosnia was an early instance of systematic mass killings in close proximity to a region, Europe, with an incorporated value system based on history that contained an assumption that such crimes would "never again" take place.

Reports of mass killings along the Drina River in 1992, with Bosnian Muslim villages purged and teachers and elders shot, created a dilemma for Europe and the US. The US State Department's initial downplaying of killings and prison camps led one mid-level US diplomat, Richard Johnson, to write "The Pin-Stripe Approach to Genocide" – an early effort to pair the term with an event that seemed to warrant it.

At the time, little notion existed of international courts as a tool to deal with mass crimes. That has changed. The Rwanda and Yugoslavia tribunals, the 1998 Treaty of Rome, the decision of the UN Security Council to empower indictments on Darfur by the ICC, the pressure on Serbia and Croatia to hand over war criminals – have created pressure on regimes to change behavior, though not a preventive one.

For John Packer of Human Rights Internet in Ottawa, the world is in an "awkward moment" between the old Westphalian system of adjudication, "based on sovereign states and designed to create peace and stability between them, and a new developing model of international law."

The ICJ ruling on Bosnia "brings this awkward moment into relief," he says. "The court was caught willfully disregarding evidence showing Serbia's culpability, to avoid being put in a difficult spot."

Women Suffer in Darfur

April 30, 2007

In every conflict zone in the world, women bear the brunt of the burden. The situation in Sudan is no exception.

During a recent fact-finding mission to Darfur, I saw firsthand the scars of war, evidenced by refugee women's painful stories as they shared with me the harsh realities of their day-to-day lives. No one I met said that she herself had been raped, but they talked about many they knew who had been; it was clear that discussing sexual attacks on others was a way for them to talk about their own ordeals without becoming doubly victimized by the intense stigma and lost honor associated with rape in this part of the world. Despite the taboo of discussing it, rape is a matter of course in Darfur.

Women in the camps I visited asked for better security so that they could search for firewood and gather food for their families without fear of being brutalized or killed. If you can't give us that, they said, at least give us an alternative source of fuel so that we can avoid being attacked out in the fields. As they know all too well, in Darfur, hunting women has become a sport.

No one, it seems, is interested in giving Darfurian women so much as a solution to the problem of collecting firewood, never mind a place at the negotiating table. While the world is outraged by reports of atrocities against women and the use of rape as a tool of war, women's basic needs are ignored by actors on all sides -- the rebels, the Sudanese government and the so-called civilized Westerners involved in the negotiations.

This lack of regard for women marks the ultimate obscenity in the midst of a sustained killing spree that is better characterized as greed-o-cide than genocide; a massacre of complex dimensions that includes not only ethnic and religious components but also pure money lust -- contrary to popular belief, the killing does not break down strictly along sectarian lines.

The rebels in Darfur want money. They will let Darfurians, especially innocent women and children, bleed for the cameras to advance their agenda. Photographing these starving, dehydrated refugees has become a fund-raising method for heart-hardened nongovernmental organizations (NGO). Meanwhile, the Sudanese government could today pull back the janjaweed, who are doing the raping and killing, if desired. But the horror continues. Both sides exclude women from the discussion of achieving security. While many in the West push sanctions, in reality this would raise the possibility of all-out civil war, and millions would die. In Sudan, nothing is as it seems.

The inability of men to look at the whole package and the needs of women increases the number of women and children that will die in the ongoing conflict. The tragic bottom line is that women are worth literally one-half, or even one-quarter of their male counterparts in terms of blood money. Women's worth must be highlighted to alleviate their urgent plight. Even Darfurian women who escape into neighboring countries are double victims with little recourse. In Cairo and other refugee destinations, for instance, women who have fled Sudan are subject to further gender-based persecution and violence. And as in so many parts of the world, women's voices simply do not carry weight.

We in the West like to think the terrible events unfolding in Darfur cannot continue on our watch, but they do. Every day women are being raped and dying for firewood. Yet when they try to speak up, their voices are silenced from all sides. We will remain complicit in their suffering until we recognize that women are the focal point around which everything is centered. They are the key to unlocking international security issues. If women were equally valued and their basic needs met, it would stem the movement of people across borders currently causing security nightmares. This is where the seeds of terrorism are sown.

Women also play a crucial role in solving the environmental degradation and societal inequalities that spawned the conflict in the first place. As Swanee Hunt writes in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, in her piece titled "Let Women Rule," "the world could use more sway and less swagger." Her words ring especially true for Sudan. However, if the men at the negotiating table pursue their current course, without valuing or including women, evil will continue to prevail in Darfur.

Kathryn Cameron Porter is president of the Leadership Council for Human Rights

Obama reaches out to blacks in L.A. church

April 30, 2007

Invoking images of Los Angeles in flames, Sen. Barack Obama argued Sunday — the 15th anniversary of the nation's most violent modern civil uprising — that little had been done to fix the chronic social and economic conditions that gave rise to a three-day rampage that killed at least 53 people.

And although the riots occurred in L.A., the conditions that spawned them persist across the nation, Obama told an overflow crowd at South-Central's First AME Church. The Illinois Democrat is seeking his party's presidential nomination.

"There wasn't anything going on in Los Angeles that was unique to Los Angeles," Obama said. "If you traveled to Chicago, you would see the same young men on street corners without hope, without prospects, and without a sense of any destiny other than ending up in prison or in a casket."

Obama drew a sustained ovation when he rebuked the Bush administration for, as Obama put it, funding the war in Iraq instead of impoverished Americans — particularly those in minority neighborhoods.

"We have now spent half a trillion dollars on a war that should have never been authorized, and should have never been waged," Obama said. "We could have invested that money in SouthCentral Los Angeles, or the South Side of Chicago, in jobs and infrastructure and hospitals and schools. Why is it we can find the money in a second for a war that doesn't make any sense?"

His speech was the most direct address on race by any of the major presidential candidates who were in California over the weekend for the Democratic National Convention in San Diego.

And it came as the major Democratic contenders are vying for African American support. A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll conducted April 5 to 9 found that 41% of African American voters surveyed backed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, 34% supported Obama and 3% backed former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.

Clinton, whose husband received strong African American support in both his presidential elections, made a passing reference of the riots in her speech Saturday to the San Diego convention. After mentioning "the chaos and violence in those days and the anger and despair that boiled over into the streets," she endorsed ethnic diversity and called for border policies that recognized "immigration has been and still is the lifeblood of the United States."

Edwards said in his convention speech Sunday that "if you are a man or woman of color in America today, you are more likely to live in poverty" and have a higher risk of cancer, heart disease and other problems.

"The one thing we have to be willing to face up to — and I mean head on — is that race ... plays an enormous role in what's happening," said Edwards, reprising what is for him a familiar theme. He did not mention the riots.

"We have to be honest about the problem," Edwards said. "The racial and economic segregation that exists in America is not all right."

Clinton and Edwards are white.

Obama, whose father is black and mother is white, did not mention the 1992 conflagration to the convention Saturday, but he made it the primary focus of his speech Sunday morning from the pulpit of one of SouthCentral's most vibrant African American churches.

And he touched on the frustration that has run through community meetings held in recent days to commemorate the riots, in which 2,300 people were injured and more than 1,100 buildings were damaged or destroyed after a jury acquitted Los Angeles police officers in the beating of black motorist Rodney G. King.

Obama did not offer specific proposals to solve the problems he described. His approach has more often relied on lofty rhetoric than real-world prescriptions.

In Obama's South-Central appearance, dozens of Los Angeles police officers were deployed in and around the neighborhood, and a mobile command vehicle was parked around a nearby corner.

The security contrasted sharply with the San Diego convention, where few police could be seen despite the raft of presidential contenders.

Speaking in a church that has a stained-glass window depicting the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and President Kennedy and his brother Robert, Obama recalled a news article he read at the time of the riots about a young pregnant woman shot in the abdomen, the bullet lodging in the soft tissue of her fetus' arm. After surgery, the mother and baby were fine, although the infant was left with a scar.

Obama made the infant — and the bullet — symbols for L.A. after the riots.

"Even in the midst of violence and despair, there's always something to be hopeful for. That baby represents the rising up of hope out of darkness and despair," he said.

"It made me think about us in this country 15 years later, how not only do we still have scars from that riot, but in many American cities we haven't even taken the bullet out," he said. "We still haven't stitched up the patient."

The problems were exposed again with Hurricane Katrina in 2005, he said, when countless poor people had no way to leave their neighborhoods ahead of the floodwaters. Many perished, or were left stranded on rooftops for days.

"The tragedy struck New Orleans long before the hurricane hit," Obama said, citing lowperforming schools and high levels of violence and poverty. "There's a reason why the planning to evacuate them was ineffective — because the folks who were making the planning assumed that people had cars."

The parallels to Los Angeles in the years since the riots are clear, he said: At neither time has there been sustained public interest in correcting underlying problems.

"We go from shock to trance," Obama said. "We wake up and we're surprised that there's poverty in our midst, and that people are frustrated and angry."

He mocked the creation of investigative panels to divine the causes of problems.

"There's a little bit of money that folks piece together to send it into the community to make sure that folks are quiet and go back to the status quo, but we never take the bullet out of the arm," Obama said. "We don't need panels and reports and commissions. We need some surgery on the indifference to poverty in this country."

scott.martelle@latimes.com

Akron group welcomes all faiths to prayer event

April

If you ask the organizers of the two observances planned in Summit County, you get the same answer: everyone.

But the Akron Area Association of Churches isn't sure everyone feels welcome at the annual observance at the Summit County Courthouse that is sponsored by the Summit County National Day of Prayer Task Force. So, this year, the association decided to sponsor its own observance.

``National Day of Prayer has, over the years, been observed predominantly by conservative, evangelical Christians, but it says on the Web site that it is a day when people are supposed to come together,'' said Chloe Ann Kriska, executive director of the association. ``While AAAC is a Christian organization, we do cooperate and collaborate with the interfaith world. If this day is for all Americans, we need to include all people.''

National Day of Prayer, which will be observed on Thursday, was designated in 1952 by the U.S. Congress as a day when all Americans, regardless of faith, are asked to come together and pray in their own way. It is held on the first Thursday in May.

In 1972, the National Day of Prayer Committee was formed. The committee created the National Day of Prayer Task Force to coordinate events for the observance.

That nongovernmental task force works out of facilities from Focus on the Family, a conservative Christian organization. Though the task force is not affiliated with the organization, it is headed by Shirley Dobson, wife of Focus of the Family founder, James Dobson. All volunteer coordinators are required to be an evangelical Christian who has a personal relationship with Christ.

Rooted in Christianity

Organizers of the observance at the Summit County Courthouse, which is in its 28th year, affiliate with the national task force. As a result, their local observance is rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

``We do what we do organizationally specifically in accordance with Judeo-Christian beliefs,'' said Sam Pillow, coordinator of the Summit County task force. ``No one is excluded from participating, but given our approach, we believe that Jesus Christ is the only way, truth and life through which we come to God. The true nature of what we do is Christian.''

Pillow said the national task force's official policy statement on participation of non-Judeo-Christian participants is that ``people with other theological and philosophical views are free to organize and participate in activities that are consistent with their own beliefs.''

The task force acknowledges that diversity is what Congress intended, he said, but not that every faith and creed be homogenized.

``All who seek to pray for this nation are encouraged to do so in any way deemed appropriate,'' Pillow said. ``We pray according to the Bible. Jesus says so many times to `ask in my name.' We ask those who offer public prayers to pray in Jesus' name. But all people are welcome to come and pray.''

Both the task force and association observances will be at noon Thursday.

The Akron Area Association of Churches will host its event at Church of the Master United Methodist Church, 800 E. Market St. It will include prayer, sacred readings and music by members of the Baha'i, Christian, Hindu, Islamic and Jewish faiths.

The Summit County Task Force observance at the Summit County Courthouse, 209 S. High St., will include public and group prayers targeting six specific areas. Those are churches and pastors; families and schools; government, industry and institutions; armed forces and safety; the destitute, hurting and grieving; and spiritual revival and awakening.

Changing theme

This year's national theme, ``America Unite in Prayer,'' was changed by the local task force to ``Church in `America Unite in Prayer.' ''

Pillow said the task force viewed the national theme as secular.

``I just don't think the theme is spiritually effective or effectual in communicating the accountability that the church has for the spiritual well-being of America,'' Pillow said. ``We are a Christian organization and the Bible text used for the theme is II Chronicles 7:14. That says, `If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.'

``This is our land, but it's not going to be healed unless those called by his name, according to the Bible, pray. Those called by his name are the church -- not America.''

War Bill Delays Minimum Wage Hike

April 30, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Increasing the minimum wage should be easy for a Congress controlled by Democrats, especially with President Bush's pledge of support.

But a $2.10 boost for America's lowest-paid workers is again being delayed, this time in a tussle over whether to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq.

It's been 10 years since the last minimum wage increase, and boosting it from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour over the next two years was a key element of Democrats' midterm election platform. They even added a sweetener for Republicans: $4.8 billion in tax cuts for small businesses over 10 years.

But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., decided to attach the minimum wage provisions to the Iraq war spending bill. Normally that's must-pass legislation. Now it's certain to be the subject of Bush's second veto after Democrats loaded it up with a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops.

"That's just a temporary detour," said Alan Viard, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. He said Democrats will find a way to quickly move the minimum wage legislation back to the White House.

Republicans say Democrats could have had a minimum wage bill passed and signed by now if they hadn't added it to the Iraq war bill. "This isn't about getting a minimum wage increase done, it's another political stunt that only further delays action," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto.

Democrats declined to say how they plan to get the bill back to the White House: as a separate bill or, more likely, as an attachment to the next Iraq war spending bill they intend to get to Bush by Memorial Day. The latter, they maintain, would give them a little more leverage by forcing Republicans to vote against money for American troops to block the minimum wage package.

"We will take whatever steps are necessary to get a minimum wage increase enacted into law as quickly as possible," said Tom Kiley, spokesman for Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., chair of the House Education and Labor Committee.

The White House has complained the tax cuts are too small in the minimum wage measure as now written. Fratto said Bush's advisers might recommend he veto it. A veto may be more difficult if other measures in the Iraq spending bill are to the president's liking.

Increases in the minimum wage are often leveraged against something, or used as leverage for something else.

For example, Democrats last year killed a proposed minimum wage increase after Republicans paired it with a cut in inheritance taxes on multimillion-dollar estates. Republicans easily muscled the legislation through the House but Senate Democrats refused to allow it to go to the White House for approval.

The last minimum wage increase was in 1997. This has been the longest stretch without the federal pay floor rising since the minimum wage was established in 1938.

Currently, a person working 40 hours per week at the current minimum wage of $5.15 makes about $10,700 a year. An increase to $7.25 would boost that to just over $15,000 a year.

More than two dozen states and the District of Columbia have minimum wages higher than the federal level. Minimum wage workers are typically young, single and female and are often black or Hispanic.

There's no .44-caliber Koran

April 29, 2007

JULIUS STREICHER, publisher of Der Sturmer and other anti-Semitic publications, was executed in 1946 for crimes against humanity. His crimes consisted largely of words, hateful words that helped to justify mass murder.

It is a common assumption that words can kill. That is presumably why the right-wing Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, recently argued that if Muslims wished to live in the Netherlands, they should "tear up half the Koran and throw it away." There is no doubt that the Koran, like other ancient religious texts, contains violent passages about the fate of unbelievers. Just as Jews, during some traditional Passover feasts, ask God to bring down his wrath on the Gentiles who "don't know him," and many Christians believe that hell awaits those who don't subscribe to their faith, Muslims are led to believe that killing the enemies of Islam can be justified.

But are the words of the Koran, in fact, the main reason for political violence in the Middle East or Europe, perpetrated in the name of the faith?

Book-burners and others who make a fetish of words would say yes. But there is room for skepticism. To be sure, Islamist terrorists use the Koran to justify murderous actions, but the actual reasons for their holy war are generally political and not theological. Their main enemies are secular dictatorships in the Middle East, corrupted, in their view, by the decadent, soulless West. This revolutionary cause is influencing disaffected Muslims in Europe. Censoring the Koran would do nothing to stop this. Without meaning to be disrespectful to the Koran, or the Jewish Haggadah, which contains the wrathful passage mentioned above, there is an analogy to be drawn with the debate on violent movies or pornography. They too can be hateful. But do people commit crimes because of them? Probably not.

There are many violent and hateful words in novels, operas, churches, mosques, comic books, radio talk shows and so on. There has to be a balance between our desire for free speech and the protection against potential violence. Most democracies, including the United States, whose Constitution protects the right to free speech, have laws that forbid the use of words that incite violence.

Some democracies, such as France and Germany, also use the law to ban offensive opinions, such as denying the Holocaust, even when violence is not threatened. Some have laws that forbid insulting people on the grounds of race or creed. And some religious believers go out of their way to sanitize the ancient texts. Many modern versions of the Haggadah leave out the offending passage.

It is easy to go too far, however. If we censor anything that might cause offense, we undermine our right to free speech. In a recent production of "The Magic Flute" in New York, the English translation of the libretto, which was sung in German, left out all disobliging references to women and to the dark skin of Monostatos, the Moor. This is a clear example of going too far. Mozart's librettist, Emanuel Schikaneder, certainly was not promoting aggression against women or black people.

Some Muslim zealots believe that any "offense" to the prophet means holy war and merits the murder of the offender. But it would certainly be wrong to accuse Salman Rushdie's "Satanic Verses," or the controversial Danish cartoons of Muhammad, of deliberately inciting violence.

One thing wrong with Geert Wilders and others who would ban parts of the Koran or other texts they regard as dangerous is their refusal to recognize context. It isn't only a question of what words are expressed but who expresses them, where and to whom. A disparaging Jewish joke sounds different when it is made by a Gentile. Language used by black rap artists about other blacks becomes much more toxic when it is used by a white radio talk show host. Violent sentiments voiced by a heavy metal rock group would be far more disturbing if they were expressed by a powerful politician.

When it comes to banning hateful words, it must be imperative to show that they are designed to cause violence and, moreover, that they are likely to do so. Banning or censoring historic texts seems pointless because they can be put in the framework of the times when they were written. The reading of "Mein Kampf" may have led to mass murder in the past, but it is unlikely to do so now. Germans, on the other hand, are perhaps more justified in banning the book than, say, the British. There is, of course, a problem with believers who view ancient texts as the words of God and thus as valid for all times. But instead of censoring the books, we should focus on how they are used. If they are used to provoke violence, then the people who do so are breaking the law and must be dealt with accordingly.

The trouble with banning words is that it helps to fetishize them. Those who defy the ban can claim to be martyrs for their faith but also for free speech. And the forbidden acquires a special allure. The constitutional right to say almost anything makes U.S. citizens relatively cautious, perhaps too cautious, about the way they use that right. Like the obsessive desire for pornography, the craving for violent words tends to gain in strength when freedom of expression is not readily available.

Disposable workers wanted in Colorado

April 30, 2007

Avondale, Colo. — SPRING IS about to spring up here in this high plains farming community just outside the old steel city of Pueblo, and Joe Pisciotta is still not sure whether he'll have enough of his usual workers to tend his crops.

Ever since the Colorado Legislature declared war on illegal immigrants last year, farmers in this neck of the woods have been worried that the undocumented workers who make up at least half of the area's farm labor will be too scared to make a return migration.

Two Fridays ago, a carful of Mexican workers showed up at Pisciotta's office off Highway 50, but it's not clear whether more will follow. Hedging his bets, Pisciotta, along with a handful of other local farmers, has signed on to a pilot program with the Colorado Corrections Department that could supply them with 10-member crews of low-security female prisoners.

The program has made headlines well beyond Colorado, and not because of the proposal to use prison labor. Rather, it's the scheme's easy equivalence between undocumented workers and U.S. citizens who've been convicted of crimes and stripped of their rights. Sure, nativists long have tried to persuade us that crossing the border without papers is equivalent to committing a capital crime. But the fact that a group of Colorado farmers has turned to prisoners to meet labor needs says a whole lot about why so many U.S. employers prefer illegal immigrant labor in the first place — it's cheap, dependable yet impermanent, and, well, they have no rights either.

Pisciotta says he's been clear about all this from the start. He'd rather have foreign-born migrant labor than either prisoners or locals. Here along the Front Range, migrant workers tend to come from Mexico and make their seasonal rounds through Colorado, Texas and New Mexico between May and late autumn. Some workers like this arrangement because they can return to their families in the winter. The farmers tend to like it because they don't have to worry about paying those laborers in the off season.

Like many of the other medium-sized family-owned farms in the area, much of Pisciotta's outfit is mechanized and unlike, say, citrus farming, it's not labor intensive. But within a few weeks, he'll be in need of 12 to 13 workers to hoe the onions that were planted in March and to plant next season's watermelons.

Mostly, however, he needs labor during the harvest season in the fall. While onions can be picked mechanically, watermelons and pumpkins cannot. "Machines can't tell if they're ripe or not," he said. "And they can't sort out the best ones at packing time."

PISCIOTTA AND other participating farmers have received their share of insults from critics, particularly liberals who have accused them of resorting to what they consider slave labor, although the prisoners would be paid and, in the end, the program would cost the farmers more than paying migrants.

Ironically, perhaps, the prison agreement is the brainchild of a local Latina Democratic legislator, Colorado state Rep. Dorothy Butcher, a hard-charging grandmother and retired phone company employee.

Over dinner at Mi Ranchito #2 restaurant in Pueblo, Butcher teared up as she recalled last year's racially charged debate in Colorado's General Assembly, which led to tough new legislation granting law enforcement broader powers to check peoples' immigration status.

"It was very hard not to have your feelings hurt," she said. "Because they were talking about Mexicans as if they were animals."

But, at the same time, Butcher refuses to ponder the ethics or long-term significance of replacing those very immigrants who were under attack with convicted criminals.

"It's about the economy," she said. "What do you want me to do? Let the farms dry up? This is not fantasyland."

And, indeed, Butcher is a realist. When the specter of a local farm labor shortage first surfaced, she recalled that, when she was young, the nearby Cañon City prison grew its own produce and had a cannery that local farmers shared. She put two and two together and created a pilot program that, if successful, could become a model for the nation.

Even though Pisciotta is still hoping for a few more carloads of familiar old hands to show up at his office in the next few weeks, he's also confident that the prison labor proposal can work. But not forever. His best-case scenario is that Congress creates a guest worker program "so that I could call up the government to say I need 15 guys from May to October and when I'm done with them, they can take them back."

But if you stop to think about it, all three of these arrangements — undocumented workers, prison labor and a guest worker program — pretty much operate under the same principle. In each case, farmers want indispensable labor to also be disposable. Like the nation at large, they think they can benefit from temporary labor without having to accommodate and integrate permanent laborers. But that's the very illusion that has gotten us into this immigration mess in the first place.

grodriguez@latimescolumnists.com

Gulf Coast drowns again, this time in red tape

April 30, 2007

Randy Harvison thought the worst was over after Hurricane Rita swept through Louisiana's Iberia Parish in September 2005 and the waters began to recede. That was before Harvison tangled with the federal system designed to help rescue and rebuild the ravaged Gulf Coast after the one-two punch of Katrina and Rita.

In the 19 months since, Harvison, Iberia's assistant school superintendent, and other officials have labored to relocate the heavily damaged Peebles Elementary School from a flood-prone site to higher, safer ground.

The officials have suffered through four "public assistance coordinators" sent by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, so many "project officers" that they've lost count, two sets of project work sheets and months of on-and-off approvals from FEMA.

Last April, they thought they had the go-ahead for a $3.2 million relocation and bought land for the new school. But on Nov. 11, despite the best efforts of Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., to save the project, FEMA pulled the plug. When school officials looked back at Project Worksheet #3644 — the key approval document — they couldn't even tell which federal official had OK'd it. An indecipherable signature was scrawled in the margin.

Last week, Gil Jamieson, FEMA's associate deputy administrator for Gulf Coast recovery, told USA TODAY that the initial federal inspectors "were either purposely making an error or just inexperienced."

Iberia's saga, outrageous as it sounds, is emblematic of the inefficiency, inexperience and interminable delays that have stalled recovery all along the Gulf Coast:

*Hurricane victims still reside in more than 82,000 trailers and mobile homes. They've languished there, in part, because so little rental housing has been rebuilt.

*Louisiana's $7.5 billion program to help homeowners rebuild or relocate has finalized payments for only 10,793 of more than 89,000 applicants. The program was slowed by an overwhelmed contractor and excessive layers of state-mandated verifications.

*More than 20,000 public works projects — schools, roads and government buildings — are mired in a paperwork nightmare of federal making that requires state and local authorities to meet two sets of regulations for every project. One is for FEMA, the other for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The dual approvals stem from a federal mandate that local governments put up 10% of the rebuilding costs. Because many localities are broke, they're using HUD funds for that 10%, triggering a second set of regulations.

Federal and state authorities have been battling over this for months. The state wants the 10% match waived, as has been done after previous disasters. At the least, FEMA should allow the state to bundle projects to ease paperwork. President Bush and FEMA have denied both requests.

Officials all have explanations for their positions — statutes, regulations, the need for a local stake in projects, and so on. Much of this would be reasonable if these were ordinary times. But they are not.

The Gulf Coast suffered an extraordinary disaster. Rebuilding, Bush said in his post-storm speech in New Orleans' Jackson Square, "will require the creative skill and generosity of a united country."

It's long past time to substitute creativity for the intransigence that has stalled projects such as Iberia Parish's school. The president should demonstrate how that's done by slashing through the federal red tape, or empowering people who can do it for him.

Randall Tobias, Bush abstinence-only advocate, hires escort service

April 28, 2007

ABC News and the Washington Post are reporting that Deputy Secretary of State Randall Tobias resigned April 27 after confirming to ABC News that he's on Jeane Palfrey's little list. Palfrey is a D.C. madam under prosecution who's been receiving, through her attorney, phone calls from lawyers for various prominent johns begging her not to make their clients' names public. Tobias is administrator of the State Department's foreign aid programs.

Tobias' resignation was announced at 5 p.m. on a Friday, traditionally the hour for releasing bad news, because reporters are busy making weekend plans, and readers, at least in theory, pay less attention to news that comes out on a Saturday. The strategy seems to have worked in this instance, because neither ABC News nor the Post reported one highly relevant detail: Tobias is the Bush administration's leading advocate of abstinence-only programs abroad!

Here's what Tobias told PBS' Frontline in March 2005, when he was Bush's global AIDS czar (I quote this at great length because, well, why not?):

Well, the heart of our prevention programs is what's known as ABC: abstinence, be faithful, and the correct and consistent use of condoms when appropriate. This is not an American invention; this is something that President [Yoweri] Museveni in Uganda figured out over time when he recognized that there was an enormous problem in Uganda.

And it's also not "ABC: Take your pick." It's abstinence really focused heavily on young people and getting them to understand that the best way to keep from getting infected is to be abstinent and not engage in sexual activity until they are old enough and mature enough and get into a committed relationship, such as a marriage. B is being faithful within that committed relationship. And A and B, those two things together clearly had a huge impact in bringing the infection rates down in Uganda.

C recognizes the fact that there are individuals in high-risk circumstances who either by choice or by coercion are going to find themselves unable to follow A and B, and therefore they need to have access to condoms, and they need to understand the correct and consistent use of condoms. I think more and more of the experts, the people who really understand the prevention requirements with HIV/AIDS, have come to endorse ABC in a very balanced way as the appropriate prevention centerpiece.

But I would also add that as important as ABC is, the fact is that this is a disease where 50 percent of the people infected in the world are women. When I cite those numbers to people here in the United States, I find most people are astonished. They just have no idea about that. In some countries in Africa, it's well above 50 percent that are women and girls. In many cases this is driven by cultural factors, where young girls are having sex with older men and [are] coerced to do that, where women aren't regarded as equal citizens with men. So there are lots of things that need to be done addressing those kinds of cultural issues also.

A long-term study authorized by Congress nine years ago recently found that abstinence-only programs don't work here in the United States. Tobias would appear to provide a convenient anecdotal illustration of that finding (though he claims he only got a "massage").

Another retrospectively risible portion of Tobias' Frontline interview concerned a legal requirement that recipients of U.S. aid denounce prostitution:

The Congress I think very appropriately has put into the legislation that created this program that organizations, in order to receive money, need to have a policy opposed to prostitution and sex trafficking. I don't think it's too difficult for people to be opposed to prostitution and sex trafficking, which are in fact two contributing causes to the spread of HIV/AIDS. I think when organizations initially became aware of that requirement, some organizations were concerned about what the implications of that might be, but we implemented that in the first year with non-U.S. organizations. We're now implementing that requirement with U.S. organizations. And so far, I really know of no problems that we've had on the ground.

Now we know there was one problem, but with Tobias' departure that matter is resolved.

Did Justices' Catholicism Play Part in Abortion Ruling

April 30, 2007

Is it significant that the five Supreme Court justices who voted to uphold the federal ban on a controversial abortion procedure also happen to be the court's Roman Catholics?

It is to Tony Auth, the Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist for the Philadelphia Inquirer. He drew Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. wearing bishop's miters, and labeled his cartoon "Church and State."

Rosie O'Donnell and Barbara Walters hashed out the issue on "The View," with O'Donnell noting that a majority of the court is Catholic and wondering about "separation of church and state." Walters counseled that "we cannot assume that they did it because they're Catholic."

And the chatter continues, on talk radio and in the blogosphere. In the latter category, no one has stirred it up quite like Geoffrey R. Stone, former dean and now provost of the University of Chicago's law school.

He posted an item titled "Faith-Based Justices" on his school's blog and on Huffington Post. The post was mostly praised by liberal readers at Huffington Post, but set off a free-for-all back home in Chicago on the faculty blog.

Stone's argument was that the decision in Gonzales v. Carhart repudiated the court's previous abortion jurisprudence and offered flimsy reasoning for upholding the federal ban on the procedure opponents call "partial birth," when seven years ago it had rejected a Nebraska law that was "virtually identical."

"What then explains this decision?" he wrote. "Here is a painfully awkward observation: All five justices in the majority in Gonzales are Catholic. The four justices who are either Protestant or Jewish all voted in accord with settled precedent. It is mortifying to have to point this out."

In finding that there was a moral reason for upholding the ban, Stone added, the majority failed "to respect the fundamental difference between religious belief and morality."

Stone was immediately hooted down, blogospherically, for faulty logic, "religious bigotry" and failing to note anything from the majority opinion that would indicate the justices relied on religious belief, rather than their interpretation of the law, to uphold the ban passed by Congress in 2002. That ban, they noted, was approved by substantial and bipartisan majorities, made up of Catholics and non-Catholics.

And last week, four of the five Catholics were in the court's minority in voting to uphold death sentences in three cases from Texas. Capital punishment is another issue to which the church is opposed, although it hasn't held the same political currency as abortion.

Mark Silk, a professor of religion in public life at Trinity College, said any discussion of religious beliefs and public policy carries the potential for strongly held views.

Speaking generally rather than to the case at hand, Silk said Americans want balance in their public officials. "We want people of faith, but we don't want them making decisions based on their faith."

Stone said in an interview that his post "certainly stirred up more attention than I expected. But I meant it to be provocative."
Courting Alito

Both sides in last week's oral arguments over the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law did everything but shine Samuel Alito's shoes to get the attention of the justice most likely to decide the issue.

Solicitor General Paul D. Clement used his closing to directly address a concern that only Alito had raised earlier in the arguments.

But James Bopp Jr., representing the challengers to the law, went all out. He urged the justices to develop a test that would allow the kind of "grass-roots lobbying" ads his group wants.

"It would have to be clear, simple, and objective and be able to be implemented on short notice, because things pop up, like the filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee in January of 2006," Bopp said.

Who could that be?

April 27, 2007

Democratic Candidates Mostly Skip Faith in First TV Debate

April 27, 2007

Eight Democratic presidential candidates mostly skipped the issue of faith in their party's first national televised debate, a remarkable shift after the manic activity of national Democrats following recent elections to prove that they, too, were people of faith.

National Democrats and progressive Christians launched a number of initiatives to address the Democratic Party's "serious God problem," as a Pew Research Center study kindly reported.

Conducted in July 2006, the Pew survey found that only 26 percent of respondents identified the Democratic Party as "friendly" to religion, down three points from 2005 and compared to 42 percent in 2003.

Yet the eight Democrats barely mentioned faith matters during a 90-minute program Thursday night at South Carolina State University in Orangeburg, S.C.

One exception was when the moderator, Brian Williams, anchor of "NBC Nightly News," asked John Edwards, "Who do you consider to be your moral leader?"

After a pause too long for television, nearly 10 seconds, Edwards haltingly began: "I don't think I could identify one person that I consider to be my moral leader. My Lord is important to me. I go to him in prayer every day and ask for both forgiveness and counsel."

That question and reply echoed a similar question put to George W. Bush in 2000 Republican debates.

Bush was asked, "What political philosopher or thinker do you identify with and why?" He replied, "Christ, because he changed my heart."

Earlier during the debate, Edwards recalled a vivid memory when he was 10 years old of going to a restaurant after church and having to leave because his father could not pay the menu prices.

Obama also made a glancing reference to faith. In an answer about abortion, he said, "I trust women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors, and their families, and their clergy."

Other than those two brief comments, direct references to faith were missing.

The eight candidates' religious affiliation has a limited range. Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich and Bill Richardson are identified as Roman Catholics. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards are Methodists. Barack Obama belongs to the United Church of Christ. Mike Gravel is a Unitarian.

Their Republican counterparts claim Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Episcopal, Catholic and Mormon affiliations.

Only Obama and Clinton underscore their faith affiliation in the biographical sketches on their Web sites. Obama mentions working as a community organizer for a church-based group and that he attends Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Clinton references her church's youth group, which one evening went to hear Martin Luther King Jr.

Iraq was a primary topic of discussion. Candidates made excuses for votes, offered broad sweeping plans to solving the crisis and tactical suggestions for passing legislation.

Abortion, guns and mental illness, healthcare, the confederate flag, Terri Schiavo, amnesty for illegal aliens, education, drug tests for welfare recipients, oil company profits, climate change, first accomplishment on first day in Oval office, Israeli and Palestinian conflict, Darfur, the global war on terror and civil unions for gay people also received attention.

Even in addressing these issues little, if any, moral reflection was heard.

Politicians shouldn't play preachers. Nevertheless, the American public expects their presidents to have a faith-friendly disposition and to use moral language.

These eight Democrats are off to a less-than-impressive start to convincing Americans that their faith matters in politics.

Robert Parham is executive director of the Baptist Center for Ethics.

Protect God's creation: Vatican issues new green message for world's Catholics

April 27, 2007

The Vatican yesterday added its voice to a rising chorus of warnings from churches around the world that climate change and abuse of the environment is against God's will, and that the one billion-strong Catholic church must become far greener.

At a Vatican conference on climate change, Pope Benedict urged bishops, scientists and politicians - including UK environment secretary David Miliband - to "respect creation" while "focusing on the needs of sustainable development".

The Pope's message follows a series of increasingly strong statements about climate change and the environment, including a warning earlier this year that "disregard for the environment always harms human coexistence, and vice versa".

Observers said yesterday that the Catholic church is no longer split between those who advocate development and those who say the environment is the priority. Cardinal Renato Raffaele Martino, head of the Pontifical Council of Justice and Peace, said: "For environment ... read Creation. The mastery of man over Creation must not be despotic or senseless. Man must cultivate and safeguard God's Creation."

According to Vatican sources, the present Pope is far more engaged in the green debate than John Paul. In the past year Benedict has spoken strongly on the need to preserve rainforests. In the next few weeks he visits Brazil.

"There is no longer a schism. The new interest in climate change and the environment is not surprising really. Benedict comes out of 1960s Germany, where environment and disarmament were major issues. It's conceivable that his ministry could even culminate in a papal encyclical on the environment," said one analyst. This would be the most powerful signal to the world's Catholics about the need for environmental awareness at every level.

The Catholic church is just one major faith group now rapidly moving environment to the fore of its social teachings. "Climate change, biotechnology, trade justice and pollution are all now being debated at a far higher level by the world's major religions," said Martin Palmer, secretary general of the Alliance of Religions and Conservation (Arc).

In some cases the debate is dividing traditionalists from younger congregations. In the US the diverse 50m-strong conservative evangelical churches are increasingly at war about the human contribution to global warming.

Many evangelical leaders say they are still not convinced that global warming is human-induced and have argued that the collapse of the world is inevitable and will herald the second coming of Christ.

But most younger leaders have broken ranks. About four years ago the progressives began to argue strongly that man had a responsibility to steward the earth. Redefining environmentalism as "creation care", they are now lobbying President Bush and the US administration to take global warming far more seriously.

"They are the most effective lobby," said one observer yesterday. "They represent the conservative vote so Bush has to listen to them."

Although the World Council of Churches in Geneva has had a department to investigate climate change since 1990, churches have come late to the debate. "The [environment and religion] is a no-brainer, but we are all only now realising it", said Claire Foster, environmental policy adviser to the Church of England.

Many faiths also realise their potential to influence politicians and financiers. A survey by US bank Citigroup found that the 11 major faiths now embrace 85% of the world's population and are the world's third largest group of financial investors. In the US the United methodist church pension fund alone is worth $12bn-$15bn (£6bn-£7bn). Total investment of US churches is nearly $70bn. Switching to ethical investments would be hugely significant.

One Catholic priest impatient for change is Seán McDonagh, a Columban missionary and author of books on ecology and religion. "The Catholic church's social teaching on human rights and justice has been good, but there has been little concern about the impact on the planet. The church has been caught up on its emphasis on development and on resisting population control, but if we are pro-life we should be banging the drum now about climate change."

Backstory

Most of the world's mainstream faiths have at their core a deep respect for nature, but over hundreds of years many have developed an ambivalent attitude towards ecology and the pressures put on the earth by humans. Church leaders have largely stayed silent on the extinction of species and natural capital and have concentrated their ethical teachings on the need to relieve human poverty. But the reality of impending climate change and the effects it will have on the poor is concentrating minds and causing many to fundamentally reassess their understanding of man's place in the world.

Congress sets terms of Iraq exit

April 27, 2007

WASHINGTON — In an act unparalleled since the Vietnam War, Congress passed legislation Thursday that directs the president to begin bringing home U.S. troops from Iraq and extricating America from the midst of a bloody civil war.

The historic 51-46 Senate vote for a $124-billion war spending bill — which followed House passage of the measure Wednesday — thrust a withdrawal timeline on a fiercely resistant White House.

It came even as the top commander in Iraq appealed for more time, saying the United States is "just getting started."

Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, on his first return to Washington since he took command, said Thursday at a Pentagon news conference that the war was "going to require enormous commitment, and commitment over time."

The widely respected commander declined to say how long he believed the current troop levels would be needed, and warned, "This effort may get harder before it gets easier."

Bush has repeatedly criticized Congress for interfering with military decisions and has pledged to veto the spending measure as soon as it reaches his desk next week.

Democratic lawmakers acknowledge they do not have the votes to override a veto, but have defiantly promised to pass more legislation to try to bring the divisive, four-year war to a close.

"Under the Constitution, Congress has a duty to question the war policies of this or any president," said 89-year-old Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.V.), who began serving in Congress before the Vietnam War. "We must listen to the voices of the people. And the American people have sent a very clear message to Washington. It is time to start to bring our troops home from Iraq. The Congress has responded."

The White House quickly condemned the vote, although Bush himself made no public comment. Spokeswoman Dana Perino described it as "defeatist legislation that insists on a date for surrender, micromanages our commanders and generals in combat zones from 6,000 miles away and adds billions of dollars in unrelated spending."

Despite weeks of speeches deriding Democrats for meddling in the war, the president did not swing a single vote in Congress. And recent polls show that popular support for withdrawing troops actually increased while Bush was aggressively attacking the Democrats for their timeline.

The complex measure that Democrats pushed through Congress funds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and provides billions of dollars for veterans' healthcare, relief for hurricane-damaged Gulf Coast states and other nonmilitary programs. It does not cut funding for military operations in Iraq.

Nor are its limits on the military unprecedented. Over the last three decades, lawmakers have repeatedly dictated how and when American forces can operate abroad, including in Central America, Somalia and the Balkans. But by explicitly setting the terms for an end to U.S. involvement in a war, this Congress has gone further than any since the Vietnam era.

Then, lawmakers imposed limits on what the armed forces could do, ordering troops out of Cambodia after President Nixon's controversial 1970 incursion.

But Congress did not finally ban U.S. military operations in Southeast Asia until after the Paris peace accords were signed in 1973. And lawmakers did not cut funding until all U.S. forces had been withdrawn.

In contrast, Democrats have pushed through a far more confrontational plan that would require the president to wind down the Iraq war. And they did this less than four months after taking power in an election widely viewed as a referendum on Bush's conduct of the war.

The Democratic plan ties the withdrawal to the performance of the Iraqi government, which American officials and lawmakers have repeatedly criticized for not moving quickly enough to reduce violence between Shiites and Sunni Arabs.

If Bush fails to certify that the Iraqi government is making progress on a series of "reconciliation initiatives" — including disarming militias and equitably dividing oil revenue among the country's ethnic and sectarian groups — withdrawals must begin July 1.

The plan sets a nonbinding goal of completing the withdrawal within 180 days, which would end the U.S. combat role on Dec. 27.

The measure gives Bush more leeway if he can demonstrate that the Iraqi government is making progress. Under that scenario, the plan orders the withdrawal to begin Oct. 1, with a goal to complete the pullout by March 28.

Acknowledging the threat from international terrorism, the Democratic plan allows some troops to remain to train Iraqi forces, protect American interests and conduct limited counter-terrorism operations.

Democrats, who have complained vigorously about growing strains on the military, also would require Bush to explain publicly why military units are being deployed if they have not met standards for training and rest at their home bases.

The president and his congressional allies have repeatedly lambasted the measure as a disastrous congressional intrusion into military policy that will embolden America's enemies and abandon Iraqis to a bloodbath.

Thursday, GOP senators again derided the plan on the floor of the Senate.

"If earlier Congresses had done what it appears that this Congress is trying to do, freedom would have died in Europe. It would have died where it was in Asia," said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), who compared the current challenge facing America to the one that confronted the World War II generation.

"And who knows what would have happened … in America," said Hutchison, one of the White House's most loyal allies.

Mississippi Sen. Thad Cochran, the senior GOP member of the Appropriations Committee, chided Democrats for delaying money for U.S. troops by wasting time on legislation that Bush has promised to veto.

"We should be providing the president with a bill he can sign so our military forces can receive the funding they need now," Cochran said.

But every Democrat voted for the measure, as did two GOP senators — Oregon's Gordon H. Smith and Nebraska's Chuck Hagel. Connecticut's Joe Lieberman, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, voted with the Republican minority.

Three senators, including Arizona's John McCain, missed the vote. This is the fourth major Iraq-related vote missed by McCain, a presidential candidate who has been a leading champion of the president's current Iraq policy.

Democratic leaders acknowledge that the next steps in this evolving showdown between the White House and Congress are still unclear.

After a veto, it could take a month or more for Democrats to assemble a new funding bill that does not contain withdrawal language. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he hoped Democrats could send the president a new bill by June.

But emboldened by public enthusiasm for ending the war, Democrats appear determined to attach their withdrawal plan to other legislation in the months ahead.

"For the sake of our troops, we cannot repeat the mistakes of Vietnam and allow this to drag on long after the American people know it's a mistake," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), who as a young senator in the early 1970s helped fight to end American involvement in Vietnam.

"The American people were right in Vietnam and brought that war to an end. And the American people are right now."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the K Street Corridor: Soul Food

April 28, 2007

A coalition of 16 church and other faith-based organizations has formed the Religious Working Group on the Farm Bill to urge lawmakers to use the legislation to fight rural poverty at home and abroad. The working group includes the five mainline Protestant denominations (the Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches, and the United Church of Christ), the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Council of Churches, and such anti-poverty and relief organizations as Bread for the World.

Meeting weekly for the past six months, the group has drafted a statement of moral principles that includes promoting land conservation and renewable energy, expanding international food aid and U.S. nutrition programs, and discouraging trade practices that impoverish developing countries.

A nationwide grassroots and "grass-tops" lobbying blitz is in the works for the Memorial Day congressional recess, says Alex Baumgarten, international policy analyst for the Episcopal Church. "We want to really hit the grassroots around the country in a big way," he says, "and see as many members as possible in their districts."

Bishops from the mainline churches plan to meet with key congressional members, and Bread for the World is organizing constituent meetings with lawmakers to coincide with its national conference in early June, according to Katie Barge, spokeswoman for Faith in Public Life, a communications and organizing resource for religious groups. The working group is also collaborating with environmental organizations, the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, and hunger and nutrition organizations such as the Food Research and Action Center, Barge says.

--

Church's Campaign Educates On, Seeks Support For Comprehensive Reform Of Immigration

April 26, 2007

ATLANTA—Chris West of Catholic Relief Services spoke April 13 to about 140 parish advocates at a local conference on the national Catholic Campaign for Immigration Reform, seeking to highlight the issue as Congress renews debate over how to address the nation’s estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants.

In this session of Congress, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and its “Justice for Immigrants” program is generally supporting H.R. Bill 1645, known as the STRIVE Act (Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy), West told attendees at the Friday evening event, held at Holy Cross Church.

West is director of field operations in the Justice for Immigrants campaign and is a community organizer for CRS, one of several national Catholic organizations partnering with the USCCB. He spoke on the legislative outlook for the bill, saying that any immigration legislation would need to pass both chambers of Congress by the August recess. Then a joint House-Senate committee could work out a compromise bill in the fall.

STRIVE is currently the only immigration measure in the House, and it or another bill is expected to be voted on this summer. Senators are currently meeting about immigration reform, and a similar bill may pass the Senate by the end of May.

“We have … a narrow opportunity to get our Congress to do anything. … Our legislative fight is going to be in the next month and a half,” West said.

The House bill includes broad legalization of the undocumented, while requiring six years of work, fines of $2,000 plus application fees, payment of back taxes, English language and civics requirements, and a “legal re-entry requirement.” The bill includes a temporary worker program with a path to citizenship, focuses on family-based immigration reform and on backlog reduction, and doubles the allotted number of employment-based green cards. It would increase border patrol agents and enforcement officers and implement tamper-resistant immigration documents and an electronic employment verification system before any temporary worker program or legalization provisions could be adjudicated. It also requires the U.S. Secretary of State to assist the Mexican government to develop economic opportunities and jobs in Mexico to discourage emigration.

West challenged those at the meeting to be visible advocates in their parishes and communities and to contact the media and Georgia senators Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isaacson, who he said have opposed comprehensive immigration reform and have said they don’t hear from constituents who favor this type of reform.

Advocates must also work to educate people in the pews, he said, asserting that many Americans don’t realize how important immigrants are to the growing U.S. economy.

A Pew Hispanic Center study on immigration estimates that an average of 400,000 to 485,000 Mexican migrants have illegally entered the United States annually since 1990. “These are jobs people fill,” West said.

Despite the draw of American jobs, only 5,000 permanent visas are available annually for low-skilled workers and only 66,000 can enter annually as seasonal non-agricultural workers.

West said that Common Ground is one good program to bring people together in divided parishes to talk about this controversial issue, on which many Catholics oppose the church’s position.

“We need to take time to heal the church, to bring people together for dialogue. We are putting resources up on the Web site about how you bring people together to have controversial discussions in your parish,” he said. “We are one church. … We have to engage in relationship with people, especially those who disagree with us.”

The USCCB campaign has a comprehensive Web site filled with statistics, and the National Immigration Forum has been doing “phenomenal work on this issue, great research.”

“There comes a time when we have to decide, do we be prophetic or do we be quiet? Do we stand up in solidarity with people who need us or do we be quiet?” West asked. “We need to begin having that dialogue. … Priests cannot do it alone. We need the laity involved in this.”

If legislation is not passed this session, the campaign will continue, West said.

“It’s not just Congress. It’s a huge battle for the hearts and minds of this country. Immigrants are not a threat. They are a blessing.”

In case reform legislation passes, West advised the undocumented to save documents that prove their identity and history of employment and good moral character. They must never use fraudulent Social Security numbers or other false identity documents. Falsely stating one is a U.S. citizen, whether applying to get a driver’s license or for student financial aid, automatically bars one from ever obtaining citizenship. Anyone who has been arrested before needs to seek legal advice before filling out any application.

Sue Colussy, Catholic Charities Immigration Services director, advised in a question-and-answer session that “it will always be a problem with people who use false documents, and it will come back. … You face very serious issues down the road when you make false statements.”

Myths About Immigration

West also offered attendees statistics supporting comprehensive reform as well as the Catholic moral perspective on the issues through the lens of CRS, which provides relief and development work in 99 countries around the world. The Bible has over 300 references on how to treat migrants.

“When we look at issues, we look at it from a global point of view, from a one Catholic Church point of view, and we are one human family.”

He said the “enforcement first” approach with regard to border security hasn’t worked, stating that from 1986 to 1998 the budget at the border has increased six-fold and the number of agents on the Southwest border doubled to 8,500. Instead of decreasing illegal immigration, the undocumented population doubled in that time frame to 8 million.

Over 2,000 people, as they cross through Arizona’s Sonora Desert, have died since 1998, according to the humanitarian group No More Deaths. Groups leave water at stations to help illegal aliens survive the crossing, and West noted that even cities along the border give them financial support because it’s cheaper to help those crossing illegally live than hire more coroners.

Regarding the root causes of poverty, he said that U.S. development assistance in Latin and Central America has been falling since the 1980s. He reasoned that conflict arises in the free trade model when goods can flow freely across borders while labor can’t, and reported that following the North American Free Trade Agreement some 1 million Mexican corn farmers lost their small farms, unable to compete with American farmers who grow corn with subsidy protection. Exacerbating the problem, the Mexican government failed to provide needed social support services, and the factories on the border where previously the poor could find work relocated to China.

“There are all sorts of compounding problems,” he said. “It’s in our country’s interest to have stable countries” as neighbors.

The campaign reports from the U.S. Department of Labor that there will be a shortage of 2 million workers in a range of low-skilled jobs by 2010 and that the number of native-born and naturalized workers in unskilled categories is shrinking due to lower fertility rates and higher education levels.

“We have more people retiring than workers replacing them. It’s not hard to figure out we need to find workers from somewhere else.”

One estimate by the Friends Committee on National Legislation is that immigrants earn about $240 billion a year, pay about $90 billion in taxes and use about $5 billion in public benefits, and 70 percent arrive at prime working age. The Georgia Budget and Policy Institute reported that the undocumented in Georgia contribute up to $252 million a year in taxes while in 2005 the federal government paid $67 million and the state paid $44 million in medical services to the undocumented.

“Immigrants come here to work, to reunite with family members. … Undocumented folks can’t get welfare,” West said.

He cited an open letter to Congress last June by 500 leading economists, including five Nobel laureates, in support of immigration. It stated that the economy creates as many jobs as there are workers willing to work as long as markets remain free, flexible and open to all workers on an equal basis.

“While a small percentage of native-born Americans may be harmed by immigration, vastly more Americans benefit from the contributions that immigrants make to our economy, including lower consumer prices. As with trade in goods and services, the gains from immigration outweigh the losses. The effect of all immigration on low-skilled workers is very likely positive as many immigrants bring skills, capital and entrepreneurship to the American economy,” stated one paragraph.

Undocumented immigrants do not have Social Security numbers, but the Internal Revenue Service allows them to file taxes by assigning applicants individual taxpayer identification numbers. The numbers were introduced in 1996 to encourage non-citizens, who have United States income, including foreign investors, to file returns. It is generally accepted that most of the 11 million numbers issued since then have gone to illegal immigrants.

The church opposes the White House’s most recent reform proposition which, among various elements, calls for a $10,000 fine in addition to paying $3,500 every three years until eligible for a green card. As violation of immigration law is a civil law infraction, the church’s position is that the fine is disproportionate to the crime.

“One of the arguments we hear a lot is ‘no amnesty,’” West said. “People need to make restitution for breaking the law, but it needs to be equivalent to what wrong is done.”

Church’s Historical Perspective On Immigration

The U.S. Catholic Church has a longstanding history of serving immigrants and refugees—regardless of religion or ethnicity. The USCCB’s Migration and Refugee Services office is one of the primary organizations partnering with the government to resettle refugees.

Through the Catholic Legal Immigration Network of over 150 immigration programs, low-cost, Catholic-sponsored legal clinics around the country, including Atlanta’s award-winning Catholic Charities clinic, help immigrants navigate complex laws.

West said that while some think immigration is now a much bigger issue than in the past, it has always been a controversial subject, quoting Benjamin Franklin’s criticism of German immigrants: “Why should we suffer outsiders who prefer ethnic enclaves?”

In the early 20th century immigrants were about 15 percent of the population, and now they are 11.5 percent. Immigrant groups that have historically been discriminated against included Germans from 1840-1920, Eastern Europeans and the Irish, with the brunt of anti-immigrant backlash often being against Catholics. In 1882 Congress passed the Chinese Expulsion Act. Later it passed a literacy test for citizenship in 1917 and exempted Mexicans because they were important to the economy, but then 400,000 were deported during the Depression.

Using images to make his points, he showed a cartoon of the message below the Lady Liberty statue reading “give me your tired, your poor …” with an asterisk stating “offer may vary.”

The church, which Catholic Charities USA reported in 1910 was 75 percent immigrant with the majority in poverty, “has a tremendous history of standing with the immigrant. The church cares about the dignity of the human person and has been at the forefront of this fight.”

Fernando Muñoz, a Cuban-American member of Immaculate Heart of Mary Church, Atlanta, commented on the importance of judiciously choosing tactics in advocating for reform. He is concerned that after the massive immigration rallies last spring where some brought Mexican flags and sang the national anthem in Spanish that public attitude shifted away from respecting Hispanics as hard-working and family-oriented people, to that of being disloyal and drainers of public benefits.

Annette Diaz of San Felipe de Jesus Mission in Forest Park is a catechist and the coordinator of the south metro pastoral plan for Hispanics. She came to see how she might support the archdiocese in the campaign, as she knows many good people who are undocumented immigrants and own houses and have businesses and children born here. She doesn’t believe S.B. 529, Georgia’s recently passed immigration law, is going to deter the inexorable influx of migrants to Georgia.

But for those already here “everyone is afraid,” she said. “They don’t understand the law, where to go. We’re trying to learn more of what is there to help them out.”

Susan Stevenot Sullivan, director of parish and social justice ministries for Catholic Charities, said the Holy Cross meeting was a way to provide the latest information and to gather parish leaders of immigrant communities to create a diocesan immigration network through which they can disseminate future news on immigration. She was pleased that about 75 people signed on to be contacts in their parishes, as this was the first step of an initiative that they will build on over the next few years. There are also parish information kits that can be ordered through the Web site.

“Given the difficulties that every wave of immigrants has faced, this is a problem that is not going to go away next month or year. Whatever happens with the federal government, with the climate in Georgia, these challenges will go on for a while in Georgia and there is a lot of suffering involved. This is something we need to pray and work on, both recent immigrants and descendents of immigrants,” she said. “It’s the whole idea of how do we distribute, how do we have good communication about this, not only communicating information about the important things people should know (but also) communication about what is happening to people. Part of being a responsible community is listening to people, and responding responsibly and prayerfully together.”

She believes that Catholics must see the issue through the lens of justice and solidarity, as reflected in the event theme “Travelers Together: One Creator, One Family, One Journey.”

This theme “comes from both the Old and New Testament and Paul’s proclamation,” Sullivan said. “We are many parts and one body, and whatever happens to one part affects the whole body. We are all in this together, and sometimes that’s not a message that is being heard clearly.”

For more information call Colleen Smith at (404) 885-7472 or visit www.justiceforimmigrants.org.

Episcopal Head Says Anglican Churches Will Make Same 'Journey' to Pro-Gay Stance

April 27, 2007

After affirming that the 2008 Lambeth Conference will not be canceled over sexuality debates, the Anglican Communion is moving forward with plans for the worldwide assembly.

Next year's decennial conference will be different, however. Rather than a parliamentary debating chamber with a string of resolutions, it will be a time for "spiritual reflection, learning, sharing and discerning," said Archbishop of Melanesia, Sir Ellison Pogo.

The 77 million-member Anglican Communion had been considering whether to cancel the global event in the wake of heightened controversy over the Episcopal Church's recent actions and stance favoring the consecration of homosexuals and the blessing of same-sex unions.

Earlier this year, Archbishop Peter Akinola of the Church of Nigeria had threatened to not participate in the 2008 Lambeth Conference and hold its own gathering if the issue of homosexuality was not resolved before then.

The Episcopal Church, which consecrated an openly gay bishop in 2003, was given a Sept. 30 deadline this year to unequivocally pledge not to consecrate another gay bishop or authorize prayers for homosexual unions.

Leading up to the deadline, the Anglican spiritual leader had questioned the timing of the 2008 conference.

"We've been looking at whether the timing is right, but if we wait for the ideal time, we will wait more than just 18 months," Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams told the Anglican Journal last week.

Last week, the conference "Design Group," appointed by Williams, worked on the conference structures, purposes, issues and program, according to the Anglican News Service.

In the meantime, U.S. Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori told The Boston Globe this week that the Episcopal Church will not likely be moving "backward" on their 2003 decision to elect an openly gay bishop.

"I don't believe that there is any will in this church to move backward," she told the newspaper on Tuesday. She called the 2003 election "a great blessing."

While the majority of Anglican leaders, mainly on the African continent, say the Episcopal Church has departed from Anglican tradition and scriptural authority, Jefferts Schori believes the rest of the Anglican churches will move in the direction of the Episcopal Church possibly 50 years from now.

"Where the protesters are, in some parts of Africa or in other parts of the Anglican Communion today, is where this church and this society we live in was 50 years ago, and for us to assume that people can move that distance in a year or in a relatively instantaneous manner is perhaps faithless," she told the Globe. "That kind of movement and development has taken us a good deal of pain and energy over 40 or 50 years, and I think we have to make some space so that others can make that journey as well."

"In other words, Jefferts Schori argues that time is on her side," commented the Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and one of America's pre-eminent evangelical leaders, in a blog post Thursday. "The African churches will simply have to grow up and learn to play the game. They will have to learn to replace the authority of the Bible with the authority of modern therapeutic ideologies.

"In time,” he wrote, “she expects the African churches to learn to play the game - relativizing Scripture, redefining biblical morality, and flaunting the moral wisdom the church has known for over 2,000 years.

"She may be right," Mohler added. "We must pray she is wrong."

Lambeth 2008 will continue to address the "internal conflicts of recent years," according to Ellison, and also address such topics as the Millennium Development Goals, HIV/AIDS, Ethical/Green living, Anglican identity and covenant, The Listening Process and relationships with people of other faiths.

Correction: Thursday, April 26, 2007:

An article on Thursday, Apr. 26, 2007, about statements made ahead of an upcoming decennial conference incorrectly stated that Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane of the Church of Nigeria had threatened to not participate in the Anglican Communion's 2008 Lambeth Conference. It was Archbishop Peter Akinola, not Ndungane, who said he would not participate in the decennial worldwide assembly if the issue of homosexuality was not resolved before then.

Signs spark biblical debate about homosexuality

April 27, 2007

The billboard claims "Jesus affirmed a gay couple."

A vandal's own statement -- the words "Lie, lie, lie" spray-painted in red -- delivered an opposing view above them.
In some ways, the argument in giant letters above an Eastside street reflects society's ongoing argument over homosexuality -- on issues ranging from same-sex marriage to gay clergy.

The discussion just got more intense in Indianapolis where 22 billboards and 1,000 yard signs went up recently as part of a campaign based on the premise that the Bible approves of gays and lesbians.

The signs are part of a joint effort between Faith in America, a national gay advocacy group, and Jesus Metropolitan Community Church, an Indianapolis congregation rooted in the belief that homosexuality is acceptable to God.

Featuring portraits of Jesus and other biblical figures, the billboards and 1,000 yard signs in Indianapolis proclaim things like "Jesus said some are born gay" while citing Bible passages. Some billboards suggest that key Bible figures, such as David and Ruth, were involved in gay relationships.

The groups hope to change the public debate by citing the same book often used against them, with a contention that the Bible does not call on Christians to reject homosexuality.

"Most people right now think the debate over homosexuality is between those who love the Bible -- conservative Christians -- and those who want to throw the Bible out -- godless homosexuals," said Jesus Metropolitan pastor Jeff Miner, who is gay. "That is not reality. This is a debate between people who love the Bible."

He suggests that the vandalism of two signs last weekend is "an indication of the power of the ideas we are sharing."

The countercampaign

The Rev. Andy Hunt decried both the message of the billboard and the vandalism it provoked. "It ignites passions whenever someone brings a lie against the god you worship. But we can't go down to their level," said Hunt, pastor of Body of Christ Community Church on the Northside. "We have to be able to fight a lie with the truth."

He said he nearly drove into a power pole the first time he passed a yard sign with the message: "Jesus affirmed a gay couple." Then he cried.

The message is such a distortion of the Bible's clear opposition to homosexual behavior, he said, that he has begun going to the signs and praying people won't be misled. "That is an absolute affront against God," he said.

Hunt is one of a handful of pastors commissioned by the Indiana Family Institute, a conservative faith-based organization opposed to gay marriage, to respond to the billboard claims with written counterpoints.

The institute plans to post the counter-arguments on its Web site. Given the expense, there are no plans to start a billboard war, said Ryan McCann, the institute's director of operations and public policy.

The billboard campaign, which is scheduled to run on Clear Channel signs for 30 days, cost $42,502. It is a follow-up to a $55,000 campaign last summer that asked the question "Would Jesus discriminate?"

Faith in America has conducted similar billboard campaigns in North Carolina, where it is based. And it has run similar messages in newspaper ads in Baltimore and Washington, D.C., and through direct mail in Colorado Springs, Colo., said Jimmy Creech, Faith in America's executive director.

The other campaigns drew little public response. The organization's goal, as stated on its Web site, is to educate people about "religion-based bigotry."

The organization draws key support from furniture maker Mitchell Gold, who is gay, and two private foundations that support gay rights causes -- the Evelyn & Walter Haas Jr. Fund of San Francisco and the Denver-based Gill Foundation.

The group is putting up the billboards in major cities that have local congregations strong enough to support the efforts, Creech said.

Reading ancient texts

To that end, Miner's Northeastside church is sponsoring what will eventually include 2,000 yard signs that support the billboard campaign: a Web site, wouldjesusdiscriminate.com, T-shirts and bumper stickers. All told, the billboard and sign campaign could cost $100,000.

A third blitz of billboards and signs in June will trumpet how the Bible has been used to justify slavery, opposition to women's rights and taboos against interracial marriage.

Miner acknowledges it is difficult to convey theology in a few words on a billboard or a yard sign. But he hopes it provokes debate.

Miner has written a book on the Bible's view of gay relationships, "The Children are Free: Reexamining the Biblical Evidence on Same-sex Relationships." He makes his case by looking at the wording in the original Greek and Hebrew, as well as cultural practices in biblical times. He said the Old Testament condemnation of homosexuality, for instance, was directed at the Egyptians and their practice of temple prostitution, not committed relationships.

When the New Testament tells the story of a eunuch being baptized, Miner said, it was done with a widespread societal belief that all eunuchs were gay. Thus, baptizing a eunuch with no reference to condemning his behavior would have been an endorsement of his homosexuality.

Others skeptical
Other ministers remain certain that the Bible consistently says homosexuality is sinful. In Genesis, the story of Sodom's destruction decries homosexuality, said the Rev. Bob Taylor, of Colonial Hills Baptist Church, a Northeastside congregation. In First Corinthians, Paul says gays are among those who will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.

One Jewish scholar goes further. Rabbi Arnold Bienstock, an adjunct professor of religion at Butler University, said endorsements of homosexuality can't be found in the Bible.

The type of long-term, monogamous gay relationships Miner's church supports didn't exist in biblical times, Bienstock said. Homosexual acts were deemed unacceptable, as the oft-quoted passage in Leviticus -- that homosexuality is an abomination -- states.

The idea that Ruth was in a romantic relationship with Naomi is a "creative" interpretation that ignores the fact that Ruth wound up marrying a man named Boaz, Bienstock said. "He is simply twisting things inside out and around."
Taylor agreed.

"It is just an outright lie," he said. "They have just made a great leap in sound logic."

The billboard campaign doesn't worry him, though, Taylor said, because the Bible is so clear on the issue. "People will always find an excuse to do what they want to do."

Bishop will marry under N.H. civil unions law

April 27, 2007

CONCORD, N.H. -- The Rev. V. Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, says he and his partner of 18 years will be among the couples taking advantage of New Hampshire's soon-to-be-signed civil unions law.

"My partner and I look forward to taking full advantage of the new law," Robinson told the Associated Press yesterday.

Robinson, 59, was elected the ninth Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire four years ago, making him the church's first openly gay bishop. His elevation divided the Anglican community around the world, but has sparked far less controversy in New Hampshire.

His partner, Mark Andrew, 53, is a state healthcare administrator. They live in Weare .

Robinson commented after the state Senate voted for the bill and sent it to Governor John Lynch, who says he will sign it. With the vote, the state became the first to embrace same-sex unions without a court order or the threat of one.

The Senate passed the bill 14 to 10 on party lines, Democrats in favor, Republicans against.

Three other states offer civil unions for gay couples: New Jersey, Connecticut, and Vermont. Neighboring Massachusetts in 2004 became the only state to allow gay marriage.

"I kind of am speechless," said state Representative Bette Lasky, a Democrat who shepherded civil unions through the House. "I'm delighted this is the result, and I'm proud of both the House and Senate for upholding New Hampshire's tradition of advancing minority rights."

The vote "moves us one step closer to the American promise to all its citizens of equality under the law," Robinson said.

Iran: The religious right's new bugbear

April 27, 2007

Are conservative Christian evangelicals gearing up to join the attack-Iran brigade?

As the launching of the Iraq War marked its fourth anniversary on March 19, it is worth remembering that during the lead up to the invasion a number of conservative evangelicals voiced their support for the war: Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission for the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation's largest Protestant denomination, maintained that Bush's action met criteria for a just war; the National Association of Evangelicals, which represents several dozen denominations encompassing more than 30 million American evangelical Christians, openly supported the war; Mike Evans, who heads the aggressively pro-Israeli Jerusalem Prayer Team, pointed out that war with Iraq could be a "dress rehearsal for Armageddon," the fulfillment of Biblical Prophecy.

These days, while the Bush Administration and beltway neoconservatives doggedly crank up the volume against Iran, they are again being joined by several notable conservative Christian evangelical leaders.

Hagee Leading the Charge


Pastor John Hagee
On Sunday March 11, Pastor John Hagee, the founder of Christians United for Israel, received a rousing reception during his address at the opening dinner plenary of the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference.

Hagee warned the crowd that "Iran poses a nuclear threat to the State of Israel that promises nothing less than a nuclear Holocaust." Hagee claimed that the situation is like 1938, only "Iran is Germany and [President Mahmoud] Ahmedinejad is the new Hitler."

Hagee added: "We must stop Iran's nuclear threat and stop it now and stand boldly [with] Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East."

A few weeks earlier, Hagee met with Senator John McCain, a leading contender for the Republican Party's 2008 presidential nomination. Hagee has been leading the charge of conservative Christian evangelicals urging President Bush to deal more robustly with Iran.

"Hagee's appearance at AIPAC indicates the growing organizational strength of the Christian Zionist lobby for apocalyptic war and the rise of corresponding Jewish factions both within AIPAC and within Israeli politics that are pushing for dramatically expanded war in the Mideast," Bruce Wilson, the co-founder of Talk To Action, told me in an e-mail interview.

John Hagee, the pastor of the 18,000-member San Antonio, Texas-based Cornerstone Church and the head of a multi-million dollar evangelical enterprise, "seems to believe such a conflict is both inevitable and necessary," The Jewish Week noted in early March.

Hagee, who founded Christians United for Israel (CUFI), a Christian Zionist lobbying group last year, is the author of a number of Christian-themed novels, as well as the recent "Jerusalem Countdown: A Warning to the World," which maintains that biblical prophecy is currently playing itself out in the Middle East.

"The end of the world as we know it is rapidly approaching," Hagee wrote in "Jerusalem Countdown." "Just before us is a nuclear countdown with Iran followed by Ezekiel's war (as described in Ezekiel, chapters 38 and 39), and then the final battle -- the battle of Armageddon."

In a recent series of articles focused on Hagee, Talk to Action's Bruce Wilson described him as someone that "has built a career on aggressive support for hard right to fringe right Israeli politics and is now making inroads towards convincing the mainstream American Jewish community that he and CUFI are the best tactical allies Jews and Israel can expect to find."

"Pastor John Hagee's warmly received AIPAC speech illustrates the extent to which political leaders who espouse ideology that in the 1960's was considered to be scandalously close the extreme end of the political spectrum can now expect to broadcast their views from a national stage," Wilson told me.

Recruiting Evangelical Allies for a Showdown Against Iran

Joel Rosenberg is another conservative Christian evangelical advocating some type of Bush Administration action against Iran. In late February, Rosenberg, who was raised in an Orthodox Jewish family, reported on his website that a number of conservative Christian evangelical leaders were beginning to show an interest in Iran, particularly as the situation in the Middle East relates to passages in the Bible.

Rosenberg's latest novel, "The Ezekiel Option," is "about the threat of a Russian-Iranian alliance to destroy Israel based on the Biblical prophecies found in the Book of Ezekiel, chapters 38 and 39." These prophecies "describe what Bible scholars call the war of Gog and Magog. Russia and Iran form a military alliance with Lebanon, Syria and a group of other Middle East countries to destroy Israel in what Ezekiel described as the last days."

In January, during a trip to the Middle East, Rosenberg said that he "brief[ed] several hundred Arab and Iranian pastors and evangelical leaders on the latest geopolitical developments in the region," and that he taught "on Ezekiel 38 and 39 ... prophecies that most Christian leaders in the region are unfamiliar with."

Back home, Rosenberg has discovered a growing interest in developments in Iran amongst evangelical Christian leaders. While flying to New Mexico he "happened to sit next to" Focus on the Family founder Dr. Jamews Dobson, one of the most politically powerful conservative evangelical leaders in the U.S. Dobson, who "had been in Washington for meetings with high level administration officials to discuss Iran, Iraq and the latest developments in the Middle East," told Rosenberg that he was becoming more "concerned about the Iranian nuclear threat, and has been studying Ezekiel's prophecies."

Rosenberg also reported that Kay Arthur, a "world renowned Bible teacher," had also developed an interest in "the military alliance ... between Russia and Iran and how this might relate to Ezekiel's prophecies." Arthur recently invited Rosenberg to her headquarters in Chattanooga, Tennessee, "to teach on the Biblical description of the `War of Gog and Magog' and to record a series of radio and TV programs to explain these prophecies in light of current events."

He also "spent several days with a team of Iranian Christian pastors" that "have a satellite television ministry which is seen by between 4 and 7 million Iranian Shiites every day." Rosenberg discussed "Bible prophecies about Iran with them and help[ed] them develop a plan to communicate `God's love and plan for Iran' through their live satellite broadcasts, as well as figure out how to answer the many phone calls and emails they are sure to get from inside Iran once such programs are broadcast into the country."

According to Rosenberg, the Iranian Christian pastors "see a showdown with Iran coming, and they feel passionately about reaching their fellow Iranians with the good news of Christ's love."

"Will there be a war in the region this year or next?" While acknowledging that "it's too it's too early to say," Rosenberg claimed that 2007 is "the Year of Decision." President Bush and Congressional leaders "will need to decide soon just how they're going to handle the Iranian nuclear threat," [and] Church leaders also need to decide just how they are going to handle the Iranian threat, as well ... after all, time is short, and the stakes are high."

Last July, at Christian United For Israel's coming out party in Washington, D.C., John Hagee stated that "The United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's plan for both Israel and the West ... a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation ... and [the] Second Coming of Christ."

During a September 18, 2006 interview with WHYY's Terry Gross, Hagee talked about the Russian/Iranian alliance that for the past ten years has been "plot[ing] and plan[ning] Israel's destruction." Hagee charged that "Iran's nuclear weapons have been produced with Russian scientists. The Islamic Arabs are using the Roadmap to Peace to get all of the land of Israel they can get. And when Israel finally says, `Enough!' you're going to see the beginning of the implementation of Ezekiel's war in 38:39. The critical point is the church is raptured before this war begins. I am telling you that makes this message one of the most thrilling prophetic messages you've ever heard in your life. You could get raptured out of this building before I get through finished preaching. We are that close to the coming of the Son of Man."

In a statement Jane Hunter and Rabbi Haim Dov Beliak, co-founders of the website JewsOnFirst.org, said that "Hagee's call in his speech for victory for Israel and America (which appears to refer to Iran) is not necessarily the call for military victory which his audience might have heard (a chilling prospect nonetheless). Hagee's "victory" is coded language for Armgadeddon, which Christian Zionists see as the end-times battles set in Israel, when Christians are raptured to heaven and Jews lose -- unless they're happy to convert."

If President Bush unleashes a pre-emptive military strike against Iran, there is little doubt that Pastor Hagee and Joel Rosenberg will be standing behind him.

Huckabee: A nonwavering conservative

April 27, 2007

Mike Huckabee has had a pretty good week.

Mike who? Don't laugh. Not so long ago, a governor of Arkansas made it all the way to the White House. And now Huckabee, born in the same town, who served as chief executive of the Razorback state from 1996 to January of this year, hopes to be the second.

On Saturday, Huckabee won a straw poll in Spartanburg County, S.C.

Meanwhile, the race for the Republican nomination seems to have cracked open. John McCain's campaign is collapsing, and Mitt Romney won the other two Palmetto State straw polls over the weekend. And, while Rudy Giuliani remains ahead in the national polls, he has yet to prove he can gain traction among activists. Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich still watch and wait.

Amid all that GOP confusion, even long shots, such as Huckabee, have reason to keep hope alive. Indeed, the Arkansan gained valuable exposure on Monday night, appearing on "The Colbert Report" and getting into the spirit of the show. He joshed with his host, the notoriously faux-right-wing Stephen Colbert, pronouncing, "You're a real conservative, just like me."

In fact, Huckabee is a real conservative. He is anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-gun control, anti-open immigration. In a recent session with reporters in Washington, he promised, "There's not going to be any 'YouTube moment' in which you see me giving a speech defending abortion or gay marriage." That was a clear dig at Giuliani,
Advertisement
Click Here!
McCain and Romney — all of whom hold, or have held, positions deeply at odds with the conservative base of the Republican Party.

Huckabee's Christian conservatism animates him: If you care about the soul of a person, he believes, you have to care about the body, too. And, speaking of bodies, Huckabee went on a diet in 2003, during which he lost 110 pounds, gaining at the same time a new perspective on government health care — "sick care," he calls it. What we need more of, he argues, is emphasizing wellness and prevention.

When a questioner suggested that the Arkansan might end up campaigning against a former Arkansan, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, he lighted up.

What might be some key points of distinction? Huckabee didn't seem interested in the usual Clinton scandal-mongering. Instead, he was eager to argue about effective compassion: "If we want to compare records on education, on children's health, or a host of issues that are likely to be in the debate, I would love the opportunity," he declared.

On foreign policy, Huckabee had relatively little to say. But, at the same time, he showed none of the international crusading spirit of the president. And, on trade issues, he seemed less interested in abstract theories and more interested in the concrete fate of American factory workers.

An incrementalist conservative — with a sense of humor? A cautious Christian who strives to bring morality, as well as common sense, to policy questions? Huckabee is not far from where the country is right now — even if he's a long way from the White House.

James Pinkerton is a columnist for Newsday.

Our Faith-Based Justices: did five justices ignore the critical line between religious belief and public morality?

In Gonzales v. Carhart, the Supreme Court, in a five-to-four decision, upheld the constitutionality of a federal law prohibiting so-called “partial birth abortions” (properly described as “intact dilation and evacuation” or “intact D & E”) -- despite the absence of any statutory exception that would allow the procedure to be used when necessary to protect the health of the woman. Seven years ago, before the appointments of Justices Roberts and Alito, the Supreme Court held a virtually identical state law unconstitutional.

As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made clear in her scathing dissenting opinion, the Court’s decision has put at risk the health of women who suffer from heart disease, uterine scarring, bleeding disorders, compromised immune systems, and certain pregnancy-related conditions, such as placenta previa and accreta, as well as those women carrying fetuses with certain abnormalities, such as severe hydocephalus. In all of these circumstances, and many others, the availability of intact D & E may be necessary to ensure the health of the woman.

It is important to note that the prohibition of intact D & E has nothing to do with preserving the life of a fetus. The “partial birth abortion” law does not prohibit any abortions. Rather, it prohibits only a particular means of performing abortion. If the woman is willing to undergo a greater than necessary risk to her health, she may terminate her pregnancy by other, less safe, methods. She may, for example, have the fetus terminated by injection prior to extraction, or removed by cesarean, or extracted by non-intact D & E (which involves dismembering the fetus in utero).

What, then, explains this decision? To be frank, the Court’s opinion is a hodgepodge of confusing and sometimes offensive ramblings about how women may “regret” having abortions and about how intact D & E “resembles” infanticide. But none of the Court’s musings credibly distinguish its earlier precedents. Never before has the Court allowed the state to restrict a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy without an express statutory exception to protect the health or life of the woman. In Gonzales, the Court flatly rejected that long-standing principle.

Here is a painfully awkward observation: All five justices in the majority in Gonzales are Catholic. The four justices who are not Catholic all followed settled precedent. It is embarrassing, indeed mortifying, to point this out. Perhaps it is mere coincidence. But it is too obvious to ignore.

However awkward the question, it is legitimate to ask whether, in deciding this case, the five justices in the majority ignored the critical line between religious belief and public morality. To be sure, this can be an elusive distinction, but in a society that values the separation of church and state, it is fundamental. The moral status of a fetus is a profoundly difficult and rationally unresolvable question. For that reason, as the Supreme Court has recognized for more than thirty years, it is not for the state -- or for the justices of the Supreme Court -- to resolve that question on the basis of personal religious belief, and especially not at the expense of the health of the woman.

In 1972-73, I had the distinct privilege of serving as a law clerk to Justice William J. Brennan, then the Court’s only Catholic justice. It was in that year that the Court decided Roe v. Wade. Justice Brennan struggled in that case, as he struggled in earlier cases involving such issues as school prayer, to separate his personal religious views from his views as a justice. He joined the decision in Roe because he believed in the separation of church and state and because he was convinced that his religious views must be irrelevant to his responsibilities as a justice.

As the Court observed fifteen years ago, “Some of us as individuals find abortion offensive to our most basic principles of morality, but that cannot control our decision. Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.” It is disconcerting that Justices Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito may not have honored this precept.

Abortion Debate Brings Anti-Catholicism Into Focus

Every so often the undercurrent in the abortion debate snaps clearly into anti-Catholic focus.

Witness Rosie O'Donnell's angry comment about Catholic Supreme Court Justices on the popular ABC women's program "The View." Ms. O'Donnell was upset by the high Court's recent 5-4 decision outlawing partial-birth abortion. The five majority-vote justices are Catholic.

"Church and State!" Rosie exclaimed.

Barbara Walters -- to no avail -- tried to point out that in confirmation hearings those five Catholic Justices said they would not be influenced by personal religious beliefs.

Not good enough for Rosie: "Church and State!"

I guess her point is that Catholics cannot participate in government. That used to be called "nativism." Now it's called "commentary."

Let's take a look at the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, to which O'Donnell apparently referred. What the amendment says, exactly, is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. ..."

That's it. Same now as it was in 1791, when the framers wanted to be sure the fledgling democracy stayed just that -- a democracy. No state religion. No king-appointed bishops. No laws against public worship.

Yes, there have been many cases over the years testing the establishment clause. And yes, we know the United States has no official state religion. Good thing, too.

There is nothing in the First Amendment, or anywhere else in the Constitution, that imposes a religious test on public service. Perhaps we inherited the unspoken prejudice against Catholics from our British cousins? There is that nasty business about the British Act of Settlement, excluding Catholics from royal succession in 1701. That law is still on the books in Britain.

But we are Americans and not worried about whether someone "should profess the popish religion, or marry a papist," as the folks in England put it.

Right, Rosie?

"Church and State" is the rallying cry of secularists across the land. Their religious test for public service has been around for a long, long time. The test is fairly clear: Catholics need not apply. Sometimes the test includes all Christians, but that's only to prove Catholics are in league with what the spin jocks call "Christian fundamentalists."

And you know what they are like. Not only do they oppose abortion, they support school prayer and probably don't think school vouchers are such a bad thing.

So as the country slogs through bogs of rhetoric toward the next elections, "Church and State" is slogan-of-the-year.

We are hiring one president, one vice president, the entire House of Representatives, and one-third of the Senate. In every race, personal religious belief and practice could be the election litmus test.

What's a Catholic to do?

Most candidates add the "personally opposed" clause to their repertoires, as in "I am personally opposed to abortion, but believe the government should pay for abortions for the poor." Popularized by former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo nearly 25 years ago, the "personally opposed" clause seems to let you be Catholic and run for office. That's not quite true, but sometimes it works.

You know, it's just a shame.

We do have a state religion, from sea to shining sea. It is secularism. God -- no matter how defined -- does not watch over our nation. Rather, a godless secularism that denies moral or ethical judgments in line with those of religion floods the airwaves and the halls of legislatures.

It is just plain silly.

Who we are determines our viewpoints. Who we are as a nation determines our future. To throw religious insight out of the mix is suicidal, and unravels the tapestry of American political thought.

What to do? Free discussion is the main engine of democracy. But in political discussion both believers and non-believers pick away at Catholic candidates so much that their every thought is subject to the secularism test.

Do we really prefer judges, presidents, governors and legislators with no moral training or opinions? Specifically, do we really mean to cut out Catholic public servants?

The rest of the First Amendment promises in "pre-blog" terms that we can talk about all this: "Congress shall make no law. ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Let us do so respectfully and honestly.

Meanwhile, how about if Rosie O'Donnell and her friends just give religion a chance?

Hispanics leaving imprint on religion in Dallas, across U.S.

April 27, 2007

A major study released Wednesday offers a close look at how Hispanics are changing the way religion is practiced in the United States – and how American culture is affecting the faith of Hispanics.

There may be no city in the country where Hispanic influence is felt greater than in Dallas. Among the American cities with the 10 largest Hispanic populations, Dallas is second only to New York in its percentage of Hispanic immigrants, according to census figures.

Since most Hispanics are Catholic, the local diocese may be the most transformed. The Dallas Diocese has swelled from about 200,000 in 1990 to about a million members today. And most of the newcomers are Hispanic.

Results of the surge are easy to find. The downtown cathedral originally named Sacred Heart is now dedicated to the Virgin of Guadalupe. The cathedral may see more worshippers every weekend than any Catholic church in the United States – and more Masses are in Spanish than English.

Dallas' Catholic bishop, Charles Grahmann, is scheduled to retire Tuesday and pass the leadership to Bishop Kevin Farrell. Bishop Grahmann was reluctant to offer too much advice for his successor. At the top of his short list: The new man needs to work with the mostly Mexican immigrant population that fills local Catholic churches.

But Catholic leaders are hardly the only religious officials concerned with Hispanics. About 20 percent of Hispanics nationwide are Protestant, according to the survey by the Pew Hispanic Center and the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. And 18 percent of American Hispanics have changed their religion – mostly from Catholicism.

The Baptist General Convention of Texas and the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention, the two largest state Baptist groups, each have significant Hispanic outreach programs. And myriad nondenominational Hispanic churches can be found in storefronts and larger sanctuaries.

The Hispanic population of this country grew by 28 percent from 2000 to 2005. So sheer numbers mean that American church leaders want to integrate the newcomers into existing traditions. But the Pew survey identifies some ways that Hispanics do not fold smoothly into the non-Hispanic religious culture.

Many Hispanics bring a different approach to religion than can be found in many Anglo or black American churches, the survey indicated. They generally are more religious than non-Hispanics, are rooted in a more mystical, experience-driven understanding of their faith, and have powerful links to the language and customs of their homelands.

"The short answer is that American churches need to reinvent themselves," said Albert Reyes, who in 2004 was the first Hispanic elected president of the Baptist General Convention of Texas.

Hispanic identity is more tied up in community than the Anglo tradition that emphasizes the individual, said Mr. Reyes, president of Buckner Children and Family Services. An American church that wants to reach out to Hispanics must provide some link to that community identity, he said.

The Pew study, based on bilingual interviews of about 4,000 Hispanics nationwide, identified some broad differences between Hispanics and non-Hispanics:

• Denominations – About 68 percent of Hispanic adults identify themselves as Catholic, compared with 22 percent of non-Hispanic whites and 4 percent of non-Hispanic blacks.

• How they experience their faith – About 29 percent of Hispanics who attend worship services say they speak in tongues – a hallmark of Pentecostal or charismatic worship – compared with only 11 percent of non-Hispanics. About 45 percent of Hispanic Catholics say they have seen or received divine healing, compared with 21 percent of non-Hispanic Catholics.

• Where they choose to worship – About 66 percent of Hispanics who attend church say their church has a Spanish-speaking priest or pastor, a Spanish-language service, and a predominantly Hispanic congregation. Even for Hispanics who are third-generation or higher, about 42 percent report attending a church with all three characteristics.

That preference for Spanish language and culture fits the experience of the Baptist General Convention of Texas. The convention counts more than 1,200 Hispanic churches as members. Just over half are Spanish-only and most of the rest are bilingual, with only a tiny fraction offering English-only services, said Rolando Rodriguez, the convention's director of Hispanic ministries.

The depth of the Mexican immigrant influence on Dallas religion can be seen and heard in the festivities around the Dec. 12 feast day of the Virgin of Guadalupe. The night before, Ross Avenue frequently fills with Mexican immigrants who begin the pilgrimage carrying the Guadalupe banner to the Dallas shrine, much as they sojourn to the Basilica of the Virgin of Guadalupe on a hill named Tepeyac in Mexico City.

According to Catholic tradition, the Virgin Mary appeared repeatedly to a Mexican Indian named Juan Diego in 1531 on Tepeyac Hill. Processions and other celebrations celebrating the tradition are annual affairs in Mexico – and now in Dallas.

Elizabeth Villafranca is a Guadalupe parishioner whose favorite piece of jewelry is a gold necklace with the Virgin of Guadalupe's image. Her preference for a Spanish language-friendly church matches the Pew survey results.

A visiting priest from Morelia, a central Mexican town, told her last year, "Siento que es un sucursal de Mexico," ("I feel like this is a branch of Mexico.")

The cultural connection is particularly important to Ms. Villafranca as she raises her 7-year-old daughter Natalie, a singer in the cathedral choir, she said.

"Every generation born in the United States starts to lose some tradition, but for our family it is important that she always have that connection to the roots," Ms. Villafranca said.

That search for connection can also be found in non-Catholic Hispanic churches.

When Vincent Gonzales, a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary, started his North Dallas Family Church, he made bilingual services his specialty.

He uses a PowerPoint presentation when reciting the Scriptures, preaching a bit in English with Spanish translations on the big screen, then preaching in Spanish while flashing the English translation. Songs of praise such as "Yes, Jesus Loves Me" carry an echoing line of "Sí, Cristo, me ama."

"The older Hispanics still prefer Spanish, but their children speak English and sometimes only English," the pastor said. "We have to speak to two worlds. We have to minister to two cultures."
Print E-mail this article Forums




Print E-mail this article Forums

Submit a news tip Subscribe to newspaper

Muslim prisoner sues over treatment

April 27, 2007

A Muslim prisoner says he was punished and brutalized by Muskingum County deputies when he objected to being served pork.

Kenneth E. Fletcher, 20, of Newark, has filed a federal lawsuit seeking $2 million in damages from Sheriff Robert Stephenson and nine of his employees.

Fletcher says he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment when he complained about jail meals containing pork, which the Quran forbids Muslims to eat.

Fletcher’s lawsuit in U.S. District Court says the deputies interfered with his right to observe his religious beliefs.

Fletcher is serving a 14-year prison sentence after being convicted of 14 felonies in Licking and Muskingum counties in 2005 and 2006. He is confined at the Ross Correctional Institution for aggravated robbery, theft, aggravated vehicular assault and a firearms violation.

Fletcher alleges he was placed in solitary confinement when he complained about being served pork upon being returned to the jail in Zanesville for sentencing in early 2006.

He also contends he did not receive medical treatment for puncture wounds left by Taser darts and developed a staph infection.

Stephenson said he could not comment until lawyers review the lawsuit.

The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction offers nonpork meals to Muslim prisoners and Kosher meals to Jewish prisoners. Vegetarian meals also are available to all prisoners.
For additional health information, visit OhioHealth

Opening Doors, Minds to Islamic Center

April 27, 2007

Highway travelers driving past the hulking mosque on I-75 see the metallic gold dome, the 135-foot-tall minarets and the intricate stained-glass windows. The Islamic Center of Greater Toledo makes some people curious. For others, it conjures up stereotypes fueled by the Sept. 11 terrorist attack and the Iraq War.

Imam Farooq Aboelzahab wishes they all would stop in, ask questions and see the mosque and Muslim ways for themselves.

"We need to talk about Islam and show Islam to others," he said. "We feel responsible to reach out, be with the people and show what we have in common."

Aboelzahab and others at the mosque are part of an enthusiastic outreach program. Its mission is to show outsiders that Muslims are just like them: Americans with families who care about safety and community.

Mosque leaders across the state say they’re doing public relations work more than ever. It’s necessary to counter all the negative stereotypes of Muslims that have popped up since Sept. 11, they say.

So they open the doors to the mosques, offer traditional Muslim food at community picnics and visit their neighbors who might be leery of them.

Muslim leaders say educating others always has been a part of Islam. But it’s increasingly necessary in light of Sept. 11, the subsequent wars and high-profile arrests such as that of Christopher Paul, the North Side man accused of training al-Qaida terrorists. Paul is a convert to Islam.

One Columbus Muslim leader, Adnan Mirza, said Paul’s arrest made him think, "Here we go again."

Negative news related to Islam "helps promote dialogue, but you spend a great portion of that dialogue fending off the attacks and fending off a lot of stereotypes about Islam," said Mirza, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Columbus.

Muslims say too many people believe Islam is a violent religion that fosters terrorism and is oppressive to women. They try to show that neither of these stereotypes is true.

One of the biggest misconceptions about Islam is that it’s incompatible with Judeo-Christian values and democracy, Mirza said. People also wrongly assume that Arab and Muslim are synonymous, he said, when the majority of Arab Americans are Christian.

Muslims try to counter those misperceptions with a little "Islam 101."

That’s why the community at the Toledo-area mosque, plopped in a farm field in the southern suburb of Perrysburg, is so happy to give tours of the 40,000-square-foot structure.

Visitors see the expansive but surprisingly bare prayer hall, decorated only with five gold chandeliers and rugs with Arabic writing hanging on the walls. They see the washroom where worshippers cleanse their

Non-Muslims can observe the main prayer service on Fridays.

The mosque hosts an annual International Festival for the public, complete with a petting zoo, camel rides for kids and a food court with about a dozen ethnic cuisines.

Other mosques also see food as a route to friendship.

This summer will be the second year of a picnic at the Unity Center Mosque in Brecksville, in suburban Cleveland, said mosque secretary Mohammad Assar.

Last year, about 30 non-Muslims from the neighborhood snacked on traditional Muslim food and toured the small mosque, a converted Christian Science church, Assar said.

"We see most of the people at the beginning are hesitant," Assar said. But then after a "10-minute, 15-minute or half-hour interaction, you see everything kind of change."

Muslims often collaborate with People of the Book, a term some use to describe Jews and Christians. Imams, rabbis and ministers speak together at forums, and Muslims often join interfaith community service groups.

In the Cincinnati area, a small social group of religious women have met four times this year at one another’s homes.

It was the idea of Clara Szucs, a Catholic homemaker, who was tired of receiving forwarded e-mails about Muslims being responsible for the war in Iraq. She worked with a woman from the Islamic Center of Greater Cincinnati to start the group.

Szucs said she already knew that Muslims were not all terrorists, but she did think they liked to stick to themselves. Her mind has changed, she said.

"I really see that they want to be American," she said. "They want to be part of us."

Changing minds isn’t always as pleasant as sharing some snacks and laughs.

Last year, Ahmad Al-Akhras and two other community leaders knocked on the door of a man whose car bore a bumper sticker that read: "Jesus loves you. Allah wants you dead."

Al-Akhras is president of the Islamic Foundation of Central Ohio and is the vice chairman of the national Council on American-Islamic Relations.

They spoke to the ex-Marine for more than an hour at his doorstep, telling him they had 11 children between them and cared strongly about America’s safety, Al-Akhras said.

"More than 95 percent of the time, we agree on things," Al-Akhras said of Muslims and non-Muslims.

He isn’t sure that visit did any good.

Mosque leaders also try to teach law-enforcement officers about Islam.

Emily Tarazi, 23, has spoken to many high-school classes about Islam. The Worthington woman, who converted to Islam in 2000, thinks non-Muslims feel comfortable with her.

High-school students have asked her about Islam’s stance on dating, sex and dance clubs, among other things. Many were amazed that the green-eyed, fair-skinned young woman who spoke perfect English was Muslim, she said.

"Whoa, she’s normal, and she’s nice, and she’s Muslim" was a typical reaction, Tarazi said.

Other Muslims say they’ve witnessed similar epiphanies, which give them hope.

S. Zaheer Hasan, public relations chairman at the Toledo mosque, said he’s seen a change.

"I see a lot of people realizing what they hear is not correct," Hasan said. Still, "I think this will be a perpetual struggle on our part."

mheagney@dispatch.com faces, hands and feet before prayer, and the closet where Muslim women keep spare head scarves for anyone who needs one.

Non-Muslim women are not asked to cover their heads. Guests simply are expected to dress modestly, as they would at any place of worship.

The tour includes a stop at a small clinic, where a rotation of Muslim doctors volunteer on Sundays to give free consultations to anyone who asks. The empty prayer hall is predictably quiet, but downstairs there is the sound of exuberant children being shushed by their teachers. The 65 students in the mosque’s school, ranging from pre-kindergarten through sixth grade, learn the typical publicschool fare, plus Islamic studies and Arabic.

Aboelzahab usually gives departing visitors a Quran from the bookstore, ignoring the $7 price tag. He doesn’t need a copy. He learned it by heart by the age of 10.

The human face of immigration raids in Bay Area

April 27, 2007

Immigration agents arrested siblings Victor and Elvira Mendoza, 21 and 17, when it turned out the fugitive they were looking for no longer lived at the Mendozas' home. Officers detained 6-year-old U.S. citizen Kebin Reyes for 12 hours when they arrested his father as an illegal immigrant.

These and many other families across the Bay Area and the nation were turned upside down this year by Operation Return to Sender, a federal immigration crackdown begun last May. The raids focus on illegal immigrants who have ignored deportation orders, but 37 percent of the 18,149 people arrested nationwide through Feb. 23 were not wanted fugitives.

Mental health experts say the raids are traumatizing children. Legal scholars and public officials are raising constitutional questions about the way the raids are carried out and about their impact on communities as a whole. And immigrant advocates say changes in immigration law -- including tougher provisions enacted in 1996 -- leave little room for illegal immigrants to correct their status.

"They (the raids) are putting some teeth back in immigration law," said Tim Aitken, deputy director for detention and removal operations in the San Francisco office of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. "Our focus is, we want to go after the worst of the worst. ... But we can't be blind to someone who doesn't have lawful status in the United States."

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights sued federal authorities in San Francisco on Thursday on behalf of Kebin Reyes, now 7, saying agents violated the child's civil rights when they took him into custody. Attorneys charge that the federal government violated Kebin's Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights to liberty and to being secure in his own home.

When agents arrested his father, Guatemalan-born Noe Reyes, on March 6, they would not allow him to call relatives who could take charge of Kebin and instead held the boy until an alarmed uncle heard about the arrest from neighbors, Noe Reyes and his lawyers said Thursday. "He went with his dad so he wouldn't be left home alone," said immigration agency spokeswoman Lori Haley. "We work with the families to find someone to take care of the child."

Noe Reyes, the boy's sole parent in the United States, who was released April 18, said Kebin has been fearful and withdrawn since the arrest and suffers recurring nightmares.

Lawyers and legal scholars have raised constitutional concerns about how the raids are being conducted. They accuse agents of gaining access to homes by insufficiently identifying themselves and bearing warrants that often contain inaccurate addresses for the fugitives they're seeking. Elected officials also said that when federal agents announce that they are "police," it undermines local law enforcement. And many people have questioned the right of agents to interrogate people not named in warrants about their own immigration status.

But immigration officials said questioning people who live with or associate with the targets of warrants meets the federal standard of "reasonable suspicion" that those people might be illegal immigrants.

"If agents are going to the home of a target they believe is in the country illegally, they could reasonably suspect that others in the house might be here illegally as well," said Haley.

Under federal law as amended in 1996, agents have the authority to interrogate anyone "believed to be an alien" about his or her right to be in the country.

Blake Chisam, legal counsel to the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on immigration, said some rationales for reasonable suspicion might not stand up in court.

"You'd have to have an articulable basis," he said. "I don't think profiling would work."

Immigrant advocates agree.

"Just because someone is Latino or has an accent doesn't mean an officer has reasonable suspicion they are undocumented," said Lawyer's Committee staff attorney Philip Hwang. "Even being in the household where one occupant is undocumented doesn't create reasonable suspicion, because there are legion mixed-status households."

San Rafael Mayor Al Boro, Richmond Police Chief Chris Magnus and San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris -- among many officials here and across the country -- have said agents' practice of identifying themselves as police damages the trust local law enforcement agencies have built in immigrant communities.

Immigration officials defend their use of the word "police," saying all law enforcement agents have that right. But Hwang said residents might open their doors because they believe the agents are local police concerned for their safety. "It can't be consent unless the individual knows who they're letting into their home," Hwang said.

Kevin Johnson, an immigration law specialist at the UC Davis School of Law, said it seems like agents don't care whether the information in their warrants is wrong if it enables them to make arrests.

"That seems like an abuse of the warrant," Johnson said, "an abuse of the legal process."

Professor Rachel Moran at UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law said a warrant naming a specific individual doesn't authorize agents to search that person's home or question other residents there.

Victor and Elvira Mendoza were detained for weeks after agents arrived at their San Pablo home in January to serve a warrant for someone who didn't live there. The brother and sister had come to the Bay Area from Mexico in 2003 to be reunited with their parents, legal U.S. residents, whom they had last seen when Victor was 13 and Elvira 9.

Victor has studied English and has honed his skills as a clown, performing at schools and nursing homes and on the St. Paul's Catholic Church float in San Pablo's Cinco de Mayo parade, where he plans to appear again this year. And Elvira pulled down straight A's at De Anza High School, where she is preparing to graduate in June.

"Everyone else in our family has papers except my sister and me," said Victor Mendoza. "When we were in Mexico, we tried to get papers to come but we couldn't, so we crossed the border without permission. It's kind of hard to be without your parents."

Now the siblings await hearings on their fate before an immigration judge. Their lawyer, Stephen Coghlan of San Francisco, said many factors conspire against Mexican citizens gaining legal status here.

The wait for immigration visas for Mexican family members of U.S. citizens and permanent residents is six to 19 years. And the 1996 changes in the law greatly tightened the standards by which illegal immigrants can stave off deportation and get a "green card."

Undocumented immigrants now must prove they have been in the country 10 years and have good moral character, and their deportation must be deemed to cause a relative "exceptionally unusual hardship," a threshold almost impossible to meet, Coghlan said.

"It was a complete sea change," said Coghlan. "It's heartbreaking. Victor's a nice, articulate, soft-spoken guy who's had no contact with the law. ... He would be a fine, upright, outstanding citizen, a productive member of society. ... They call them illegal, but there's no way to be legal."

Bay Area residents have said farewell to devoted parent volunteers, talented soccer coaches and close friends. Scores of Berkeley residents mourned the departure of Felipe and Norma Espinoza, who lived undocumented in the United States for two decades and built a much richer life for their three boys than they would have had in their hamlet in Michoacan, Mexico.

The Espinozas were placed in deportation proceedings before the current federal campaign. They hired a lawyer to try to gain legal residency, but the lawyer -- later disbarred -- didn't show up for court appearances after he took their money. In February, the couple told their sons to say goodbye to their classmates and pack their bags. The court had ordered them deported and the family returned to the two-room house where Felipe was born.

Felipe, a former steelworker, said in a phone interview that he hasn't yet found work, even as a field hand. Felipe Jr., 14, said he is studying math two years behind the geometry class he left at Berkeley High School and wishes he could return to the Bay Area, even without his parents.

Child psychology experts say children suffer most from the disruption of armed agents coming into their homes and taking away their parents -- and sometimes themselves. Children can experience stress, depression and anxiety disorders, said Amana Ayoub, a psychologist at the Center for Survivors of Torture, located in San Jose, who is familiar with Kebin Reyes' experience.

Psychiatrist Dr. Alicia Lieberman, director of the Child Trauma Research Project at UCSF, said children who witness their parents being taken into custody lose trust in their parents' ability to keep them safe and begin to see danger everywhere.

"Over and above the sense of terror about, 'What will happen to my mommy and daddy and what will happen to me?' the common thread is, 'We cannot trust the authorities,' " Lieberman said.

Many adults have responded the same way, said Evelyn Sanchez, advocacy coordinator with the Bay Area Immigrant Rights Coalition.

"We've been in touch with a lot of families that have been affected by the raids, and understandably they are scared," Sanchez said. "Being undocumented is no light matter anymore, and they are really taking cover."

Kebin Reyes' lawyers also said immigration officials need clear procedures to ensure children's welfare. Agents are supposed to allow detainees to arrange care for their children, according to a letter Karyn Lang, a top immigration official, wrote March 14 to Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, who leads the House's immigration subcommittee.

Elected officials who support the raids say the onus for protecting children is on their immigrant parents.

"It's unfortunate that families become detached," said Kurt Bardella, spokesman for Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Carlsbad (San Diego County), who chairs the House Immigration Reform Caucus. "But when someone enters this country illegally, and they have a child here, they have made conscious decisions while their status in this country is uncertain. They are subjecting themselves and their families to the risk that the law might be enforced."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California last month wrote to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who oversees the immigration enforcement agency, expressing concern about how children are being treated during raids.

"I believe the federal government has a special obligation to ensure that the children of the undocumented individuals are treated humanely and left with appropriate caregivers," Feinstein wrote.

Rocío Avila, a lawyer for La Raza Centro Legal in San Francisco, said an adult client of hers was detained during a raid even though he is a U.S. citizen.

"He attempted to let them know he was a U.S. citizen, and they didn't initially believe him," she said. "He asked, 'Who are you here to see? Do you have a warrant?' They handcuffed him immediately and put him on the floor."

The man, fearful of publicizing his name, is considering legal action.

Elizabeth Larose Dunn, who leads Marin Montessori School, said a sixth-grade student whose parents were arrested in immigration raids in March and did not want to be identified by name is a high achiever and "beloved in the school."

"This is America, a place we'd like to think all of our children are safe," she said. "I'm so sad about this on a personal level."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The arrests
In a crackdown begun last May against illegal immigrants who ignored deportation orders, including convicted criminals, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested 18,149 people by Feb. 23.

More than one-third were people the agents encountered and independently suspected were illegal immigrants; officials are calling these "collateral" arrests.

Here's a breakdown of total and "collateral" arrests in California and the country:

National: 18,149 arrests -- 36.9 percent collateral (6,696)

Los Angeles region: 1,198 arrests -- 41.5 percent collateral (497)

San Diego region: 511 arrests - 56.6 percent collateral (289)

San Francisco region: 1,423 arrests -- 44.8 percent collateral (638)

Source: Associated Press (Immigration and Customs Enforcement data covers May 26, 2006-Feb. 23, 2007)

E-mail Tyche Hendricks at thendricks@sfchronicle.com

U.S. will extend housing aid for victims of Katrina and Rita

April 26, 2007

NEW ORLEANS // The federal government will extend housing assistance payments to victims of hurricanes Katrina and Rita for an additional 18 months, officials announced yesterday, but residents will be required to pay a portion of their rent for part of that period.

More than 100,000 households in the Gulf Coast region are dependent on government housing aid they have been relying on since Katrina and Rita struck in the summer of 2005, according to figures from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA.

The program was initially set to expire at the end of February, then was extended through Aug. 31 and now is to last until March 1, 2009. The continued aid will amount to an estimated $1 billion in federal funds.

Beginning in March 2008, residents living in government-subsidized apartments, mobile homes and travel trailers would be required to pay part of the rent, beginning at $50 a month and increasing by $50 each month. Residents unable to pay, such as disabled people and seniors, would be exempt.

"Many of the persons we are talking about don't have homes to go back to. They have vacant lots," said Alphonso Jackson, secretary of the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development. "This is a very difficult and unique situation, and we're trying to do everything we can to stabilize the lives of people affected by Hurricane Katrina."

As part of the new program, at least 86,000 residents living in travel trailers and mobile homes - the majority of them in Louisiana - would be given the option to buy these dwellings at fair market value, FEMA Administrator R. David Paulison said. About 33,000 people remain in government-subsidized apartments, primarily in Texas.

The new policy calls for HUD to take over management of the disaster housing program that has been administered by FEMA since the storms.

News of the housing assistance extension was greeted with mixed reaction by housing advocates and residents displaced from their homes since Katrina and Rita.

"It's a temporary lifeline," said Judith A. Browne-Dianis, co-director of Advancement Project, a Washington, D.C.-based civil rights and racial justice group. "While it's a good move to provide a safety net, where's the long-term plan?"

Browne-Dianis said the initiative failed to include many former residents of the New Orleans public housing complexes that are slated for demolition.

These residents have been receiving housing assistance vouchers from HUD, not FEMA, Browne-Dianis said. This aid is set to expire at the end of September, and many residents fear they will become homeless. Advancement Project is representing tenants in a class-action lawsuit seeking to restore them to their public housing units.

Beth Butler, regional community organizer for the housing advocacy group ACORN in New Orleans, said that while her organization supported the extension, it did not think residents should be required to contribute to the rent. Butler said the government should channel money into programs that help people rebuild their homes rather than essentially encouraging people to remain displaced.

"Why should the federal government force people to pay for a home somewhere else, when they haven't stepped up to help them pay for the homes [the government] destroyed in New Orleans yet?" Butler added. Her words reflect a view shared by many here that their properties were ravaged by flooding because of sub-standard levees built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Jackson, the housing secretary, said during the briefing that "it is only right" for the government to ask residents "to take some responsibility for input in their living conditions."

"We're not kicking people out. We're just trying to get people back to self-sufficiency," said Paulison, of FEMA.

Julie Andrews, a former resident of New Orleans' Desire public housing complex, said FEMA was paying $450 a month for a three-bedroom house for her family in Gaston, Ala. The mother of three said she welcomed the extension of housing assistance and was not opposed to contributing to the rent, but emphasizes that it would be a struggle.

"The problem is, people have so many other issues, being low-income," said Andrews, 45. "Most people are in such financial debt, it's unbearable."

A former insurance agent turned garbage collector, Andrews commutes for days at a time between Gaston and New Orleans, where she wants to re-establish her family.

"In the long term, I would like to see residents back in New Orleans, where they can reset a foundation, and get employment and help rebuild the city," Andrews said.


Ann M. Simmons writes for the Los Angeles Times.

We're Scaring Our Children to Death

April 27, 2007

This week saw a small and telling controversy involving a mural on the walls of Roosevelt High School in Los Angeles. The mural is big--400 feet long, 18 feet high at its peak--and eye-catching, as would be anything that "presents a colorful depiction of the rape, slaughter and enslavement of North America's indigenous people by genocidal Europeans." Those are the words of the Los Angeles Times's Bob Sipchen, who noted "the churning stream of skulls in the wake of Columbus's Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria."

What is telling is not that some are asking if the mural portrays the Conquistadors as bloodthirsty monsters, or if it is sufficiently respectful to the indigenous Indians of Mexico. What is telling is that those questions completely miss the point and ignore the obvious. Here is the obvious:

The mural is on the wall of a public school. It is on a public street. Children walk by.

We are scaring our children to death. Have you noticed this? And we're doing it more and more.

Last week of course it was Cho Seung-hui, the mass murderer of Virginia Tech. The dead-faced man with the famous dead-shark eyes pointed his pistols and wielded his hammer on front pages and TV screens all over America.

What does it do to children to see that?

For 50 years in America, whenever the subject has turned to what our culture presents, the bright response has been, "You don't like it? Change the channel." But there is no other channel to change to, no safe place to click to. Our culture is national. The terrorizing of children is all over.

Click. Smug and menacing rappers.

Click. "This is Bauer. He's got a nuke and he's going to take out Los Angeles."

Click. Rosie grabs her crotch. "Eat this."

Click. "Every day 2,000 children are reported missing . . ."

Click. Don Imus's face.

Click. "Eyewitnesses say the shooter then lined the students up . . ."

Click. An antismoking campaign on local New York television. A man growls out how he felt when they found his cancer. He removes a bib and shows us the rough red hole in his throat. He holds a microphone to it to deliver his message.

Don't smoke, he says.

This is what TV will be like in Purgatory.

It's not only roughness and frightening things in our mass media, it's politics too. Daily alarms on global warming with constant videotape of glaciers melting and crashing into the sea. Anchors constantly asking, "Is there still time to save the Earth? Scientists warn we must move now." And international terrorism. "Is the Port of Newark safe, or a potential landing point for deadly biological weapons?"

I would hate to be a child now.

Very few people in America don't remember being scared by history at least to some degree when they were kids. After Pearl Harbor, they thought the Japanese were about to invade California. If you are a boomer, you remember duck-and-cover drills. The Soviets had the bomb, and might have used it. I remember a little girl bursting into tears during the Cuban Missile Crisis when I was in grade school.

But apart from that, apart from that one huge thing, life didn't seem menacing and full of dread. It was the boring 1950s and '60s, and the nice thing about a boring era is it's never boring. Life is interesting enough. There's always enough to scare a child.

But now it's a million duck-and-cover drills, a thousand alarms, a steady drumbeat of things to fear.

Adults have earnest discussions about how more and more of our children are being prescribed antidepressants and antianxiety drugs. What do you think--could there be a connection here?

Why are we frightening our kids like this, with such insensitivity? Part of it is self-indulgence, part of it is profit, but not all of it is malevolent. Some of it is just mindless. Adults forget to think about kids. They forget what it's like to be a kid.

ABC's John Stossel is a person in media who knows. He did a piece recently on the public-service announcements warning about child abduction. He asked some children if the warnings worried them. Yes, they said. One little boy told him he worries every night "because I'm asleep and I don't know what's gonna happen."

Children are both brave and fearful. They'll walk up to a stranger and say something true that a grown-up would fear to say. But they are also subject to terrors, some of them irrational, and to anxieties. They need a stable platform on which to stand. From it they will be likely to step forward into steady adulthood. Without it, they will struggle; they will be less daring in their lives because life, they know, is frightful and discouraging.

We are not giving the children of our country a stable platform. We are instead giving them a soul-shaking sense that life is unsafe, incoherent, full of random dread. And we are doing this, I think, for three reasons.

One is politics--our political views, our cultural views, so need to be expressed and are, God knows, so much more important than the peace of a child. Another is money--there's money in the sickness that is sold to us. Everyone who works at a TV network knew ratings would go up when the Cho tapes broke.

But another reason is that, for all our protestations about how sensitive we are, how interested in justice, how interested in the children, we are not. We are interested in politics. We are interested in money. We are interested in ourselves.

We are frightening our children to death, and I'll tell you what makes me angriest. I am not sure the makers of our culture fully notice what they are doing, what impact their work is having, because the makers of our culture are affluent. Affluence buys protection. You can afford to make your children safe. You can afford the constant vigilance needed to protect your children from the culture you produce, from the magazine and the TV and the CD and the radio. You can afford the doctors and tutors and nannies and mannies and therapists, the people who put off the TV and the Internet and offer conversation.

If you have money in America, you can hire people who compose the human chrysalis that protect the butterflies of the upper classes as they grow. The lacking, the poor, the working and middle class--they have no protection. Their kids are on their own. And they're scared.

Too bad no one cares in this big sensitive country of ours.

April 26, 2007

Evangelical trend by Latinos could impact politics

April 26, 2007

From speaking in tongues to believing in modern-day miracles, a growing number of Latinos prefer a charismatic style of worship that is altering church services across America.

Although two-thirds of Hispanics are Roman Catholic in the United States, a small but growing number are converting to evangelical Protestanism. Those shifting allegiances, according to a major new study of the nation's fastest-growing ethnic group, may have political ramifications. Catholics and evangelicals, for example, tend to have different political party affiliations, and Latino evangelicals more passionately oppose hot-button social issues than do Latino Catholics.

"Latinos are in the process of transforming this nation's religious landscape," said Roberto Suro, director of the Pew Hispanic Center, which conducted the in-depth look at the breadth and diversity of faith within the Latino community along with the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. The study was based on telephone interviews with 4,016 Latinos from August to October.

Key findings from the new study include:

About a third of U.S. Catholics are Latino, and more than half of Hispanic Catholics consider themselves charismatics, compared with just an eighth of non-Hispanic Catholics. Charismatic Christianity emphasizes supernatural aspects like prophesy, healing and speaking in tongues.

Latinos joining the evangelical movement tend to be Catholic converts who say their conversion was motivated by a
desire for a more direct, personal relationship with God, not dissatisfaction with Catholic theology.

Latinos prefer worshiping together in an ethnic style congregation that transcends language.

Two-thirds of Latinos say their religious beliefs influence their political ones and a majority say churches should get involved in political matters.

Latino evangelicals are twice as likely as their Catholic counterparts to identify with the Republican party - 37 percent to 17 percent, respectively. Evangelicals are also more conservative on certain social issues. For instance, 86 percent of evangelical Latinos oppose gay marriage compared with 52 percent of Catholic Latinos.

"On hot-button issues like abortion," said Luis Lugo with the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, "they are, if anything, more conservative than white evangelicals."

The study's findings didn't surprise many in Silicon Valley, where church leaders have long noticed the changes.

At St. Francis of Assisi in East Palo Alto, Father John Coleman said hundreds attend a charismatic prayer service Tuesday evenings in a worship style that veers sharply from the Mass on Sundays.

The group is "more inclined to pray aloud, to gesture while they're praying and to interject `Praise the Lord' and `Hallelujah,'" said Coleman, adding that the church supports the additional service. "Anything that gets them praying, we encourage."

The Tuesday service, begun about five years ago, underlines the report's assertion that many Latino Catholics have been increasingly incorporating charismatic practices to strengthen their own faith.

Melissa Perez's family, however, illustrated another trend: They left Catholicism to join a charismatic church.

"They wanted something new, something where they could be more open and free," Perez said of her parents' decision to join San Jose's Jubilee Christian Center when she was about 8 years old.

Jubilee's Latino population kept growing and six years ago the church added a Spanish service, which attracts about 800 people weekly, said Melissa Perez, now 26 and a youth pastor at the church. Her parents are the pastors for the Spanish ministry.

"We have members who don't even understand Spanish and they come. We have translator radios for them," she said. "The atmosphere, the environment is so free. They can dance around and sing."

The communal ethnic experience seems key, said Pastor Willie Nutt of Word of Faith in San Jose, which tried to start a Spanish ministry last year. The predominantly African-American church, which has about 15 percent Latino membership, thought language would be the major appeal for a separate service, he said, but learned "it's more of a cultural thing."

"It's a mixture of culture and race and custom," said Nutt, noting the Spanish service stopped after three months. The church is now attempting small home meetings until it has enough momentum to sustain a Spanish service.

Pastor Frank Perez credits a practical Christianity for part of his church's growth. Iglesia Sobre la Roca - Church on the Rock - started a little over two years ago with 10 people, including Perez and his wife. It now has 550 members - about 90 percent, he estimates, are former Catholics.

"People are taught how to forgive, and the steps to. People are taught how to get along with their family, and the steps to," Perez said.

Perez, who has traveled to 27 countries to evangelize and networks with Latino pastors in the South Bay, says he frequently hears social and political opinions intertwined with religious beliefs, though he avoids those topics.

"We tend to be on the conservative side," Perez said.

Though Latino membership numbers have risen since he was a boy, evangelicals can't take them for granted, Perez said. He's seen people, as they become more assimilated, leave Latino charismatic churches for English ones that offer more programs.

"You got to raise the standard, you have to have quality everything," he said. "People like a good restaurant, they want to be served well."

Contact Kim Vo at kvo@mercurynews.com or (408) 920-5719.

Kansas City Church Community Organization rallies for uninsured children

April 25, 2007

Incoming Kansas City Council members support the Church Community Organization's plan to help get uninsured children insured, but Sharon Sanders Brooks, 3rd District, said the most important act is to vote.

“As a community, all of us must be engaged in politics,” she said. “It has to be a partnership. People have to come to public hearings and voice their concerns, but they must vote. We cannot be silent. I know at City Hall, I will need backup and not just from the urban core.”

CCO has been rallying for support for the Missouri health insurance plan that aids poor and uninsured children. The plan is part of a federal program called State Children's Health Insurance Program. The federal government approved $50 billion over five years, and now the group seeks state support as states are required to match federal funds.

Long-time CCO leader, the Rev. Rayfield Burns, Metropolitan Missionary Baptist Church, 2310 E. Linwood Blvd., said that people in “high places” need to be more conscious of the uninsured.

“How can we refuse to put our arms around the least of these?” he asked. “As part of faith communities, we must not fail the children.”

Church Elder Marilyn Cowthran, Metropolitan Missionary Baptist Church, said the organization's concerns are cost and affordability of health insurance and prescription drugs. She said quality also must be maintained.

“People live in fear that today they have insurance, but tomorrow could be a different story,” she said.

Ebony Bell and her son Christopher, 3, received help from Medicaid, but as a teacher's aide, she got a small raise and her son lost his coverage.

“I got a $2 raise and he got cut off,” she said. “Christopher has asthma and his medicine is $195 a month. I cannot afford it. The doctor has given me samples to get by.

“How can we as a community help get our children the health care they need?”

At Swope Health Services, 11,000 children represented 74,000 visits and 4,300 had no health insurance.

The Rev. Norman Rotert, Visitation Catholic Church, said that Jesus said “We are to become as little children to enter the kingdom of God. What is a better directive than to take care of our children?”

Rep. Jeff Grisamore, R-Lee's Summit, said he wants to see what can be done at the state level to insure all children. Grisamore is the father of nine.

Rep. Craig Bland, D-central Kansas City, said he wants to see more people on the steps of the House in Jefferson City.

Rep. Beth Low, D-south Kansas City, said she never hesitates to support children.

“When the rubber hits the road, all politicians need to be held accountable,” she said.

Sen. Jolie Justus, D-south Kansas City, said she is tired of hearing other politicians say that the poor have health care called the emergency room.

“While we spend time on tax breaks for the wealthiest in the state, we need to help our children because the ER is not the answer,” she said.

The incoming Kansas City Council members who attended the rally want to see continued support for the city health levy. Cathy Jolly, 6th District at large, said Kansas Citians want and need a safety net.

“The American dream that the government will stand up and fight for the most vulnerable has not happened,” she said. “We must keep up our advocacy.”

John Sharp, 6th District, said the city has assumed the role of health care provider while the state has made draconian cuts.

“We must continue to lobby the state and federal governments,” he said. “We must increase the health levy.”

Face Right: Black Religious Opposition to Gays Rising

Spring 2007 Issue

Bishop Eddie Long takes to the pulpit wearing a crisp, two-piece suit. Long’s been known to dress down in tight muscle shirts and leather vests when preaching, but for this sermon it's business attire. A flock of young men from his New Birth Missionary Baptist Church near Atlanta surround Long's pulpit.

"We're raising our young boys to be just like the women," he bellows to his congregation, which today numbers more than 25,000 people. "We keep telling men to get in touch with their [sweetens his voice] sensitive self."

Almost 45 minutes into the sermon, captured on a videotape that is for sale in his church's bookstore, Bishop Long grows louder and angrier.

"The problem today and the reason society is like it is, is because men are being feminized and women are being masculine!" he roars. "You can not say, ‘I was born this way.' … I don't care what scientists say!"

The crowd erupts in "amens," laughter and clapping.

Eddie Long is just one example of a growing number of powerful, politically active African-American pastors who are increasingly aligning themselves with the white evangelical Christian leaders who have been building a religiously based anti-gay movement for more than 30 years now. Like their white counterparts, these black anti-gay preachers routinely identify the so-called "homosexual agenda" — not poverty, racism, gang violence, inadequate schools, or unemployment — as the No. 1 threat facing black Americans today. Often, they take their cues from white Christian Right hard-liners like Traditional Values Coalition chairman Louis Sheldon, who told TV pundit Tucker Carlson in January 2006 that homosexuality is "the biggest problem facing inner-city black neighborhoods." Sheldon later delivered the same message to the Congressional Black Caucus, this time accompanied by Bishop Paul Morton, a black anti-gay minister from New Orleans.

Some black ministers have been attracted to the white-dominated religious anti-gay movement by the money and power of white Christian leaders, not to mention "faith-based" grants under the Bush Administration. But it's also obvious that a segment of the black community in America has long had its own negative attitudes toward gays and lesbians. "I'm sure [black ministers] are being co-opted, but they don't need a great deal of co-optation," is how the Rev. Peter Gomes, chaplain of Harvard University, put it to the Village Voice in 2004.

"I think they come to the prejudice on their own."

Biship Eddie Long
Bishop Eddie Long preaches a sermon and can be seen on multiple monitors at New Birth Missionary Baptist Church near Atlanta. The congregation now numbers 25,000 and the church is spread out across 240 acres of land.

Attitudes Toward Homosexuality
Public opinion among African Americans on matters concerning homosexuality is a complex phenomenon. On the one hand, African Americans are more likely than other groups to support anti-discrimination legislation protecting gays and lesbians — a reflection of their deep commitment to the ideals of equality in light of their own history of second-class citizenship.

On the other hand, polls typically show that African Americans are more likely than other groups to disapprove of homosexuality — a reflection, in large part, of factors such as the deep level of religious conviction among African Americans. As is true for many white Americans, it is not surprising that some of the most adamant opponents of gays and lesbians among black communities speak from the pulpit.

The fire of anti-gay prejudice among African Americans has been stoked by other sources as well. "Disapproval of homosexuality has been a characteristic of much of the black-nationalist ideology," Harvard African American Studies professor Henry Louis Gates wrote in The Greatest Taboo: Homosexuality in Black Communities.

Louis Farrakhan, ailing leader of the black nationalist Nation of Islam, has been a constant critic of homosexuality. "God don't like men coming to men with lust in their hearts like you should go to a female," he told a Kansas City crowd in 1996. "If you think that the kingdom of God is going to be filled up with that kind of degenerate crap, you're out of your damn mind."

The Million Man March and Millions More Movement, both Nation of Islam creations, were more heavily attended by black Christians and their ministers — Christians who found themselves very much in tune with the Nation's ideas about homosexuality — than by black Muslims like those who make up the Nation. Those tenets hold that homosexuality, along with all other "sexual perversions," originated exclusively among white Europeans. This sentiment, also popularized by black Christian ministers throughout Africa, holds that gays and lesbians, and especially black gays and lesbians, are culpable in the destruction of black civilization.

"What Farrakhan says is just a clear and pointed example of what basically underlies the theology and social actions of our African-American communities and churches," Rev. Irene Monroe, a lesbian black minister from Massachusetts, wrote in her essay, "Louis Farrakhan's Ministry of Misogyny and Homophobia."

"What's surprising," Monroe added in a recent interview, "is that the same kind of fervor that was employed in the last election to vote down same-sex marriage is the same fervor African Americans once experienced too around civil rights. It's a shame. It's amazing how hatred can motivate people."

But not all militant black leaders have expressed antipathy like Farrakhan's toward homosexual people. In 1970, the year after New York's Stonewall Riots — a watershed moment for the gay liberation movement sparked by a police raid on a gay bar frequented by blacks and Latinos — Black Panthers co-founder Huey Newton officially embraced the gay liberation movement. Newton said that homosexual people "might be the most oppressed in the society" at the Revolutionary People's Constitutional Convention that year.

"The terms ‘faggot' and ‘punk' should be deleted from our vocabulary," Newton later wrote. "Homosexuals are not enemies of the people."

Fanning the Flames
White leaders of the Christian Right have long sought to recruit blacks into their anti-gay crusade. Conservative Christian organizations with multimillion-dollar budgets have funneled money to black anti-gay churches through programs such as the Christian Coalition's ill-fated "Samaritan Project," which aimed to raise millions of dollars for black churches that "promote family values." (The Samaritan Project disintegrated after black employees sued the Christian Coalition in 2001 for allegedly forcing black workers to enter through the back door and take their breaks in segregated rooms. The coalition settled the case out of court.)

As far back as 1994, when far-right evangelicals were revving up to do battle with the Clinton Administration, Sheldon and his Traditional Values Coalition worked with several black churches to produce the "Gay Rights/Special Rights" pseudo-documentary, designed to pit African Americans against gay Americans by presenting the struggle for gay rights as a leech upon the legacy of the civil rights movement.

Homophobic white evangelicals have also made it their business to preach directly to black audiences. Rod Parsley, the head of the World Harvest Church in Columbus, Ohio, is one of the anti-gay evangelical movement's shining stars, a man who routinely spreads such falsehoods as the idea that homosexuals die at the average age of 43 and that only 1% will die of old age. He also enjoys substantial crossover appeal among African Americans, who make up about 45% of his 12,000-member congregation.

In addition, the faith-based funding initiatives of the current Bush Administration provide financial incentives for black preachers to promote a marriage agenda that's hostile to gays and lesbians, through federal programs such as the $1.5 billion Healthy Marriage Initiative. That initiative provides funding to religious groups, mostly in inner-city areas, to promote "healthy marriages," defined as "married families with two biological parents."

After Bishop Long received a $1 million faith-based grant from the U.S. Administration for Children & Families in 2004, Esther Kaplan — a well-known commentator and author of the 2005 book With God on Their Side: George W. Bush and the Christian Right — told the Atlanta gay newspaper Southern Voice, "It cannot be bad for your career as a black minister at this point to speak out against gay marriage."

Support for anti-gay causes, of course, is far from universal among black church leaders. For instance, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago whose congregation includes Sen. Barack Obama, has come out strongly against allowing anti-gay prejudice to become gospel in black churches. His church is one of the few that has a "Same Gender Loving" ministry for congregants. One of Wright's close associates, black theologian and public intellectual Michael Eric Dyson, also has publicly supported the gay community.

Civil vs. Gay Rights
Today, more and more black preachers across the country are picking up the idea that gay rights activists have no right to cite the civil rights movement. These preachers are now becoming the new advance guard in the hard-line Christian Right's crusade to religiously and politically condemn homosexuals. They are demonizing gays in fiery sermons and hammering the message that gay rights and civil rights are not only separate issues, but also opposing forces.

Rev. Dwight McKissic, a black Texas pastor, argued last year that classifying the gay rights movement as part of the larger civil rights struggle is "insulting, offensive, demeaning, and racist." He spoke at the 2006 "Values Voters Summit," a conservative political action conference sponsored by the nation's dominant anti-gay evangelical organization, James Dobson's Focus on the Family. Also last year, anti-gay African-American Bishop Eugene Rivers told The Boston Globe, "The gay community is pimping the civil rights movement."

Of course, many gay and lesbian activists see it just the other way around — they believe that white evangelical hard-liners are cynically using compliant African-American pastors to serve their own purposes.

At "Justice Sunday III," a January 2006 religious conference sponsored by two white-led organizations, the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family, black ministers stood by as white evangelicals compared the "struggles" of conservative Christians to those of black Americans in the 1960s.

For his part, the late Martin Luther King Jr., generally seen as the godfather of the civil rights movement, never spoke directly to homosexuality, although Bayard Rustin, an openly gay black man and King confidant, orchestrated the 1963 March on Washington. Others who worked closely with King say that no matter what one thinks about the origins of homosexuality, all people should enjoy equality. "You can have a variance of opinion on sexual orientation," veteran civil rights activist Rev. Jesse Jackson told a crowd of Microsoft executives on Martin Luther King Day this January. "But what should not vary is protection under the law."

Yet when King's widow Coretta Scott King died last year, her memorial service was held at New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Lithonia, Ga. — the sprawling church pastored by Bishop Eddie Long, a man who has informed his congregants that God tells homosexuals that "you deserve death." Bernice King, the youngest daughter of the King family, is a minister at New Birth and, despite her mother's opposite views, an outspoken opponent of gay rights. (Outside, members of the Westboro Baptist Church led by white anti-gay extremist Fred Phelps picketed King's funeral with signs reading, "No Fags in King's Dream.")

As the debate over gay rights continues to heat up, African-American pastors preaching anti-gay theology along the lines of Bishop Long are increasingly visible — particularly in regions with large gay populations, such as the areas around Washington, D.C., Chicago, Atlanta, Seattle and the Northeast generally. At the same time, the split between those who despise gays and others in black America is widening.

The views of those who support gay rights are probably best summed up by Coretta King, who advocated for gay rights right up to her death. In 1998, speaking on the 30th anniversary of her husband's death, she made that plain.

"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice," the civil rights leader's widow told her audience. "But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, ‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.' I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people."

Archbishop protests Sheryl Crow's charity appearance, citing her abortion stance

April 26, 2007

Archbishop Raymond Burke denounced a Catholic charity Wednesday for scheduling a benefit-concert appearance by Sheryl Crow, who supports abortion rights.

Burke submitted his resignation as chairman of the board for the Cardinal Glennon Children's Foundation, saying the decision to let Crow sing on Saturday left him no other choice.

"It's very painful for me," Burke said during a news conference Wednesday. "But I have to answer to God for the responsibility I have as archbishop.

"A Catholic institution featuring a performer who promotes moral evil gives the impression that the church is somehow inconsistent in its teaching," Burke said.

Crow is set to appear at the 19th annual benefit for the Bob Costas Cancer Center at Cardinal Glennon Children's Medical Center. Costas will host the event, which will also feature comedian Billy Crystal.

Crow's publicist didn't return a message seeking comment Wednesday.

Event organizer Allen Allred said he was disappointed with Burke's decision, but that Crow would appear Saturday as scheduled.

"This is not an event that's about ideology," Allred said. "This is about helping kids."

Burke said it was a "scandal" to let Crow sing at the event and amounted to an act that could lead others to evil. He cited Crow's support for stem cell research and "procured abortion."

Crow appeared in television ads throughout Missouri last year asking voters to approve an initiative that enshrined the right to conduct stem-cell research in the state constitution.

Burke said he became aware of Crow's participation in the cancer benefit in February and asked other board members to cancel her appearance.

"They didn't accept my concerns," Burke said.

Allred said board members didn't honor Burke's request because they didn't want to play politics with performers at the annual event, which has featured big-name entertainers like Jay Leno in the past.

Costas released a statement supporting the board's decision.

"I have never applied a litmus test, Catholic or otherwise, concerning the politics or religious beliefs of any of the generous performers who have come to St. Louis to help this worthy cause, nor do I intend to ... ," Costas wrote.

Burke made national news during the 2004 U.S. presidential campaign by saying he would deny Communion to Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, a Catholic who supports abortion rights. He later clarified the statement to say Catholics can vote for such candidates if they believe the candidate's stance on other moral issues outweighs the abortion-rights stance.

Why We Can't Wait on the Millennium Development Goals

April 26, 2007

Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote to Alabama clergymen his open Letter from Birmingham Jail on April 16, 1963. The religious leaders questioned King's tactics and timing, arguing for negotiation over direct action, forbearance over acquiescence to unjust laws, patience over urgent demand for justice. King decried their pleas as indicative of the "wait" for constitutional and God-given rights that African-Americans had endured for 340 years.

We can't wait, King said, because "there comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into an abyss of injustice where they experience the blackness of corroding despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience."

It's time for Baptists and other people of faith to develop a holy impatience for injustice in Birmingham and beyond. When Alabama clergymen and women were asked at the recent meeting of the Alabama Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, "What are the three greatest injustices facing Alabama Baptists?" the same answers were repeatedly given: racial injustice, gender injustice and economic injustice.

Participants at the meeting chose a practical response to these injustices by affirming the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) adopted by the United Nations in the year 2000 and forming a workgroup to join the global effort.

The eight MDGs--ranging from halving extreme poverty to halting the spread of HIV/AIDS--all by the target date of 2015--outline a plan agreed to by all the world's countries and all the world's leading development institutions. Extreme poverty is defined as those who live on less than $1 a day.

Virginia Cooperative Baptists adopted the goals a few weeks ago, joining the United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church, the Mennonite Central Committee and many other Christian faith groups.

What's this all about, people of faith promoting the UN vision, linking hands with governments and advocacy groups?

It's about a holy impatience, a declaration that for too long the most impoverished and neglected have been told "wait." King was famous for often saying that the moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice. Affirming the MDGs provides a strategic avenue to fight poverty, hunger and disease- and the real possibility of fulfilling the vision of Luke 4.

As people of faith, we too have asked "how long, O Lord" will poverty, oppression and hunger endure? How long until justice is done, the right ordering of our world?

It's time for us to answer that question. We can't wait. It's time to become the answer.

One challenge facing such an affirmation is bringing the cause of justice home. It's one thing to express assent with broad international goals, but what can be done to work for justice in our homes, churches and communities?

Brent McDougal is coordinator of the Alabama Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.

Cease Citing Bible To Defend Bush's Immigration Bill

April 27, 2007

It would be virtually impossible to unearth a single statement by a mainstream American Jewish leader in support of President Bush’s “Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act” that does not cite Leviticus 19. Citation of the passage is as ubiquitous as mainstream Jewish organizational support is monolithic in backing Bush’s bill and its provisions: exponentially increased immigration, guest worker programs and the amnestying of illegal aliens.

Many critics of this legislation, which will de facto result in an America with open borders, argue that its underlying purpose is to create a vast underclass of impoverished Mexican immigrants — who will be exploited as cheap labor at the direct expense of America’s most vulnerable, in particular poor African Americans.

That clearly comports neither with Jewish values nor Jewish attitudes toward immigration — especially the clear line most Jews draw between legal and illegal immigration. Indeed, survey research shows that most ordinary American Jews, like the great majority of ordinary Americans, oppose the “Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act.” The mainstream Jewish leadership, however, has chosen to disregard the majority of the Jewish community and back Bush’s bill — and it seems the only defense they can offer for their obduracy is Leviticus 19.

Mainstream Jewish organizations can’t get enough of Leviticus 19 — “When strangers sojourn with you in your land, you shall not do them wrong. The strangers who sojourn with you shall be to you as the natives among you, and you shall love them as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” The biblical passage is the routine rhetorical climax, the putative ace in mainstream Jewish groups’ hand. Drenched with scriptural authority, it’s presumably unassailable. Leviticus 19 supports Bush’s immigration bill, end of story.

Or is it?

Mainstream Jewish organizations cite ancient Leviticus 19 like a contemporary policy recommendation, as though the Torah’s authors were policy wonks with foreknowledge of 21st-century America’s immigration debate. It’s disturbingly reminiscent of the lunatics who believe they’ve broken the Bible Code, deciphering names like Reid, Kennedy and Hagel buried in Scripture — though it’s unlikely their numerology will uncover Sensenbrenner’s, Tancredo’s or any Blue Dog Democrats’.

Leviticus 19 is one of Judaism’s greatest ethical statements. It makes empathy, and even love, for non-Jews a binding duty, asserting ethical universalism and reminding us that the God who commands it is the God of all humankind, not only of Jews. Moreover, this universalism is exceptional; strictures surrounding it are addressed to the Children of Israel as a people set apart, a “chosen people.”

Leviticus 19, like other passages throughout the Bible, demands special treatment for orphans, widows and strangers. Status among Israelite tribes, like other ancient peoples until Athenian democracy, was determined by ownership of land. Since orphans, widows and strangers lacked it, provision was made for their welfare, such as allowing them to glean the corners of the fields for sustenance.

Leviticus 19, however, is not Judaism’s only word on the treatment of strangers, and it is in reading other biblical passages that it becomes clear that key terms have been mistranslated for what can only be political purposes. The word in the Bible for stranger is “Ger v’tohshav.” The precise English equivalent is sojourner.

“Ger v’tohshav” is first used in Genesis 4:23 to describe Abraham when he dwells briefly with the Hittites in Kiryat Arba, what is today Hebron. Richard Elliot Friedman, a leading authority on biblical language, translates the term as “alien” and “visitor.” And every English dictionary defines sojourn as a temporary stay. Given this translation, this passage has absolutely no utility to those, including leaders of mainstream Jewish organizations, who argue that 12 million illegal aliens should be permitted to remain permanently in the United States. Indeed, it furnishes excellent ammunition for the anti-amnesty coalition — that is, were it equally prepared to trivialize scripture.

The term reappears in the last book of the Bible, Chronicles 29:15, in a metaphysical context. King David employs it to contrast the transitory nature of human existence with the eternality of God, creator and steward of the earth on which we briefly dwell as wanderers.

Terms for immigrant or immigration are absent in the Bible, which demands empathy and hospitality for sojourners. Narratives about inclusion are rare. Indeed, we know the rule by the exception — namely, the story of Ruth.

The Bible does address the inclusion of strangers in civil and legal terms in Exodus 12:49, Leviticus 24:22 and Numbers 15:14, which proclaims that there shall be one law for citizens and strangers alike. But it is important to note that while strangers did have rights, they only earned them once they went through what in those days constituted the process of naturalization: circumcision and abandoning idolatry. Strangers were required to strictly obey Israelite law and not undermine the legal fabric of Israelite society.

An exegete could actually cite this text to justify deporting illegal aliens that have violated so many American laws as to threaten the rule of law itself, but I won’t exploit the Bible to make that case.

Leviticus 19 commands us to love the stranger. Bush’s cynical, reactionary bill, you can be certain, is not about love, and Leviticus 19 surely does not command us to exploit strangers as cheap labor or for political gain. Cherry-picking the Bible to support a shameful scheme to exploit poor immigrants at the expense of impoverished Americans to engorge the wealth of rich employers is a sacrilege. Why not just cite the Wall Street Journal?

Mainstream Jewish groups can cite Leviticus 19 all they want, but the Torah simply does not take a position, pro or con, on Bush’s “Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act.” The Torah is not for open borders or for reduced immigration. God is not a Democrat and a liberal, nor a Republican and conservative, nor even a moderate or independent.

God is ineffable. The divinely inspired human beings that recorded God’s vision for humankind sought to make us ethical, reverential beings; they did not set political litmus tests.

Seeking to turn God into a partisan of one’s cause is spiritually arrogant and repugnant. It’s reminiscent of the behavior of Islamist mullahs, supremacist Christians, Frankish crusaders chanting “Gott Mit Uns” and all the basketball players that ever crossed themselves before taking a free throw. Jews should know better.

Stephen Steinlight, a senior policy analyst at the Center for Immigration Studies, is a former director of national affairs at the American Jewish Committee.

Sen. Brownback touts 'pro-life, whole life' message for '08

April 26, 2007

WASHINGTON
Sam Brownback, Republican senator from Kansas and presidential candidate, knows that his party's nominee – whoever that is – could face an uphill battle when America votes for its next president in 2008. But he says there's an answer to that challenge: the kind of "big ideas" people have come to expect from the GOP.

"I think we need some new ones," Mr. Brownback told reporters at a Monitor breakfast Wednesday. Then he touted his "pro-life, whole life" message.

"I believe that all life is sacred and is unique and is a beautiful child of a loving God, period," he says. "That applies to the child in the womb and the child in Darfur, and somebody in prison and somebody in poverty. I think we've got to expand our set of plays."

Brownback says last week's US Supreme Court ruling that upheld a law banning so-called partial birth abortions will show antiabortion forces that they can win in court. The victory shows that "if we work hard at it, if we're able to win the Senate and the presidency, we can see some change taking place in this country," he says. "We're one Supreme Court justice away from overturning Roe – probably," he adds, referring to the court's abortion precedent, Roe v. Wade.

Is he worried that last week's abortion ruling will energize the forces that support abortion rights? "I'm more concerned about energy on my side than I am on that side," he says. "And I think it says to our people, we can win these things."

Since announcing his presidential bid in January, Brownback has struggled to gain traction. National polls among Republicans show him with 1 or 2 percent support for the GOP nomination; in the earliest nominating states, Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, he does not fare any better. "I'm the tortoise in the race," he says. His fundraising totals for the first quarter of 2007 also showed him far behind in the pack, but, he says, "I can live off the land more than most candidates can, given that I'm a grass-roots candidate."

Other signature issues for the senator include immigration, energy, and Iraq. On the last, he is teaming up with Democratic senator and presidential candidate Joseph Biden to promote a three-state, one-country political solution for Iraq. On energy, the farm-state senator favors more use of alternative fuels and electricity in cars. On immigration, he voted for the border fence and supports offering illegal immigrants a path to citizenship, with preconditions.

But it may be his "whole life" message that most sets him apart and at times puts him at odds with the mainstream of his party. A convert to Catholicism in 2002, he now largely opposes the death penalty – "except in cases where we cannot protect society from the perpetrator," such as Osama bin Laden.

But Brownback says he will not promote the curtailing of the death penalty as a campaign issue.

"I think it is tough for a state to teach a culture of life and still use this tool of death, and that's where I have difficulty with it. But I'm not going to be pushing it on an aggressive basis," he says. "I will be pushing issues like what we can do on reducing prison recidivism rates, which I've worked on a lot. I am going to be pushing what we can to do to help those in poverty in this country and poverty around the world, particularly what we can do to reduce malaria, what we can do to get more clean water supplies to people in third-world countries."

Some Republican voters have expressed dissatisfaction with the best-known and best-funded GOP presidential candidates – but that has not translated into greater support for non-front-runners like Brownback. He says it's too early in the cycle to judge public reaction to the field.

"A lot of people haven't focused on it," he says. "It's April of the year before. So this will take time, but it will happen over a period of time."

Romney jabs Giuliani on abortion

April 25, 2007

BOSTON -- Taking a thinly-veiled shot at former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney said Tuesday that "there's a lot more to being pro-life beyond appointing conservative justices."

"That, I will do," promised Romney. "I like (Supreme Court Chief Justice John) Roberts and (Justice Samuel) Alito, I like (Justice Clarence) Thomas and (Justice Antonin) Scalia. I like that kind of thinking on the bench, and that's the kind of justice I will appoint."

But Romney, in a wide-ranging interview with The Politico in advance of the May 3 GOP Presidential Candidates Debate, said that choosing conservative judges is not enough. The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library is hosting the debate in conjunction with MSNBC and Politico.com.

"You also have decisions as an administration on things like abstinence education, on the morning-after pill, on teaching kids to wait before they have babies, on insisting on parental responsibility for a father who has an out-of-wedlock child. These policies are also important, and will become a major part of my effort to encourage a culture of life rather than the culture of death."

Ten candidates have accepted invitations to participate in the debate, the first of the cycle for Republican presidential candidates. It will air exclusively on cable's MSNBC, with full coverage on MSNBC.com. The Politico will stream the debate live on Politico.com, providing an exclusive and unprecedented opportunity for viewers to ask and vote on questions via the Internet.

Despite a fairly obvious reference to Giuliani's reliance on his record of appointing judges in New York as a key conservative credential, Romney, who ran for governor in 2002 promising to protect abortion rights, stopped short of directly criticizing the former mayor.

When asked what it would say about the Republican Party if it nominated someone with a background as liberal as Giuliani's on abortion, gay rights and gun control, Romney played nice. "I can't say anything but positive remarks about Mayor Giuliani. I think he's a terrific person. He'll have to describe his own views on those topics."

In the 45-minute interview, Romney also said the nation took too much of a "peace dividend" after the Cold War and needs to beef up its armed forces and military spending.

Romney has called for increasing the size of the U.S. military by 100,000 troops and dedicating at least 4 percent of the gross domestic product to the military -- up from the current 3.8 percent.

Romney also said he is prepared to take on the poisonous issue of changing Social Security and Medicare so they will stay solvent for younger workers. "We're going to have to meet quietly, probably in the basement of the White House, with Democratic leaders and Republican leaders, and talk through different alternatives that we have to rein in the excessive growth of certain ones of our entitlement programs," he said at a hotel near his campaign headquarters. "I think we can get that job done."

After a 2006 that catapulted him into top-tier status among Republican hopefuls, Romney, who turned 60 last month, has faced tougher scrutiny in 2007. But after outraising his two celebrity opponents in the first quarter and seeing Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and Giuliani hit their own campaign bumps, Romney projected confidence that his emphasis on poise and endurance will pay off when the voting begins next year. Romney portrayed himself as being in the mold of Ronald Reagan and even used Reagan as an example that former governors can master the nuances of international affairs.

"One of the best foreign policy leaders our nation has known was Ronald Reagan," Romney said. "He was a governor. I doubt he had even visited as many countries as I have by the time he became president. He probably hadn't done business in as many countries as I have. But he was at no disadvantage."

Romney cheerfully addressed two common criticisms of his candidacy -- the much more moderate stands he took on social issues while he was running in Massachusetts, and the skepticism among many voters about his Mormon faith.

"If I were to tell you one thing about my faith, it is that it encourages me to be a better person than I otherwise would be," he said.

Asked about the state of the Republican Party, Romney was quite complimentary of President Bush, saying people believe he's doing everything he can to protect America. "It's fair to say that the party respects and admires the president," he said. "When I mention him in my addresses, I generally receive a very warm round of applause."

Politico.com is co-host of the Republican presidential debate on May 3rd, and candidates will be answering our readers’ favorite questions.
Click here to submit yours.

Question The Candidates

But Romney went on to admit that the war had sunk the president's approval ratings, likening the GOP mood to sports fans whose team has suffered a string of losses. "There is a frustration with the fact that when you pick up the newspaper every morning and watch the news every night, there are reports that our team is losing," he said. "It's the feeling you get when your home team in baseball is losing. It just doesn't feel right."

Romney also said he wishes the Republican presidential field were more demographically diverse, saying the candidates "are a little white and male."

"Americans politically, generally, are awfully white and male -- both parties," he said. "I don't think we have anything to be apologetic about in our party, in terms of who this president has appointed to the bench, has appointed to the Cabinet and who we have among some of the leaders of our party. … It just so happens that in the presidential field, we don't have that."

Though he still lags far behind McCain, Giuliani and even the undeclared former senator Fred Thompson, Romney, reeling off several different poll results and straw poll numbers, asserted that his campaign was ahead of schedule.

"In the early primary states, the result has been exactly as I would have hoped -- actually a good deal better than I would have expected, given a relatively modest budget at this point. I'm not a household name like Mayor Giuliani and Sen. McCain."

He said that by next winter, "Hopefully the name recognition at that point will be up substantially, the comparison among candidates will be a good deal more clear, because we will have had multiple debates. … I anticipate being one of the top guys, but a lot's going to happen between now and then."

TM & © THE POLITICO & POLITICO.COM, a division of Allbritton Communications Company

Obama, Gospel and Verse

April 26, 2007

Yesterday evening I was interviewing Barack Obama and we were talking about effective foreign aid programs in Africa. His voice was measured and fatigued, and he was taking those little pauses candidates take when they’re afraid of saying something that might hurt them later on.

Out of the blue I asked, “Have you ever read Reinhold Niebuhr?”

Obama’s tone changed. “I love him. He’s one of my favorite philosophers.”

So I asked, What do you take away from him?

“I take away,” Obama answered in a rush of words, “the compelling idea that there’s serious evil in the world, and hardship and pain. And we should be humble and modest in our belief we can eliminate those things. But we shouldn’t use that as an excuse for cynicism and inaction. I take away ... the sense we have to make these efforts knowing they are hard, and not swinging from naïve idealism to bitter realism.”

My first impression was that for a guy who’s spent the last few months fund-raising, and who was walking off the Senate floor as he spoke, that’s a pretty good off-the-cuff summary of Niebuhr’s “The Irony of American History.” My second impression is that his campaign is an attempt to thread the Niebuhrian needle, and it’s really interesting to watch.

On the one hand, Obama hates, as Niebuhr certainly would have, the grand Bushian rhetoric about ridding the world of evil and tyranny and transforming the Middle East. But he also dislikes liberal muddle-headedness on power politics. In “The Audacity of Hope,” he says liberal objectives like withdrawing from Iraq, stopping AIDS and working more closely with our allies may be laudable, “but they hardly constitute a coherent national security policy.”

In Chicago this week, Obama argued against the current tides of Democratic opinion. There’s been a sharp rise in isolationism among Democrats, according to a recent Pew survey, so Obama argued for global engagement. Fewer Democrats believe in peace through military strength, so Obama argued for increasing the size of the military.

In other words, when Obama is confronted by what he sees as arrogant unilateral action, he argues for humility. When he is confronted by what he sees as dovish passivity, he argues for the hardheaded promotion of democracy in the spirit of John F. Kennedy.

The question is, aside from rejecting the extremes, has Obama thought through a practical foreign policy doctrine of his own — a way to apply his Niebuhrian instincts?

That question is hard to answer because he loves to have conversations about conversations. You have to ask him every question twice, the first time to allow him to talk about how he would talk about the subject, and the second time so you can pin him down to the practical issues at hand.

If you ask him about the Middle East peace process, he will wax rhapsodic about the need to get energetically engaged. He’ll talk about the shared interests all have in democracy and prosperity. But then when you ask him concretely if the U.S. should sit down and talk with Hamas, he says no. “There’s no point in sitting down so long as Hamas says Israel doesn’t have the right to exist.”

When you ask about ways to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, he talks grandly about marshaling a global alliance. But when you ask specifically if an Iranian bomb would be deterrable, he’s says yes: “I think Iran is like North Korea. They see nuclear arms in defensive terms, as a way to prevent regime change.”

In other words, he has a tendency to go big and offer himself up as Bromide Obama, filled with grand but usually evasive eloquence about bringing people together and showing respect. Then, in a blink, he can go small and concrete, and sound more like a community organizer than George F. Kennan.

Finally, more than any other major candidate, he has a tendency to see the world in post-national terms. Whereas President Bush sees the war against radical Islam as the organizing conflict of our time, Obama sees radical extremism as one problem on a checklist of many others: global poverty, nuclear proliferation, global warming. When I asked him to articulate the central doctrine of his foreign policy, he said, “The single objective of keeping America safe is best served when people in other nations are secure and feel invested.”

That’s either profound or vacuous, depending on your point of view.

Biden, Brownback Discuss Plan B for Iraq

April 25, 2007

Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., a Republican presidential candidate, said Wednesday that he is talking with Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., a Senate colleague who is also running for president, about the possibility of teaming up to offer bipartisan legislation that would pursue a "three-state/one-country" solution for Iraq.

"You need a political as well as a military solution for Iraq," said Brownback, who believes that the Bush administration is pursuing a strategy in Iraq that is "dominated by the military and Maliki," Iraq's prime minister.

Biden originally offered his "unity through autonomy" idea for Iraq's Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds in a May 1, 2006, op-ed in The New York Times, which he co-wrote with Leslie Gelb of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Brownback made his comments in Washington, D.C., during a breakfast meeting with reporters sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor.


Bipartisan Approach to Contentious Issue

"Sen. Biden is obviously open to discussions with anyone about how to move Iraq toward a political solution that gets our troops home and leaves behind a stable Iraq," Biden spokeswoman Elizabeth Alexander told ABC News while noting that she was not familiar with any particular discussion between the two senators.

Brownback, who opposed the recent troop surge in Iraq but is against setting a specific timetable for withdrawal, said he has sent Biden a draft of what he would like the legislation to look like.

He would ideally like to offer it even before President Bush makes good on his promise to veto a war funding bill containing a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal.

The Kansas Republican cautioned, however, that his discussions with Biden are still preliminary and no deal has been reached.

Under the terms of the plan that Biden and Gelb outlined last year, power in Iraq would be decentralized, oil revenue would be shared, economic aid would be increased, a regional conference would be convened, and the military would be asked to plan to withdraw most U.S. forces from Iraq by 2008 while refocusing the mission of a small residual force on counterterrorism and training Iraqis.

'Three-State/One-Country'

Following the breakfast, Brownback acknowledged that it would be difficult to implement a "three-state/one-country" solution in Baghdad where Iraq's warring groups are not as neatly separated as they are in other parts of the country.

He believes, however, that Iraq's capital can be divided neighborhood by neighborhood with Sunnis in charge in some places and Shiites in charge in others.

"I wish it didn't have to be that way," Brownback told ABC News. "But it's the nature of human history."

Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures

U.S. Immigration Officials Discriminate Against Muslims, Study Says

April 26, 2007

(RNS) U.S. immigration officials discriminate against Muslims when processing citizenship applications, according to a New York University Law School think tank.

Since 9/11, increased security checks of citizenship applications "have illegally delayed the processing of thousands of applications from Muslim, Arab, Middle Eastern and South Asian men," according to the NYU report.

"Americans on Hold: Profiling, Citizenship, and the `War on Terror,"' a 63-page report, was issued Wednesday by lawyers at the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at NYU's law school.

The report says several issues are behind the delays, such as the association of "terrorists" with men who are perceived to be Muslim, Arab, Middle Eastern or South Asian.

The report is also critical of a 2002 immigration law that requires non-citizen men from 25 countries--24 of which are predominantly Muslim--to register with the government.

The U.S. practice of checking names against a list of suspected terrorists has also been problematic, the report says. Prior to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the list of individuals suspected of terrorism and banned from air travel had only 16 names. By October 2006, the "no-fly" list contained 44,000 names, according to the report.

Delays "are the result of discriminatory, ineffective, and undemocratic policies that violate fundamental human rights," Smita Narula, the center's director, said in a statement. "In the name of fighting a war on terror, the government is breaking up families, engendering fear and insecurity, and disenfranchising entire communities."

A government official took issue with those conclusions.

"The allegations are categorically false. We treat every application, every petition the same, and conduct the same background checks regardless of name, ethnicity or religion," said Christopher Bentley, a spokesman for U.S. Immigration and Citizenship Services.

"We realize everyone is an individual waiting for a case to be resolved," Bentley said. "But our responsibility is not to grant benefit to someone until all background checks have been done."

Religious group attacks religion in U.S. healthcare

April 24, 2007

A coalition of religious leaders took on the Catholic Church, the U.S. Supreme Court and the Bush administration on Tuesday with a plea to take religion out of health care in the United States.

They said last week's Supreme Court decision outlawing a certain type of abortion demonstrated that religious belief was interfering with personal rights and the U.S. health care system in general.

The group, calling itself the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, said it planned to submit its proposals to other church groups and lobby Congress and state legislators.

"With the April 18 Supreme Court decision banning specific abortion procedures, concerns are being raised in religious communities about the ethics of denying these services," the group said in a statement.

"They are imposing their points of view," Barbara Kavadias, director of field services for the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, told reporters in a telephone briefing.

She noted that the five Supreme Court justices on the majority in the 5-4 decision were all Catholic men -- Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Anthony Kennedy, Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia.

All were appointed by conservative Republican presidents who oppose abortion, including President George W. Bush.

The group also complained about Catholic-owned hospitals that refuse to sterilize women who ask for it, refuse to let doctors perform abortions and do not provide contraception.

"Doctors, pharmacists and nurses are also increasingly exercising a so-called 'religious or moral objection,' refusing to provide essential services and often leaving patients without other options," the group said in a statement.

CODIFYING RELIGION

"And now, to make it worse, the government is codifying these refusals, first through legislation and now with the recent Supreme Court decision, where five Catholic men decided that they could better determine what was moral and good than the physicians, women and families facing difficult, personal choices in problem pregnancies," it added.

The group includes ordained Protestant ministers, a Jewish activist, an expert on women's reproductive rights and several physicians.

"The threat comes from a few, but powerful, religions and a few ... powerful religious leaders who pretend to speak for all religions," said Larry Greenfield, executive minister of the American Baptist Churches of Metro Chicago.

"Health care decisions ought to be made freely, based on medical expertise and individual conscience," he added.

The group wrote up a series of guidelines and asked for all health care providers to implement them.

They include allowing doctors to use best medical practices, providing comprehensive counseling on sexual or reproductive health and an agreement to honor advance directives -- including "do not resuscitate" orders.

"Refusal to provide health care would be balanced by alternate service delivery so that no one would be victimized when another exercises his/her conscience," the guidelines read.

Marie Hilliard of the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia said she had grave concerns about the report.

"There is no recognition of the true meaning of the separation of church and state, which mandates that the free exercise of religion, including that of the provider, be respected," she said.

"What we have tried to avoid is to be coercive ourselves," Greenfield said. "We have tried to allow for the freedom of conscience of every participant in the health care system."

Jewish Groups Face New Abortion Landscape

April 27, 2007

Jewish groups that support abortion rights are scrambling for new strategies after last week’s Supreme Court decision on late-term abortions that many fear will be the first big step in undoing Roe v. Wade.

The 5-4 decision, which validated the 2003 federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban, will shift the focus of the abortion battle to states across the country, said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-Manhattan), a pro-abortion rights leader in Congress.

“What this decision does is open it up for state legislators and city councils to bring up all kinds of abortion restrictions that would not have withstood constitutional challenge before,” he said in an interview. “Many legislatures are going to become really ingenious in devising new ways to restrict a woman’s right to choose. It’s going to be a real problem.”

In their opinion, the majority “used some extremely paternalistic language about how abortions are harmful because of the regret and the mental health problems of the women, and therefore the state has an interest in preventing it,” Nadler said.

New anti-abortion legislation is already pending in six states, and others are expected to follow in the wake of last week’s decision, the first abortion case decided by the new, more conservative Roberts Court.

The decision “overturns 30 years of precedent on the sacrosanct issue of a woman’s health,” said Sammy Moshenberg, Washington director for the National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW), a group that focuses heavily on abortion rights. “The fact that the court upheld a statute that has no provision for the woman’s health is a very frightening and dangerous development.”

Moshenberg, too, said pro-abortion rights groups will have to pay much more attention to political fights over abortion in numerous states — a daunting proposition for relatively small groups such as NCJW.

Criticism of the decision was not universal in the Jewish community. Rabbi Abba Cohen, Washington director for Agudath Israel of America, an Orthodox group, said that the decision “reaffirms a profound respect for life and recognizes the unique circumstances of this horrifying procedure.”

Cohen argued that in some cases late-term abortion amounts to “infanticide,” and said it is an “overstatement to think this is the beginning of the erosion of abortion rights. Everybody understands that there is something different about this form of abortion. And if you read the decision closely, it is predicated on the fact that other abortion procedures are available. In a way, it reaffirms the right to some abortions.”

But Barbara Weinstein, legislative director for the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, disagreed.

“We’ve always said that Roe wouldn’t be overturned in a single decision, but that it would be chipped away piece by piece,” she said. “This decision is a good example of that danger.”

She said the decision may “galvanize” more Jewish groups to get involved in the debate over nominees to the Supreme Court.

“It really demonstrates the importance of who sits on the court,” she said. “It shows that if we really care about these issues, we can’t just lobby on them, we have to make our voices heard when people are nominated to the court.”

Only NCJW and the RAC have opposed some of President George W. Bush’s nominees to the federal bench because of their views on abortion rights. But several Jewish leaders this week said that could change as the courts narrow abortion rights still further.

Silence On Iraq

The congressional fight over a supplemental spending bill imposing a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq was the talk of the town this week, but you’d never know it by listening to a Jewish community that has — with one conspicuous exception — ignored the issue.

Only the Reform movement, through its Religious Action Center for Reform Judaism, took part in the fierce, high-stakes debate. Despite polls showing that a sizeable majority of American Jews oppose the Bush administration’s war policies, other major Jewish groups stayed far from the congressional fray.

This week the RAC was on Capitol Hill “urging that the funding for the troops, with a timetable, be passed,” said Rabbi David Saperstein, the group’s director. “We believe that combining a timetable with the funding for American troops is exactly the right approach.”

Bush has promised to veto any spending bill that includes a withdrawal timetable, and has accused congressional Democrats of jeopardizing the lives of American service personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq. Republican leaders on Capitol Hill say the legislation represents a usurpation of presidential authority.

But Saperstein said that congressional action is necessary because of administration policies that have not changed despite the worsening situation in Iraq.

He conceded that Congress’ ability to bring the war to an end is limited, but said the current legislation is a critical first step.

“It will force us to start making plans for a transition,” he said. “Without it, the war could drag on for years as things in Iraq deteriorate.”

Saperstein declined to criticize other Jewish groups for not getting involved in the fight, but admitted there is “no trace” of any shift on the part of his Jewish colleagues.

Kean University political scientist Gilbert Kahn said the lack of Iraq involvement reflects a “religious Jewish community that is becoming narrower and more parochial in its focus. More and more, they want to use whatever clout they’ve developed for issues like Israel.”

And he said the “puzzling” enthusiasm of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert for Bush administration policy in Iraq has kept other Jewish groups from weighing in.

“The Olmert government has adopted the stance of being a cheerleader,” he said. “Seeing that, many Jewish defense agencies are unwilling to take a more independent position on the debate here.”

The result: a Jewish community that is at the leading edge of opposition to the war, and mainstream organizations that are mostly AWOL on the issue.

New IPF Lobbyist

Groups that advocate a stronger U.S. role in pressing for Mideast peace continue to strengthen their Capitol Hill presence.

The Israel Policy Forum (IPF) has brought in longtime congressional staffer Jeremy Rabinovitz, now working for a major lobbying firm, to advise the group on congressional strategy and do day-to-day lobbying.

Rabinovitz most recently served as chief of staff to Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) — a pro-Israel lawmaker who tended to side more with IPF and Americans for Peace Now than with AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby behemoth.

IPF joins APN — which even critics concede has been developing an effective lobbying operation — in aggressively presenting a more dovish perspective on the Middle East situation to lawmakers.

“None of these groups can rival AIPAC in terms of money, access or grass-roots operations,” said a longtime pro-Israel lobbyist here. “They’re still nickel and dime operations, but they do reflect the views of many American Jews, and more and more, they have experienced and sophisticated lobbyists working for them.”

“It clearly signals our intent to be more active with respect to the administration and Congress,” said IPF President Seymour Reich. “What we want to convey to Congress is that IPF reflects the overwhelming consensus of the American Jewish community on supporting a two-state solution, working to strengthen [Palestinian President Mahmoud] Abbas and making sure Washington uses its best efforts to bring the parties together.”

Hate Crimes Fight

The religious right is pulling out all the stops — and, according to several Jewish groups, discarding every semblance of truth in the process — as they try to block a new hate crimes statute favored by a long list of Jewish groups.

The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 would make it easier for federal authorities to assist local law enforcement agencies in investigating and prosecuting certain hate crimes and expand coverage of existing hate crimes statutes to cover crimes based on disability, gender, gender identity and sexual orientation.

That last provision is what’s driving religious right leaders to new heights of rhetoric.

In an alert to members, the Traditional Values Coalition (TVC), a group that vehemently opposes what it calls the “homosexual agenda,” warned that the “Pro-homosexual/drag queen bill [is] on the fast track in [the] House of Representatives.”

The Rev. Lou Sheldon called it a “very dangerous bill” and said it “begins to lay the legal foundation and framework to investigate, prosecute and persecute pastors, business owners and anyone else whose actions are based upon and reflect the truths found in the Bible.”

According to Sheldon, pastors who sermonize against homosexuality, the group argued, could be arrested for “hate speech.”

And the TVC claimed that the law, if passed, would “divert scarce FBI personnel and resources away from fighting international terrorism into investigating name-calling, pushing and shoving and a tiny number of actual cases against homosexuals and drag queens.”

Jewish leaders say that’s all a gross distortion, if not outright bigotry.

“It’s very clear this bill does not cover speech,” said Michael Lieberman, Washington counsel for the Anti-Defamation League, a strong backer of the measure. “It requires conduct; there is an explicit provision in the bill that seeks to put mere expression outside its realm.”

The claim that the measure would limit the right of pastors and other religious leaders to speak out on the morality of homosexuality is “a complete distortion of what the bill says,” he said. “There’s no other way to put it: this is a lie. But they will go to whatever length they believe is necessary to defeat it.”

Supporters of the expanded hate crimes laws are also fighting some conservatives because they claim it is an unwarranted expansion of federal power — an argument Lieberman called a “straw man.”

Conferences In D.C.

Next week will see a veritable invasion of Jewish groups in the capital. The American Jewish Congress and the American Jewish Committee are coming to town for their conventions; the ADL will hold its annual Washington leadership conference.

And while all three groups will take up issues like Iran, terrorism and Israel’s security, there will be differences in focus and perspective.

The ADL meetings, officials of the group say, will include a special emphasis on the hot issue of immigration. Congress is starting another round of debate over comprehensive immigration reform, some political candidates are trying to stir up anger against illegal immigrants and violence directed at immigrants is on the rise, according to ADL — all good reasons to put the issue at the top of the ADL agenda.

The ADL will also put a spotlight on Jewish-Catholic relations.

As usual, the American Jewish Committee meetings will be something of an endurance test — seven days of leadership trainings and meetings, all with an international flavor and a somewhat academic tone.

Among the wide range of issues on the AJC agenda: energy independence, changes in the Islamic world and the future of the Jewish people. A gala dinner on Thursday was supposed to be keynoted by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon — but both will now be traveling to Egypt for regional meetings on Iraq.

The AJCongress convention will highlight the group’s work on behalf of the U.S.-Israel Energy Cooperation Act and its campaign to “prevent terrorists from using Human Shields.”

Red Crescent chief calls on U.S. to push for aid

April 26, 2007

With more than 850,000 people displaced and on the move within its borders, Iraq is in the midst of a major refugee crisis and the United States has an obligation to help resolve it, the head of the Iraqi Red Crescent Organization said yesterday.

"We have an emergency crisis right now, and the United States has a moral obligation to lead the world and address this issue right now," Said Hakki told editors and reporters at The Washington Times. "I have children dying of cancer, not because they have cancer, but because they cannot get treatment."

In Washington this week to meet the "relevant people in the Bush administration," Dr. Hakki said he was not lobbying for additional U.S. taxpayer-funded aid, but rather for the United States to use its "good offices" to persuade some of Iraq's wealthy neighbors to step up and help.

"We have a budget of $66 million," said Dr. Hakki. "That is about 10 percent of what we need."

Dr. Hakki was born in Iraq but fled in July 1983 after his boss at the Ministry of Health was personally executed by Saddam Hussein for "suggesting" that the dictator step down. Dr. Hakki practiced urology in the United States until he was elected in 2004 to lead the Iraqi Red Crescent, the Iraqi counterpart to the American Red Cross.

As president of the group, he has been forced to walk a very fine line between competing tribal, religious and political factions and avoid taking sides.

He was careful to avoid endorsing any political positions yesterday but, pressed to say whether an early U.S. troop withdrawal would worsen the humanitarian crisis, he said, "It will not help."

Dr. Hakki said that since 2003, 14 of the group's 100,000 employees and volunteers have been killed. In January, 42 staff members were kidnapped and, although most were released, 11 are still unaccounted for. But considering that Red Crescent convoys travel without armed escorts, it is a remarkably low number and testament to the respect that his organization is accorded from all sides.

Two years ago in Haditha, he said, Red Crescent staff were delivering boxes donated by the Red Cross, and local militants interpreted the cross on the boxes as a symbol of the Christian "Crusades." His workers were blindfolded and taken away to be executed. But Dr. Hakki intervened.

"We told them if they were hurt, the Red Crescent would not supply food or medicine to that neighborhood again," he said.

The militants relented, releasing his staff. Dr. Hakki said the Iraqi Red Crescent still delivers boxes marked with the Red Cross logo, despite some misgivings.

"I don't like to conceal the gift that was given to me by the people of the Red Cross," he said.

His carrot-and-stick message seems to have gotten through. The Red Crescent is politically neutral but will not deliver food and medicine to areas where staff members are harassed or harmed.

As a result, Dr. Hakki said, the Red Crescent can travel throughout Iraq, even to areas where the government dares not go. In each neighborhood, local volunteers escort the convoys to help them navigate past any roadblocks or obstacles.

"It is like a relay," he said. "We have managed and succeeded in getting over the ethnic barriers."

Funded principally by the Iraqi government, Dr. Hakki said he is disappointed that Iraq's oil-rich neighbors have not been more generous. Each month, he said, Red Crescent staff in 300 offices deliver more than 100,000 meals and care for thousands of Iraqis in its hospitals and clinics.

"The Americans are doing, within their capacity, the best," he said. "We have a hospital in the Green Zone, and that receives children. We have a hospital in the south where they have been working, and they have brought a lot of children to the United States and Germany. They are playing a beautiful role, and we'd like to see that expanded."

He said that the United Arab Emirates has also been generous and that Iran has pledged to build two hospitals, but that the need in Iraq is much greater than his organization's abilities.

"We do not have enough staff, enough doctors, wheelchairs, ambulances or prosthetics," he said. "We gave away 1,500 wheelchairs. We need 10,000.

"We need more. I am thankful for what comes [from the region], but I feel they could be doing better. That is why I have come to the United States. We have not asked for U.S. help in the past.

"The United States can use its good offices in the region," he said. Iraq's neighbors "will listen to the United States' political and economic power to solve this displaced persons issue."

N.H. Is Set To Approve Same-Sex Civil Unions

April 26, 2007

HART'S LOCATION, N.H. -- The champagne is on ice at the Notchland Inn on Route 302. Proprietors and longtime partners Ed and Les are ready to raise their glasses to New Hampshire later today, when the state is set to pass a broad civil union bill granting gay and lesbian couples virtually all the same legal rights as married heterosexuals.

Supporters and opponents of the measure agree that it will be approved, and last week Gov. John Lynch, a moderate Democrat, said he will sign it. When he does, it will make New England the first region to have every state granting a measure of legal rights to same-sex couples. Even as the bulk of the country has passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage and civil unions, New England has stubbornly gone its own way.

Advocates of gay rights say the latest milestone is especially significant because it comes in comparatively conservative New Hampshire, where polls have shown locals becoming more tolerant of same-sex unions after watching neighboring states pass similar laws without major social fallout.

"New Hampshire is probably the most important piece of the puzzle," said Les Schoof, 55, the former general manager of the American Ballet Theatre who opened a mountain inn here in 1993 with his partner, Democratic state Rep. Edward A. Butler, 57. "People in the rest of the country think about New England as the Socialist Republic of Vermont or those crazy liberals in Massachusetts. But they know that people in New Hampshire don't just jump on the bandwagon that easily."

To be sure, New England is made up of the bluest of the blue states. Decisions made here cannot categorically be taken as national bellwethers, and so far, 26 states have passed constitutional bans on same-sex marriage while 19 states have adopted similar statutes.

Nevertheless, opponents of same-sex marriage look at what is going on in New England and express growing concern. "The more states that do this, the less radical and more plausible the idea may appear in others," said Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council.

Advocates, meanwhile, see promise in New England's historical role as the conscience of the nation. States here were the first to embrace racial integration in schools and they abolished the death penalty for crimes such as robbery and burglary in the 19th century, before much of the rest of the country.

And they have taken the lead on same-sex couples. Vermont became the first state to offer civil unions in 2000. Connecticut followed suit in 2005, and its legislature is now pushing forward with a full gay-marriage bill that observers say could come to a final vote as early as June.

Massachusetts, after a 2003 Supreme Court ruling there, became the first state to allow same-sex marriage -- which differs from New Hampshire's civil unions largely in that it uses the highly symbolic word "marriage."

In February, Rhode Island's attorney general issued a landmark ruling that opened the door for residents there to legally marry in Massachusetts, effectively making it the second state to recognize same-sex marriage. Maine, meanwhile, has approved domestic partnerships. To date, nearby New Jersey is the only state outside New England to adopt an expansive civil union law.

The gradual spread of legal rights for same-sex couples from state to state is now seen as a model for the rest of the nation, particularly out West -- where Washington state last week followed California in passing a more limited domestic partnership law. A similar bill is pending in Oregon. In a sign that the momentum is expanding in the Northeast, New York Gov. Eliot L. Spitzer (D) said this week that he would send a gay-marriage bill to the legislature by late June.

Evan Wolfson, executive director of New York-based Freedom to Marry, said: "Clearly, New England is our engine. The classic pattern of a civil rights movement is a patchwork -- some states advance toward equality faster. We see New England out front again."

New Hampshire -- long considered the Republican foothold in New England -- was the last holdout. A commission created by the previously Republican-dominated legislature as recently as last year issued a recommendation in favor of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. But several factors, observers say, contributed to a 180-degree shift in the political climate here.

The first was the sweep in state elections last year giving Democrats control of both the upper and lower house in Concord for the first time since 1874. Also, residents have grown accustomed to seeing more gay people in their state.

Same-sex couples have flocked to gay-friendly inns -- such as the Notchland Inn and the Highlands Inn in Bethlehem, which bills itself as a "Lesbian Paradise" -- that have sprouted in the state, as they have in other parts of New England. Many of these inns cater to same-sex couples who wed in Massachusetts and are taking their honeymoons.

Also, in recent years, hundreds of same-sex couples, seeking respite from high taxes and land prices, have relocated here from more liberal corners of southern New England. Many, such as JoAnne Rainville, 52, a registered nurse, and her partner, Brenda Taylor, 56, a mortgage lender, have settled in the flannel-shirt-and-shotgun regions of the rural North Country.

"We've moved in and begun changing people's minds," Taylor said. She and her partner of 25 years settled permanently here in the late 1990s. When they first started going to their local sports bar, they would sit next to beer-drinking men with farmer caps who watched sports on TV and occasionally hurled the word "homo" at players having an off day.

"But then people started to get to know us," she said. "We knew things had come full circle in 2004, when we went off to Vermont to be joined in civil unions after they passed it there. When the people at our sports bar found out, they got together and gave us a party to celebrate our union. Now I call those flannel-shirted guys 'my protectors' if anyone ever did try to mess with us around here."

In 2003, a University of New Hampshire poll found that 54 percent of state residents supported civil marriage licenses for same-sex couples, a number that gradually increased to 58 percent in February. When asked in February if civil marriage for same-sex couples "bothers you," 74 percent said no and 26 percent said yes.

In fact, in strongly libertarian New Hampshire, a new bill that would make it the last state in the union to adopt a mandatory seat-belt law has generated far more controversy, political experts say.

"I just don't think it's a major issue anymore," said Jim Lupien, 40, a lifelong Republican and owner of the Cool Moose Creamery & Candy Store on Concord's old-style Main Street. "Vermont did it, and then Massachusetts, and people around here just started thinking, 'Okay, what's the big deal?' I'm not pro-gay, but that's no reason to deny them their rights."

The Catholic Church and other religious groups have come out against the legislation, arguing that it effectively sanctions homosexuality, to which they are opposed. But much of the political opposition has instead focused on what some feel is a "gay exclusive" law that should be expanded to include other types of same-sex couples.

"We haven't really gotten into the morality of the argument," said Republican state Rep. Maureen C. Mooney, an outspoken critic of the bill. "What I'm opposed to is carving out a chapter in our laws for a special interest group. Why can't two sisters enjoy these rights, or a boyfriend and girlfriend who don't want to get married?"

By settling for civil unions rather than pushing ahead with same-sex marriage, liberal Democrats in New Hampshire are effectively bowing to Lynch, the state's hugely popular governor, who opposes same-sex marriage.

Still, for Butler and Schoof, together for 29 years, the law would effectively grant them all the legal protection as married heterosexuals, including visiting rights for a hospitalized partner -- something the pair see as particularly important after an incident several years ago denied Schoof access to seeing Butler after he had been hospitalized for a heart problem.

"Once this bill passes, nothing can separate us," Schoof said. He jokingly added, "well, at least in New England."

Thirst for bottled water may hurt environment

April 19, 2007

America's infatuation with drinking high-priced "natural" water from a bottle rather than from the tap is contributing to global warming and could even qualify as an immoral act.

That, at least, is the position of a number of environmental, social justice and religious organizations.

"People need to think about all the unnecessary energy costs that go into making a bottle of water," said Peter Gleick, an expert on water policy and director of a think tank in Oakland, Calif., called the Pacific Institute.

More than 8 billion gallons of bottled water is consumed annually in the U.S. -- an 8-ounce glass per person per day -- representing $11 billion in sales. The Earth Policy Institute estimated that to make the plastic for the bottles burns up something like 1.5 million barrels of oil, enough to power 100,000 cars for a year. Nearly 90 percent of the bottles are not recycled.

Gleick offered a simple way to visualize the average energy cost to make the plastic, process and fill the bottle, transport bottled water to market and then deal with the waste:

"It would be like filling up a quarter of every bottle with oil."

One of the simplest things folks can do to reduce their "energy footprint," he said, is to drink tap water rather than buy bottled water. If you don't like the taste, he said, buy a filter.

"There's really no valid reason to think bottled water is any healthier than tap water," Gleick said. "Especially in Seattle. You guys have great water."

Despite the fact that the United States generally has high-quality tap water, it is the world's largest market for bottled water. There are a variety of explanations for this put forward by the purveyors of bottled water, including the contention that it is cleaner than tap water.

"It's about purity and convenience," said Trish May, chief executive officer of Athena Partners, a non-profit Seattle-based organization that produces Athena brand bottled water. "We're doubling our sales every year and now sell more than a million bottles a month."

Athena is one of the small, local bottled-water producers in the area. It is unique in this business -- and perhaps more difficult to make a target of ecological outrage -- because May, a breast cancer survivor, started selling bottled water to raise money for women's cancer research.

"We give every penny of our profits to cancer research," she said.

The water used by Athena -- just as for Aquafina, Dasani and other brands -- starts as plain tap water. It already has been through a purification process, but the water that will be put in bottles is further "purified" by a number of processes. such as filtration or reverse osmosis (which removes minerals that are then sometimes added back, mostly for taste reasons).

"I would submit to you that our purified water, with minerals added, is more pure than municipal water," May said.

That's not always going to be the case, said Gina Solomon, a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

"The bottled water industry is selling a vision of purity and people are buying it with the best of intentions," Solomon said. "What they don't realize is that bottled water is actually much less regulated than tap water. There are a number of studies in which we find arsenic, disinfection byproducts and bacteria in bottled water."

The Food and Drug Administration, which is responsible for regulating bottled water, last month recalled Jermuk bottled water, sold in California under five brand names, after finding levels of arsenic high enough to cause nausea. But such recalls are unusual.

The FDA does allow trace levels of contaminants in bottled water based on the same criteria set by the Environmental Protection Agency for tap water. But on the FDA's web site, the agency also says, "Bottled water plants generally are assigned a low priority for inspection."

The FDA is required to inspect water-bottling plants twice a year. In Washington, that duty is often delegated to inspectors with the state Department of Agriculture.

The FDA has a list of 44 firms it regulates here. State Agriculture officials listed 32 water "processors" they regulate and only about 20 of the firms are on both lists. That, officials said, may be because of the fact that some are just ice producers or that some have ceased operations.

"Also, if a firm does not engage in interstate commerce (receiving ingredients or shipping outside the state), it would not be considered an FDA workload obligation," said Stephanie Dalgleish, with the Seattle office of the FDA. That means anyone making bottled water here and selling it only in-state is not regulated by the FDA.

There are about 4,000 municipal water systems in the state that serve at least 25 people or more. These are regulated by the state Department of Health and the EPA on a near-constant basis.

"People are told within 24 hours if there's any problem, or potential problem, with their water system," said Leslie Gates of the health department's Office of Drinking Water.

A recent break-in at a water supply facility for the town of Orting, for example, prompted officials to suggest residents drink only bottled water until they could assure no contamination. There was none.

The water system for the City of Seattle, which also operates under EPA and Department of Health regulations, is monitored 24 hours a day, with constant sampling throughout the system and up in the wilds of the Cedar and Tolt watersheds.

"We never shut down," said Wylie Harper, water quality manager for the city. The water supplied to Seattle residents is purified through many of the techniques used for bottled water, so Harper joked that maybe the city should start bottling its water.

"But our focus isn't on making a profit," Harper said. "We provide a community service."

The bottled water market is big business. Coca-Cola (Dasani), PepsiCo (Aquafina) and Nestle (Perrier, Poland Spring and a host of other brands) are the major players in the United States.

Wall Street and investment managers are predicting the bottled water market (or, as one enthusiast called it, the "blue gold" market) will keep growing. Water, some financial investment managers say, is the next-best thing to oil or diamonds. And that's where the moral issues of bottled water come in.

The United Church of Christ, United Church of Canada, National Council of Churches, National Coalition of American Nuns and Presbyterians for Restoring Creation are among the religious organizations that have raised questions about the "privatization" of water.

They regard the industrial purchase and repackaging at a much higher resale price of this basic resource as an unethical trend. (Bottled watercosts about 1,000 times more than tap water.)

"The moral call is for us to not privatize water," said Cassandra Carmichael, director of eco-justice programs for the National Council of Churches. Bottled water is the tip of the iceberg, Carmichael believes, in a push by industry to take ownership of this basic resource.

"We're scratching our heads on that one," said Preston Read, spokesman for the American Beverage Association. "Water privatization is certainly a big issue but I don't see it as connected to bottled water."

As for the claim that bottled water causes global warming, Read said the same argument could be made against any beverage that is packaged in a plastic bottle, transported and sold.

"I think it's a little bit odd that bottled water is being singled out in this way," he said.

Ethos Water says its goal is to use profits to assist poor communities hard hit by the world water crisis. Ethos is a water bottler that was acquired in 2005 by Starbucks. Its founders say they launched the company a few years before that, in California, to raise money for water projects in the developing world.

Today, as a subsidiary of Starbucks, Ethos donates five cents for every bottle sold toward the goal of raising $10 million for water projects in poor countries.

"I wanted to create a brand that would raise awareness about the world water crisis," said Peter Thum, founder of Ethos Water and now a vice president at Starbucks.

Thum says he respects Gleick and understands his complaint about the energy costs that go into bottled water. He said he didn't know the economics of the situation well enough to respond to concerns about water privatization.

"I'm not going to defend the bottled water industry," Thum said. "Ethos Water can't answer for what others in the industry are doing. We're just trying to take the demand that is there and divert it to do some good."

Though not everyone accepts that Ethos Water is indeed focused more on doing good than making a profit, Ethos has already funded a number of water improvement projects in places such as Bangladesh, Indonesia, Ethiopia, Honduras and India.

But Athena and Ethos are hardly representative of the bottled water industry. Thum and May were willing to tackle these concerns, but most of the other bottlers and distributors contacted for this story did not respond.

Gleick said he is not opposed to water privatization, as long as the focus is on providing people with affordable access to water. But he and others are definitely opposed to the unnecessary use of bottled water because of its environmental impact.

But it is the demand for bottled water itself that many believe is bad.

"This is not an issue that's going to go away," Gleick said. "If anything, it's a growing movement. I think consumers deserve the option of drinking bottled water. But I also think they need to be informed about its true economic and environmental costs."

Court Asked to Limit Lawyers at Guantanamo

April 26, 2007

The Justice Department has asked a federal appeals court to impose tighter restrictions on the hundreds of lawyers who represent detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the request has become a central issue in a new legal battle over the administration’s detention policies.

Saying that visits by civilian lawyers and attorney-client mail have caused “intractable problems and threats to security at Guantanamo,” a Justice Department filing proposes new limits on the lawyers’ contact with their clients and access to evidence in their cases that would replace more expansive rules that have governed them since they began visiting Guantanamo detainees in large numbers in 2004.

The filing says the lawyers have caused unrest among the detainees and have improperly served as a conduit to the news media, assertions that have drawn angry responses from some of the lawyers.

The dispute is the latest and perhaps the most significant clash over the role of lawyers for the detainees. “There is no right on the part of counsel to access to detained aliens on a secure military base in a foreign country,” the Justice Department filing argued.

Under the proposal, filed this month in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the government would limit lawyers to three visits with an existing client at Guantanamo; there is now no limit. It would permit only a single visit with a detainee to have him authorize a lawyer to handle his case. And it would permit a team of intelligence officers and military lawyers not involved in a detainee’s case to read mail sent to him by his lawyer.

The proposal would also reverse existing rules to permit government officials, on their own, to deny the lawyers access to secret evidence used by military panels to determine that their clients were enemy combatants.

Many of the lawyers say the restrictions would make it impossible to represent their clients, or even to convince wary detainees — in a single visit — that they were really lawyers, rather than interrogators.

Jonathan Hafetz of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, a lawyer who has helped to coordinate strategy for the detainees, said the government was trying to disrupt relationships between the lawyers and their clients and to stop the flow of public information about Guantanamo, which he described as a “legal black hole” before the courts permitted access for the lawyers in 2004.

“These rules,” Mr. Hafetz said, “are an effort to restore Guantanamo to its prior status as a legal black hole.”

The dispute comes in a case in which detainees are challenging decisions by military panels that they were properly held as enemy combatants. The Justice Department’s proposed rules could apply to similar cases that lawyers say are likely to eventually involve as many as 300 of the roughly 385 detainees now held at Guantanamo.

Some of the detainees’ lawyers say the Justice Department proposal is only the latest indication of a long effort to blunt their effectiveness, which they say was evident in statements of a senior Pentagon official early this year. The official, Charles D. Stimson, deputy assistant secretary for detainee affairs, resigned after he was criticized for suggesting that corporations should consider severing business ties with law firms that represented Guantanamo detainees.

Under the current rules, legal mail is inspected for contraband but is not read. The lawyers, who have security clearances, are presumed to be entitled to review classified evidence used against their clients.

There is no limit on the number of times lawyers can visit their clients. Some say that they have been to Guantanamo 10 or more times and that they have needed the time to work with clients who are often suspicious and withdrawn.

Justice Department officials would not comment on the proposal, which is scheduled to be the subject of a court hearing on May 15.

The filing used combative language, saying lawyers had been able to “cause unrest on the base” and mentioned hunger strikes, protests and disobedience. An affidavit by a Navy lawyer at Guantanamo, Cmdr. Patrick M. McCarthy, that accompanied the filing, said lawyers had gathered information from the detainees for news organizations. Commander McCarthy also said the lawyers had provided detainees with accounts of events outside Guantanamo, like a speech at an Amnesty International conference and details of terrorist attacks.

“Such information,” his affidavit said, “threatens the security of the camp, as it could incite violence among the detainees.”

Several detainees’ lawyers involved in some of the incidents denied that they had caused security problems. Neil H. Koslowe, a lawyer at Shearman & Sterling in Washington, called the assertion a “McCarthy-era charge” that was not supported by the evidence.

The dispute over the lawyers’ role is one of the first issues the appeals court in Washington will have to decide as it opens a new chapter of the legal battle over Guantanamo. In 2005, Congress designated that court as the forum for detainees to challenge directly decisions made by the Pentagon’s combatant status review tribunals designating them as enemy combatants.

But many detainees’ lawyers have resisted filing petitions to review those decisions because Congress narrowly defined the arguments the appeals court could consider. The law said the court could review whether a panel’s decision “was consistent with the standards and procedures” set forth by the Pentagon.

Instead, many detainees’ lawyers pursued habeas corpus petitions, using the centuries-old legal proceeding to ask a judge for release from imprisonment. But after a complex trip through the courts, Congress last year passed a provision intended to strip courts of the authority to hear habeas corpus cases involving Guantanamo detainees.

A divided panel of the federal appeals court in Washington upheld that provision in February. And early this month, the United States Supreme Court declined to review that decision. Two justices, John Paul Stevens and Anthony M. Kennedy, said that before the Supreme Court could again consider whether Congress was permitted to strip the courts of the ability to consider the habeas corpus cases, the detainees had to try to complete the appeals court review of their enemy combatant decisions.

As a result, much of the focus in the legal battle is now shifting to the appeals court. Scores of petitions seeking review of the combatant-status rulings are expected to be filed in the coming weeks, according to the Center for Constitutional Rights, an advocacy group that has been coordinating the detainees’ lawyers. The May 15 arguments will focus on rules that could apply to all of those cases.

Lawyers say they are pressing ahead with the more limited review process in the appeals court as part of an effort to set the stage for a return to the Supreme Court. Some lawyers said that while they may lose, that would allow them to argue to the Supreme Court that the reviews were so limited that the detainees needed the more sweeping consideration permitted in habeas corpus cases.

But government lawyers, too, are developing new strategies in the wake of the Supreme Court action this month. They say that Congress and the courts have determined that expansive habeas corpus petitions are not available to the detainees.

As a result, they say, rules like those that allowed unlimited visits with detainees are no longer necessary as the detainees pursue the more limited appeals court review.

But, while arguing that detainees have no right to lawyers, the Justice Department filing said the government was giving the Guantanamo detainees enough access to lawyers so that “the court’s review will be assisted by having informed counsel.”

Churches slam doors on sex offenders

April 26, 2007

Ask a Christian these days what the devil looks like and the answer you'll probably get is "child molester." One of the toughest moral dilemmas facing churches nationwide is what to do when a sex offender, released from prison and seeking a place to worship, comes knocking at the door. "We get calls every day now about this," says Greg Sporer, a born-again Christian, psychotherapist and co-founder of Keeping Kids Safe Ministries in Nashville, Tenn., a group that advises churches how to deal with offenders in their congregation. "We train about 50 churches a week," he says. "Most found out about a sex offender and have panicked." And although it's Christians who are most publicly grappling with the issue, the panic Sporer talks about would -- and has -- hit congregants in many other religions and denominations.

The rabbi of an Ohio synagogue, who asked not to be identified, reports that he has dealt with this issue twice. Rather than bring it to the congregation, the temple's executive committee made the decision about how -- and whether -- to welcome offenders to its temple. The verdict: The men could worship with them -- "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all Peoples," explained the rabbi, quoting Isaiah 56:7 -- but could not have any contact with children. Rabbi Elie Spitz of Congregation B'nai Israel in Tustin, Calif., faced the same problem many years ago, when he was rabbi of another temple. In that case, the offender, just out of prison, had molested children in a neighboring community. "I told him I wouldn't prevent him from coming to services, although I would rather he didn't. He came to worship and there were people in the congregation to whom it was so deeply upsetting to have him there, they couldn't pray. People came to me in pain over it," recalls Spitz. After that initial reaction, Spitz did some research into the nature of sex offenders and consulted a psychologist who specialized in the subject. "I wound up writing [the offender] a legal letter saying he was not welcome." Spitz is doubtful it would be different with his current congregation. "Realistically, I do think it would be a problem. A congregation is a very big family and some people are more secure in dealing with danger than others."

For Muslims, it's likely the decision would be equally vexing. Ebrahim Moosa, an associate professor of Islamic studies and director of the Center for the Study of Muslim Networks at Duke University, says that the integration of sex offenders simply is not discussed in mosque communities. But, he says, it's likely it would be difficult to allay the fears of parents. At the same time, says Moosa, in Islam there is a requirement of both justice and compassion. "In Islam, there is a doctrine that says someone who repents from their sin, it is as if they have no sin anymore. This is the tension you have with the issue. Can religious communities overcome their fear of this man's psychopathology and accept that he has paid society's penalty or does he have to suffer the consequences of his crimes forever?"

It's the same question facing a group of Protestants in Carlsbad, Calif., right now, members of the Pilgrim United Church of Christ who learned in late January that 53-year-old Mark Pliska, a convicted sex offender, wanted to worship with them. The normally progressive, welcoming congregation balked at the notion, and the resulting firestorm forced pastor Madison Shockley to tearfully ask Pliska not to come to services until the church could sort things out. (Shockley says he will announce the church's decision in mid-May.) "Nothing in my almost 30 years of ministry has prepared me to turn somebody away," Shockley told the local paper. But Shockely's biggest surprise wasn't that a sex offender wanted to worship, but that so many members of his congregation had been sexually abused as children; he estimated one in four of female congregants and one in 10 men. Having an offender in the pews with them on Sunday -- even one who had served his time, registered with the authorities and voluntarily identified himself to the pastor -- was too big a hurdle for these former victims, Christians or not.

The irony is that barring sex offenders who come forward and identity themselves from attending services may not guarantee a congregation's safety, since it's likely there are child molesters in the church anyway -- they just aren't talking about it (or haven't yet been found out). When Greg Sporer was working in sex offender treatment programs in prisons throughout the 1980s, he was alarmed by the high percentage -- generally more than 50 percent -- of sex offenders in the program who had been churchgoing before they got caught. Sporer began informally surveying colleagues treating sex offenders to see what percentage of their patients had been churchgoing. He says it was always more than 60 percent.

By coming forward, Pliska, who has given interviews to the San Diego Union-Tribune, the North County Times and the New York Times, took a big risk and, so far, has lost. Not only is he still locked out of the Carlsbad church, but after a parent at Pilgrim's preschool began a petition drive objecting to his presence -- and a local news crew showed up at Pliska's home -- he was evicted. Then he lost his job as an auto mechanic. Coming forth for the safety of the community has only served to isolate Pliska, but he says he is going to stay in San Diego and won't abandon his hope of attending church. "You can't keep moving forever," he told the North County Times. "I put my faith in the Lord right now and hope things will turn around for me."

Pliska has been in counseling for years now and estimates he spent half his income in the first five years after his release in the 1980s on personal and group therapy. He became religious about six years ago. "It's been a guiding light for me," he said. "To me, I'm changed. I'm trying to become an acceptable member of society. It's an ongoing process." Pliska attended church last year at the First Congregational Church in Santa Cruz, having agreed to be escorted at all times and with no access to the education building. He moved to San Diego in December looking for work, and wanted to continue going to church. "I'm not a threat to children anymore," he said. For his part, Pilgrim's Rev. Shockley takes Pliska at his word. "He's human, just like everyone else," he says, "and he strikes me as sincere in his quest to worship with us."

Prisons have long been sites of passionate Muslim and Christian awakening and conversion. And, throughout history, houses of worship have been places of refuge and redemption; they have sheltered the disenfranchised and the discarded, from runaway slaves and political dissenters to poor immigrants, the homeless, the orphaned and the diseased. So in the case of sex offenders especially, doesn't it make more sense for religious leaders to establish protocols governing how these men can join congregations -- something Pilgrim is in the process of doing -- than to treat the offender as a pariah?

I asked Jimmy Akin, director of apologetics at Catholic.com to respond. He paused before answering. "Catholics have the same human nature as everyone else, and there is a delicate balance that has to be struck between offering forgiveness and reconciliation to everyone and taking sensible precautions to protect the community," says Akin. Dennis Mikulanis, vicar for ecumenical and inter-religious affairs for the Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego and pastor of San Rafael Church in Rancho Bernardo, Calif. -- not far from Carlsbad -- says he can't speculate on how a particular congregation would react. ("Look," he said, "the Catholic Church has obviously had its problems with sex offenders.") But Mikulanis did say he "could understand how a congregation would react" the way those at Pilgrim church have and that it's likely whatever decision they come to will be criticized. "In this society today the church can't do anything right, and people of religion can't do anything right," says Mikulanis.

The Rev. Kenneth Munson, an evangelical minister (who is also my father-in-law), holds a weekly Bible study at a halfway house in Buffalo, N.Y., for those recently released from prison. Munson said Christ was, indeed, a friend to those considered sinners. "Jesus said, 'A physician doesn't come to the healthy, he comes to those who are sick,' and 'I didn't come to call the righteous, but I came to call sinners to repent,'" says Munson. But he also says sex offenders aren't like other sinners because the public believes they are incurable. "To be honest," he says, "it would probably be easier for a congregation to accept a former murderer."

Britt Minshall, pastor of Cathedral Church of St. Matthew in Baltimore and a former police officer, says his racially mixed congregation includes several members who went to prison and after release came back to church, including former prostitutes, drug dealers, thieves and murderers. "We had a member who served 25 years in a federal penitentiary for conspiracy to commit murder and when he came to us he was very accepted. He worshipped here until he died. But if I brought a sex offender to worship at our church, it would be blown apart," said Minshall. "And this is probably one of the most accepting congregations in the country."

The faithful, of course, are not perfect just because they have faith. They can be hypocrites like everyone else. "We want to be like Jesus, but we know we're not there yet," explains Alan Duce, a minister and professor of pastoral ministry at Nazarene Bible College in Colorado Springs, Colo. Minshall says it doesn't help that in the last couple of years the media has whipped society into a paranoid frenzy over registered sex offenders. When a 60-year-old sex offender wanted to worship at the Lutheran Church of the Good Shepherd in Reno, Nev., last month, the Rev. Rebecca Schlatter, the associate pastor at the church, said, "Clearly, we are called to love. But is it safe to love this particular person up close?" One of the congregants, Mary Carlson, the mother of an 8-year-old girl, was quoted as saying she was astonished that "this individual had already been worshipping among us and that we were unaware of it. Evil has already touched our lives." It has become so bad, says Minshall, that "There is no way for society to see these people as redeemed, the way they do other criminals. I'm certainly not defending sex offenders, but this is hysteria."

The uncharitable tenor of the sex-offender debate is disheartening to many church leaders, and goes against their scriptural beliefs and ministerial training. Sadullah Khan, imam of the 1,500-member Islamic Center of Irvine in Irvine, Calif., says, "[I believe] anyone who wants to come and worship, and whose presence in the mosque is not directly harming anyone, should be permitted to come," Khan explains. "If you had only perfect people in the mosque you wouldn't have any worshippers." The Rev. Shockley at Pilgrim said barring Pliska from their sanctuary has implications beyond its effect on the man. "We have to consider not only what it means to receive him, but what it means to send him away."

About two years ago the Rev. Steve Nickodemus of Christ Our Redeemer Lutheran Church in Sandpoint, Idaho, found himself in the same position as Shockley at Pilgrim church. A 40-year-old man who had served time for child molestation (involving a stepchild) wanted to worship at the church. "He found out from his probation officer what he would need in order to worship here and he agreed to chaperones and to attend only certain services. He's an honest man, he wrestles with feeling condemned all the time," says Nickodemus. "He said if he wasn't a Christian, he would want to leave society and isolate himself. I felt compassion for him. I think he had a real transformation in prison."

Nickodemus' congregation struggled with the issue, and some left. But others who had judged this man harshly at first later apologized to him, and these were people with young children. "They ended up asking his forgiveness, and I think we as a congregation are better for it. We have been tested many times and this time we asked ourselves: Are we going to be authentic Christians in terms of confession and forgiveness? Because this is what it means," says Nickodemus. "This is real."

Spitzer Pushing Bill to Shore Up Abortion Rights

April 26, 2007

ALBANY, April 25 — Gov. Eliot Spitzer said Wednesday that he planned to introduce legislation to overhaul the state’s pioneering but antiquated abortion law, shoring up abortion rights in New York.

The proposal follows the United States Supreme Court’s decision last week to uphold the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, at a time when several other states are moving to tighten restrictions on abortion.

New York took an early role in legalizing abortion, and the governor’s plan could take on much broader significance if the Supreme Court ever returns abortion law to the discretion of the states. Still, it is far from certain that the legislation will pass the Republican-led State Senate.

Mr. Spitzer’s bill, the Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection Act, would update current law, which, for example, does not include a provision allowing for abortions late in pregnancies to protect a woman’s health. New York state laws on the books also treat abortion as a homicide, but with broad exceptions that allow the procedure in many cases.

Mr. Spitzer’s proposal would remove abortion from criminal statutes and make it a matter of professional and medical discretion. It would also repeal an old statute “that criminalizes, among other things, providing nonprescription contraception to minors,” according to the governor’s office.

“Even if the Supreme Court does not understand the law, we do,” Mr. Spitzer said, appearing briefly at a Manhattan luncheon held by Naral Pro-Choice New York. “New York State will continue to be a beacon of civil rights and protection of women’s rights.”

The governor cut short his appearance after learning of the shooting death of a state trooper in upstate New York on Wednesday morning, leaving his wife, Silda Wall Spitzer, to deliver the text of his speech, which calls for legislation that “would enshrine the protections of Roe v. Wade into New York State law.”

New York’s abortion law, signed in 1970 by Gov. Nelson A. Rockefeller, a Republican, predates the Roe v. Wade decision by three years and made New York the second state after Hawaii to broadly legalize the procedure and the first to allow abortions for out-of-state residents. In the first two years, more than half the women having abortions came from out of state.

But the law is now considered out of date by abortion rights advocates.

The issue is clearly a personal one for the governor. His mother, Anne, is a board member of a foundation affiliated with Naral and received a lifetime achievement award at the luncheon.

Abortion rights advocates hailed the proposed legislation as a critical step in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling, but it is also one whose purpose could be seen as insurance if the Supreme Court upholds stricter regulation of abortion. The state bill would not change current abortion practices, nor would it have any effect on the procedure covered by the federal ban, which is known medically as “intact dilation and extraction.”

“New York’s laws have to be impeccable,” said JoAnn Smith, president and chief executive of Family Planning Advocates of New York State. “The Supreme Court said last week that a woman’s health doesn’t matter, and with very carefully crafted legislation today, Governor Spitzer said it does.”

But Lori Kehoe, a spokeswoman for the New York State Right to Life Committee, called the governor “a bully with an insatiable appetite and tunnel vision to accomplish his fierce agenda.”

“We can only hope the Senate will get back their courage and begin to stand up for the children with as much fervor and devotion as Governor Spitzer has shown for making sure they can be destroyed,” she added.

Neither the Assembly nor the Senate was familiar with the details of the proposal, though it could be expected to be received warmly in the Democratic-led Assembly and much less so in the Senate, whose majority is Republican.

John McArdle, a spokesman for the Senate majority leader, Joseph L. Bruno, said: “The governor’s top issues for the rest of the session are overturning an abortion decision that has not been made, delivering same-sex marriage and campaign finance reform. Our priorities continue to be dealing with the state’s economy, jobs, reducing taxes and making sure cops don’t get killed when they’re on the job.”

The federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act that was upheld last week allows an abortion to save the woman’s life, but not simply when her health is at risk, a step that dismayed groups like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Ms. Wall Spitzer said, “Eliot’s bill would encapsulate protections similar to those afforded by Roe, that a pregnant woman has the right to an abortion in two circumstances; first, prior to viability of the fetus, and second, at any time when necessary to protect her life or her health.”

Eve Gartner, deputy director of litigation and law of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said that although state law could not supersede the Supreme Court’s ruling last week, she believed that the governor’s proposals would make doctors feel more secure when considering a range of abortion procedures.

“I think that without having this clear health exception, they would feel that maybe they might delay treatment for a little while until the woman worsened,” she said. “If New York law had a clear health exception, I think they would feel more comfortable that they could proceed.”

April 25, 2007

Religious Groups Seek Reforms As Congress Considers Farm Bill

April 25, 2007

(RNS) More than a dozen religious groups are calling on Congress to reduce hunger and help rural farmers as the House holds hearings on the reauthorization of the U.S. farm bill.

"Passing a new farm bill is an important opportunity to reshape our agricultural policies to build a more just framework that better serves rural communities and vulnerable farmers in the U.S., overcomes hunger here and abroad, and helps poor farmers and their families in developing countries," said Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio, chairman of the U.S. Catholic bishops' Domestic Policy Committee.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has joined 15 other groups to form the Religious Working Group on the Farm Bill, which has developed a list of legislative principles for members of Congress. The campaign includes visits to Capitol Hill and speaking tours and lobbying on the state level.

"As people of faith who are also constituents, we must let our members of Congress know that we support broad reforms in the farm bill," said the Rev. David Beckmann, president of Bread for the World, an anti-hunger advocacy organization.

Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said the U.S. government has made "unprecedented" commitments to reduce world poverty in the past decade.

"Reforming U.S. agricultural policy to help farmers in poor countries sell their crops is a way to follow through on that moral commitment while also improving the financial livelihoods of farmers in our own country," she said.

The group hopes the bill will protect the safety of farmworkers, promote land conservation and improve nutrition in this country.

Other members of the Religious Working Group on the Farm Bill include the United Church of Christ, Church World Service, Catholic Charities USA, Lutheran World Relief, the National Council of Churches, Progressive National Baptist Convention and the United Methodist Church's General Board of Church and Society.


Christian Realism Necessitates Support for Bill to Withdraw Troops from Iraq

April 25, 2007

What are the results of President Bush's surge of more American troops into Iraq, beginning Feb. 1, 2007?

Here's a snapshot of a few of the news reports from Monday and Tuesday:

9 U.S. soldiers were killed and 20 were wounded in a suicide bombing at a military base in a province north of Baghdad.

1 Army veteran with three tours of duty in Iraq was killed by a rocket-propelled grenade.

1 Marine died in Al Anbar Province.

6 Iraqis were killed by insurgents in Iraqi army uniforms in a community north of Baghdad.

15 people were found shot to death in Baghdad.

5 people were found shot to death in Mosul.

1 U.S. soldier died after a roadside bomb in a town northeast of Baghdad.

3 people were killed at a restaurant in Hilla, south of Baghdad.

3 Australian soldiers were wounded by a roadside bomb in Nasiriya.

2 car bombs exploded near the Iranian embassy in Baghdad.

10 people were killed and 20 were wounded in a mostly Christian village in northern Iraq.

7 people were killed near the highly protected Green Zone in Baghdad by a suicide bomber. 14 were wounded.

50 people were reported killed on Sunday, including 23 non-Muslims forced off a bus and gunned down.

1 British soldier was killed in Basra.

25 people were killed in Ramadi and 44 wounded by 3 suicide car bombs.

What makes these snap-shots so tragic, and so easily ignorable, is that they are stacked on top of similar statistics day after day after day.

Since the surge began, the death count of American forces has gone from 80 in February to 81 in March to 86 in April with 7 days left in the month.

The civil war is unrelenting. The deaths of non-combatant civilians stay at a bloody gallop. Physicians and other professions continue to flee Iraq with some 18,000 Iraqi doctors having already left the country.

At day 84 of the surge, despite Bush's muted claim for "some progress," how long is long enough?

That question is not an idealistic one, a philosophical inquiry or an esoteric academic matter. It is a moral question rooted in the tradition of Christian realism.

The Christian realism of just war rules says that for a war to be morally right that the war must have a reasonable hope of success.

The Iraq war has no reasonable hope of success, regardless of the shifting definition of success offered by the Bush White House and the pro-war Christians. Even the Christian crusaders of a bygone era knew when to disengage from their holy wars baptized by the church and driven by the state.

Moral realism eludes the Bush administration.

Congressional Democrats have decided to send the president an emergency war spending bill that requires the withdrawal of American troops by the fall if progress is not made. The bill sets markers before the Iraqi government to measure its progress, such as disarming militias, reconciling Islamic factions and determining the distribution of oil revenue.

While Bush has promised to veto the bill and the Congressional Democrats lack the votes to override his veto, the bill deserves the support of Christian realists.

It's time for us to set aside false hope for progress, a good outcome, for a realistic course of action

Why evangelicals could support this Mormon

April 24, 2007

Last fall near Boston, a dozen evangelical leaders joined me for a three-hour conversation in the living room of then-Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who, as the world knows, is a Mormon. Over soup and sandwiches, the Republican presidential hopeful took questions about Iraq, Iran, North Korea, immigration, government spending, taxes, the Supreme Court, abortion, stem cell research and the federal marriage amendment. Two of his lunch guests quizzed him about faith — about Jesus and salvation.

The meeting broke ground, if only for bucking conventional wisdom that evangelicals would reject out of hand a Mormon running for president. I would not presume to think that the governor converted all of his lunch guests to his campaign. But, having spent my entire life in evangelical circles, I will say that I do believe many evangelicals will conclude they can — and indeed will — support this Mormon in 2008.

A month before this luncheon, I'd spent an hour in Romney's office, wanting to hear firsthand his vision for the country. After studying his life and career for a number of months, I told the governor that not only could I support him (a number of evangelicals have said as much), but also that I would support him. (I further told him I was not for hire. I was looking for a good candidate, not a client for my PR firm.)

I have often been asked whether evangelical voters could find their vision for president in a man of another faith, and specifically a Mormon. Then it struck me: This is the wrong question. To evaluate a candidate solely on religion is unfair to both the candidate and the religion. The better question is: Could I vote for this Mormon? That Catholic? This Baptist?

For example, there are Mormons who would not get Mitt Romney's vote (and, he tells me, Mormons who would probably not vote for him). Similarly, there are Southern Baptists I would not vote for. So, could I vote for a Mormon? It depends on who the Mormon is.

For years, evangelicals have been keenly interested to know whether a candidate shared their faith. I am now more interested in knowing that a president represents my values than I am that he or she shares my theology. In fact, in terms of values, evangelical Christians have more in common with most Mormons than we do with liberal Southern Baptists, or those of any other faiths and denominations who promote abortion rights and are attempting to redefine marriage.

For decades, evangelicals have proudly worked side by side with conservative Catholics, Jews and, yes, Mormons on issues of life, the family, gambling, pornography and Israel, to name a few. Why, then, couldn't we be governed by someone from one of these other religions?

Syndicated columnist Cal Thomas, himself an evangelical, wrote, "If an ambulance hits me, I care less where or how the driver worships than I do about his sense of direction to the nearest hospital. It troubles me not that a Mormon might be president. It does trouble me a great deal that so many people would think a person's faith — whether one shares it or not — should be the only reason to deny someone the presidency."

So while Mitt Romney and I spend Sunday mornings in different congregations, we share a public policy grounded in the belief that there is "more than me, more than now," and the evidence shows in his life and work.

• He has been married to his high school sweetheart for 37 years, and together he and Ann have raised five sons.

• He believes (to the political right of his own church) that life begins at conception and should be protected at all costs — a conviction informed and strengthened by extensive research on the issue of human embryo cloning.

• In a state where the opposition party enjoyed an 85 percent majority in the legislature, Romney boldly staked out unpopular positions on stem cell research (though his wife has multiple sclerosis) and gay marriage. Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby wrote, "Few mainstream politicians have stepped up to make a principled case in support of that timeless definition [of marriage], and none has done so as cogently as Romney."

But governing a nation of 300 million people with a budget of $2.5 trillion requires more than conviction on these few issues, which is why I really like Mitt Romney. Before he was a politician, he was a successful businessman, turning around the management consulting firm Bain & Co. from the brink of financial collapse, and then founding Bain Capital, one of the nation's most successful venture capital and investment companies, with $5.9 billion under management.

Romney then rescued the 2002 Winter Olympics from a bribery scandal, answering a call to serve as president of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee. When he arrived, the organization was $379 million in debt; when he finished (having donated his three years of compensation to charity), it turned a $100 million profit. Romney organized 23,000 volunteers and oversaw an unprecedented security mobilization just five months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

On his return to Massachusetts, Romney was elected governor (again forgoing his salary) and proceeded to turn a $3 billion deficit into a budget surplus of nearly $1 billion without raising taxes or borrowing money. His 26 fellow Republican governors at the time elected him chairman of the Republican Governors Association.

Writ bold between those storylines are character, vision, integrity, leadership, courage, intelligence, great capacity, problem-solving, loyalty, experience — and faith. Surely if one-third of white evangelicals could vote to reelect Bill Clinton in 1996, we can open our minds to a Mormon defending pre-born life and marriage between a man and a woman.

Looking now to 2008, if I were to support a presidential candidate other than Mitt Romney, I would have two options. The first would be to select a candidate who shares my values and is an evangelical (and some fit this description) but has little record of turning budgets from red to black and solving complex problems (and little chance of raising the kind of money now necessary to survive the front-loaded primary process).

Or I could back an experienced politician who does not well represent my values and hope to influence him religiously (a strategy that historically has marginal success, at best).

No, wait, there is a third option, and that's the one Karl Rove believes was exercised by 4 million evangelicals in 2000: I could stay home. The problem with that option is that it violates another evangelical tenet: a Christian citizen's duty to vote.

In this election, therefore, given the facts and these options, I believe I'll go with this Mormon.

Mark DeMoss is president of the DeMoss Group, an Atlanta-based public relations firm that works primarily with evangelical organizations.

It's fair game to ask Romney about Mormonism's intolerance for other faiths

April 24, 2007

Everyone knows the old saying about never discussing politics or religion at a dinner party. But sometimes both subjects deserve an airing, even if it makes dinner guests stare uncomfortably at their plates. Now may be one of those times.

In the current presidential campaign, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, a lifelong Mormon, is undergoing scrutiny as to whether his religious faith might be an impediment to his being elected president and how it might affect his governance. His response, as on a recent appearance on "Larry King Live," is usually to affirm a basic belief in God and pride in his faith, allude to John F. Kennedy in 1960 and then quickly get off the subject.

Now, I want to make clear that I give no quarter to religious bigotry. I was born, baptized and raised in a fundamentalist Pentecostal church (before they were popular and grew into today's evangelical megachurches with televised services). My boyhood church, with its loud, frenetic worship style in which speaking in tongues was common, was viewed with disdain by both mainstream Protestants and Catholics. We were truly at the bottom of the denominational pecking order.

It was not uncommon for raw tomatoes or rotten eggs to be tossed through the church's back door during worship services or for worshippers' cars to be soaped with the term "Holy Roller" while we prayed inside. And I will never forget the snobbery and snide remarks directed at us because we were considered different, if not outright lunatics.

When John F. Kennedy was running for president in 1960, my family and I regularly attended church three to seven times a week. There was, admittedly and shamefully, a huge amount of anti-Catholic bias exhibited at the time by many fundamentalist Christians. Some of my fellow churchmen, in a shocking lack of Christian charity, referred to Catholics as "Catlickers" and the pope as "the old Poop."

But in a political sense, the key rub back then was fundamentally governance: Would the pope, the monarchical and —- to the faithful —- infallible head of the foreign-based Roman Catholic Church (who some in my church actually saw as the Antichrist himself), give marching orders to a President Kennedy, thereby violating the sacred American principle of separation of church and state?

In today's context, however, the most notable and troubling question about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not about church governance. Rather, it is about the Mormon Church's official view —though recently soft-pedaled by the church hierarchy for obvious reasons —- regarding the very validity of all other self-professed Christians, their faith traditions and their rituals.

The fundamental raison d'être of the Mormon Church is the core belief that no other Christian denomination whatsoever —- whether Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Anabaptist, you name it —- is valid. In fact, Mormons assert that there was no legitimate Christian church whatsoever, and therefore no legitimate Christians, virtually from the time the last remaining apostles died off at the end of the first century until the founding of the Mormon religion in 1830 by the self-proclaimed latter-day prophet Joseph Smith. They refer to this nearly 1,800-year interregnum as the "Great Apostasy," which pretty much speaks for itself.

Smith was born in Vermont, one of eight children of a struggling farmer and occasional schoolteacher. By 1816, the family had moved to Palmyra, N.Y. Smith's father was reputedly religious but unchurched. In 1820, young Joseph was pondering which of the most prominent Protestant denominations of that day to join. Smith's mother, two brothers and a sister had become Presbyterians. According to an account he wrote 18 years later, the 14-year-old Smith repaired to the woods to seek God's guidance as to which church merited his allegiance.

He reported a vision in the forest in which both God the Father and Jesus the Son appeared before him. Smith asked the spectral heavenly presences which denomination he should join. Here, in Smith's own words, in "Pearl of Great Price," a writing published by the Mormon Church, is the response he claims to have received directly from the mouth of God (my comments added in brackets):

"I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination [apparently, including the Nicene Creed and the Apostles' Creed, the two most common summations of Christian belief] in His sight; that those professors [those who professed those creeds] were all corrupt; that 'they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men. …'"

All Christian creeds an abomination? Every follower of an existing denomination corrupt? So much for ecumenical spirit — or even basic religious tolerance. This means, in Mormon doctrine, that the post-apostolic Roman Catholic Church has been apostate during its entire 2,000-year history; the Eastern Orthodox churches that split from Rome in 1054 also were and remain illegitimate; even the various denominations founded by the great Protestant reformers in the 16th century — Martin Luther, Thomas Cranmer, John Calvin, Huldrych Zwingli, Jan Hus —- are all null and void.

How does this hard-line theology play out in real life? Let's take baptism, the nearly universally accepted, biblically mandated rite of initiation into the Christian faith (Jesus himself was baptized by John the Baptist). Even the Roman Catholic Church acknowledges the validity of baptisms carried out by other faiths if they are performed using water and the Trinitarian formula ("in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"). The overwhelming majority of Christian traditions also believe that emergency baptisms are valid even when administered by a layperson, say at a moment of great peril or impending death, when no ordained clergy are available.

But Mormons believe that no baptism performed between the extinction of the original 12 apostles and the founding of Mormonism in the 19th century was valid, and that even today, only holders of the Mormon priesthood can perform an efficacious baptism. The ubiquitous Mormon missionaries who circle the globe —- Romney himself was one, in France, while he was in college —- are trained specifically to proselytize and convert members of other Christian faiths and bring about their rebaptism into the Mormon Church.

What about all those billions of putative Christian souls through the last two millenniums who thought they were saved via baptism in a non-Mormon faith but were unwittingly lost? Mormons hold that only a posthumous proxy or "vicarious" baptism by a qualified Mormon practitioner, in temple ceremonies off-limits to non-Mormons, will ensure they end up in paradise. Hence the church's famous focus on extensive genealogical research.

This "our way or no way" approach is pretty much unique to Mormons in this day and age. No doubt there remain some hard-liners in the Vatican who still believe Roman Catholicism to be the only "one true church." But that attitude is most certainly not shared by rank-and-file Catholics in this country, millions of whom have abandoned the church of their upbringing and many of whom have defected to evangelical brands of Christianity. While there are still no doubt some anti-Semitic Christians who believe God doesn't hear the prayers of Jews, most American Christians today believe that Jews are God's chosen people and that they will be in heaven.

I wager that this exclusionary Mormon theology, once widely revealed, will come as a shock to most U.S. Christians, regardless of their particular denominational preference or worship style. This is a country where ecumenism and church shopping have been de rigueur for decades. Christians in our pluralistic society are accustomed to local interfaith councils, interdenominational prayer breakfasts, Shrove Tuesday pancake suppers shared by various denominations, fall harvest dinners that rotate among the church halls of different local denominations. They are accustomed to Lutherans and Presbyterians sharing their church buildings with Korean Methodists and to Episcopalians and Lutherans exchanging ordained clergy.

I believe that Mormon doctrine on this point, once made plain, will prove equally offensive to modern-day, ecumenical-minded Christians around the world, who in recent times have:

• Witnessed Pope John Paul II as the first pope to visit a synagogue, meeting in Rome with the grand rabbi and asking for forgiveness from Jews for the persecution and forced conversions of previous centuries. He also called on the grand mufti of Jerusalem on the Temple Mount.

• Observed several archbishops of Canterbury, spiritual leaders of the church formed by Henry VIII when he unilaterally broke with Rome in the 16th century (and was excommunicated by the pope for his trouble), make pilgrimages to the Vatican to meet with various pontiffs over the past few decades.

• Watched Pope Benedict XVI pray facing Mecca with an imam at Istanbul's famed Blue Mosque and meet with the ecumenical patriarch of Eastern Orthodoxy. (For those who don't know their religious history, after the Great Schism of the Western and Eastern churches in 1054, the pope and patriarch had excommunicated each other.)

My own pilgrim's progress is not dissimilar to that of many Americans in recent times. I have peregrinated from Holy Roller to High-Church Anglican, with rest stops in between at Baptist, Lutheran and even Greek Orthodox churches. In my immediate family, one side going back was French-Canadian Roman Catholic and the other mainly Midwestern Seventh-day Adventist. (My in-laws, incidentally, are Buddhist.) Yet despite the fact that my personal worship preferences are strong, I — like the overwhelming majority of most practicing Christians — would never question the Christianity or certainly the baptism of those in other denominations.

I've met Mitt Romney, and he is clearly an intelligent, articulate, impressive and accomplished man. He was elected a Republican governor of one of the most reliably Democratic states in America — the only one that voted for George McGovern in 1972 — which was no small feat. His leadership of the once-flailing 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City drew almost universal praise. His father, George Romney, was a decent man and an honorable governor of Michigan, as well as a one-time Republican presidential candidate. His mother once ran for the U.S. Senate.

I would never doubt the sincerity of Romney's religious convictions, his charitable views toward humankind in general or the strong family values that motivate devout Mormons like him. But none of that is the issue at hand.

In many media interviews with Romney over the last several months, reporters and interlocutors have tended to focus on the more exotic things such as the Mormon history of polygamy, the strange origin of the Book of Mormon and the belief unique to Mormons that Jesus Christ personally ministered to ancient Indian tribes in North America after his resurrection — and will return in triumph to the state of Missouri. These inquiries, however, while perhaps titillating, are mainly off the mark.

The far more critical and basic question is: Does Romney's brand of faith and membership in the Church of Latter-day Saints require that he question or dismiss the validity of the Christian tradition, and the efficacy of baptism into their faith, of every non-Mormon adherent of Christianity who has ever lived since the end of the apostolic era? And does he?

In the last presidential election, I was a senior adviser to Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who in 2000 was the first Orthodox Jew to be on a major-party ticket and in 2004 was the first to run for president. During his campaign, Lieberman was often asked this question by sincere, well-meaning Christians: As a practicing Orthodox Jew who clearly does not believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah, would he allow the traditional White House Christmas tree in the Blue Room? (The answer? Of course, because it is a long-standing national tradition and the tree is not a religious symbol in and of itself.)

If Lieberman was queried about such a considerably less weighty matter pertaining to his faith, then I submit it is neither unfair nor inappropriate to expect a would-be President Romney to publicly state whether he personally believes, as does his church, that every non-Mormon Christian he would govern was invalidly baptized in an illegitimate church.

Garry South is principal of the Garry South Group in Santa Monica, Calif., and a longtime Democratic strategist who has managed or held senior positions in campaigns for 35 years.

U.S. targeting Islam, many in poll say

April 25, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Majorities in Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan and Indonesia say undermining Islam is a likely goal of U.S. foreign policy and many are unconvinced that Al Qaeda committed the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, according to a poll released Tuesday in Washington.

The survey by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes questioned 1,000 or more people in each country. A majority of those surveyed in Morocco and in Indonesia, which has the largest Muslim population of any country, said it is a goal of the U.S. war on terror to "spread Christianity" in the Middle East.

"While U.S. leaders may frame the conflict as a war on terrorism, people in the Islamic world clearly perceive the U.S. as being at war with Islam," program director Steven Kull said in a statement.

Since 9/11, President George W. Bush has maintained that the United States targets only those who commit violence in the name of Islam, not the religion itself.

In Egypt, 92% of those surveyed said they believe it is a probable or definite U.S. goal to "weaken and divide the Islamic world." In Morocco, 78% of those questioned said they agreed, as did 73% of those in Indonesia and urban Pakistan.

Only 28% of Egyptians, 26% of Indonesians, 35% of Moroccans and 2% of urban Pakistanis said they believe Al Qaeda was behind 9/11, the poll found.

Thirty-eight percent of Egyptians blamed the United States or Israel for the attacks, as did 20% of Indonesians, 31% of Moroccans and 28% of urban Pakistanis.

Conducted between Dec. 9 and Feb. 15 using in-home interviews, the surveys have a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, except for Pakistan, where the margin is 4 points.

While urban and rural people were polled in Morocco, Indonesia and Pakistan, the survey didn't report findings from rural Pakistan because people there were unfamiliar with many of the issues in the survey, according to the pollsters.

Spreading Christianity in the Middle East was probably or definitely a U.S. goal, said 67% of Moroccans, 64% of urban Pakistanis and 61% of Indonesians.

The survey group said it wasn't allowed to ask the question in Egypt.

The Chosen President

April 25, 2007

The Republican candidates are slugging it out, talking tough about cracking down on gay Mexican wetback couples who are stealing our guns and leaving us defenseless against big government, decrying the evils of taxation. Meanwhile an ancient Republican dropped by my house on Monday to sun himself on my porch and announce over coffee that he is now an independent. He is disgusted with the Current Occupant over Iraq and much more, including taxation. Unlike the Occupant, he does not think of taxes as a sacrifice but simply the dues you pay as a member of society, and the haves pay more than the have-nots because they have more to lose should anarchy ensue. And he was brought up to believe that more is expected of those to whom much is given.

He said he is not partial to any of his party's candidates in the field, especially not the cross-dressing gumshoe from New York, and while he's intrigued by Sen. Obama, he's not about to pin the D-word on his lapel. After all, he was a Republican for most of his life and as such served faithfully in the state legislature for 20 years. Becoming a Democrat now would be like coloring his hair. At 87, he doesn't have enough to color.

The problem is that his party has become the Calvinist party and he is Episcopalian. In his church, faith and doubt sit side by side: It's fear that we must cast out. But in the Republican Party, fear is the fuel that runs the car.

Calvinism, as all of you Calvinists know, is based on five points of doctrine, which spell out the word "TULIP" -- total depravity (everybody is sinful), unconditional election (God chooses who'll be saved, it's not up to you), limited atonement (Jesus didn't die for everybody, just for the chosen), irresistible grace (if God chooses you, you're saved, you can't resist) and perseverance of the saints (once saved, always saved, no matter what you do).

It's a chilly theology with big winners and losers, nothing like the feel-good thank-you-Jesus-for-making-me-beautiful uplift of the megachurches, and it draws clear lines. Either you are one of the elect or you are in the darkness, grinding your molars. Undoubtedly it's an excellent thing to be chosen from the depraved and to be atoned for exclusively and be able to do dreadfully dumb things, burn down the house, start a war, appoint dopes, with no danger of ever losing your chosenness. (When you're a Jet, you're a Jet all the way.) But it's not a good platform for a political party that has to be elected by a majority of the depraved.

Clearly the Current Occupant sees himself as a chosen president, though his theology is simpler than Calvin's: really just four points -- blindness as vocation (if you don't remember it, you're not responsible for it), unquestionable authority (the president is the president is the president), sustenance of faith (God has ordained you and it doesn't matter what anybody else thinks) and heckuva job (never admit a thing, let a smile be your umbrella). If you ran a business on those principles, you'd be in big trouble. Just look at General Motors.
<A HREF="http://a.tribalfusion.com/h.click/aBmMvfTt3WmbBpQbBtYaFO3Ebi2TYRmTFEYFJfTWZbQmPnBnVrvodfD2qYl3H6N56ZbZbnFMKXsnX1cZbYXGFnmqj43rFTWUMAUAv5QEYQQs3tStZbw1H7wWAbm2cJ0YbQZcV6im4mU9Q6bI3WYo1dBxMa7dvq/260015019" TARGET="_blank"><IMG SRC= WIDTH=300 HEIGHT=250 BORDER=0></A>

The Calvinists who came to America withstood drought and tornadoes and locusts better than almost anybody else, and they were abstemious, which was good for their health, but they took too much pride in their dogmatism. They were a fractious bunch. When you own the pure truth, you don't care to have to listen to the foolish inconsistencies of the yahoos who sit in the pew ahead of you. While other more tolerant Christians were feeding the hungry and caring for the sick, the Calvinists were debating the finer points of TULIP and taking each other's temperature.

The Ancient stopped at my house on his way home from a reunion of old legislators, Republicans and Democrats, who meet to reminisce about their days at the Capitol back in a more amiable time, when people who disagreed sharply could be, as he says, "hugging buddies." It's hard to imagine this happening years from now, Mr. Hastert and Mrs. Pelosi sitting down to share pleasant memories of days gone by or the Current Occupant dropping in for a few laughs over the Gonzales debacle, but who knows? Meanwhile, the Ancient is in fine fettle, planning his garden, which is tending away from vegetables and toward flowers, plotting his summer trips, and enjoying the occasional coffee with rock-ribbed liberals. A sunny old age is the best revenge of all.

(Garrison Keillor's "A Prairie Home Companion" can be heard Saturday nights on public radio stations across the country.)

Bush, Congress reach for war's reins

April 25, 2007

Washington - In a move that both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue have anticipated for weeks, Congress and President Bush are heading into their first direct confrontation over funding the Iraq war.

At stake is $124.2 billion in emergency spending, including more than $100 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Without that funding, the Pentagon says it will run out of money to pay for the war by the end of June.

Congress proposes linking war funding to diplomatic and security benchmarks that trigger deadlines for the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, to begin as early as July 1. If Mr. Bush certifies that these benchmarks are being met, the plan requires the withdrawal of US combat forces to begin Oct. 1, with a target date to complete the pullout by April 1, 2008. Bush says he will veto the bill.

In this heated atmosphere, Wednesday's briefing by Gen. David Petraeus on Capitol Hill could not be more timely.

At the heart of the dispute is a tension locked into the Constitution over who directs a war. As commander in chief, Bush says that he and generals on the ground determine the deployment of US forces, not members of Congress.

"I believe strongly that politicians in Washington shouldn't be telling generals how to do their jobs," he said, after a meeting with Gen. Petraeus, who oversees all US forces in Iraq.

Democrats say that Congress must use its war-funding powers to force the president to change course on a war that most Americans no longer support.

In the sharpest exchange to date, Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D), once a supporter of the Iraq war, said that he believed that Bush is "in a state of denial" over the "hard facts" of the war. At a critical point in the Iraq war and the Iraq debate at home, Congress is set to "put some spine in our policy," he said.

"In short, there is no evidence that the escalation is working – and it should come as no surprise, because, as General Petraeus has said, the ultimate solution in Iraq is a political one, not a military one," Senator Reid said in a speech Monday.

In closed briefings before the full House and Senate, Petraeus will have an opportunity to clarify whether such remarks justify the current impasse – or have been misconstrued. Republicans also invoke Patraeus as a reason for stripping withdrawal language from the bill. They note that it's defeatist for the Congress to mandate a pullout before the general – unanimously confirmed in the Senate on Jan. 26 – has time to carry out his new strategy. Democrats cite Petraeus as authority for mandating diplomatic and political benchmarks – with consequences.

"If anyone can pull this off, it's David Petraeus," said retired Maj. Gen. Robert Scales, who testified last week before the Senate Armed Services Committee on military readiness.

Petraeus stands for the view that "weapons are a means to an end, but the end is to shape politics," he says. "After the Rumsfeld era, we've rediscovered that the technocentric view of war – that saw human conflict as an engineering problem – is wrong."

Whether Petraeus can shift hearts and minds on Capitol Hill is not yet clear. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle say that the vote count, as it stands, is not sufficient to override a presidential veto. But a veto also doesn't get the president the funding he needs to conduct the war.

In a vote to test House sentiment in a standoff with the president, Rep. Jerry Lewis (R) of California on April 19 proposed that House conferees insist on maintaining a mandatory withdrawal date in the final defense spending bill. The motion, which passed 215-199, was supported by only one Republican and lost nine Democratic votes. A two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate is needed to overturn a presidential veto. But a veto also doesn't get the president the funding he needs to conduct the war.

Republican negotiators declined to offer even one amendment to the proposed emergency spending bill on Monday, citing the need to get on to post-veto negotiations.

"We are not generals. We are not the secretary of state. And we are most certainly not the commander in chief," said Representative Lewis, the top Republican on the House Appropriations Committee. "We all know this bill is going nowhere fast. Let us quickly conclude this process."

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (R) of Kentucky says that a mandate to withdraw troops no later than Oct. 1, no matter how well the Iraqi government meets its benchmarks or US troops are succeeding in the field, "sends absolutely the wrong message to al Qaeda, our allies in the region, and our forces in the field."

But many congressional experts see this week's confrontation over war funding as a critical test for a Congress that has long deferred to the White House over the conduct of the war.

"The Democrats are not micromanaging; they're macromanaging. They're not trying to direct tactical units. They're trying to influence the general direction of the war," says Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information.

"Congress has a right to do what it's doing. We still have civilian supremacy in this country, which still includes Congress," says Louis Fisher, an expert on presidential war powers at the Library of Congress.

On Tuesday, Bush addressed the showdown with Congress over Iraq war funding at the White House.

"I'm disappointed that the Democratic leadership has chosen this course," Bush said.

"They chose to make a political statement," he said. "That's their right but it is wrong for our troops and it's wrong for our country. To accept the bill proposed by the Democratic leadership would be to accept a policy that directly contradicts the judgment of our military commanders."

Mexico City Legalizes Abortion

April 25, 2007

MEXICO CITY (AP) -- Mexico City lawmakers voted to legalize abortion during the first three months of pregnancy, a landmark decision likely to heighten church-state tensions in the Roman Catholic nation and lead to a bitter court battle.

Abortion-rights advocates said they hoped the vote would be the start of a new trend across Mexico and other parts of Latin America, where only Cuba and Guyana permit women to have abortions on demand in the first trimester. Most other Latin American countries allow it only in cases of rape or when the woman's life is at risk. Nicaragua, El Salvador and Chile ban it completely.

But the debate in Mexico appeared far from over. Opponents vowed to challenge the law before the Supreme Court, saying it violates individual rights.

''This is a step backward for democracy,'' said Armando Martinez, the leader of a Catholic lawyers' group that has petitioned the leftist-dominated legislature for a referendum on the issue. The church has played a vocal role in opposing the measure, a position shared by President Felipe Calderon's conservative National Action Party. Mexico City Cardinal Norberto Rivera led a protest march through the capital last month, pushing the limits of Mexico's constitutional ban on political activity by religious groups.

The Archdiocese said Tuesday that it would ''evaluate the moral consequences of the reforms'' and Rivera would have no public comment until Sunday.

The bill, approved 46-19, with one abstention, will take effect with the expected signing by the city's leftist mayor. The new law will require city hospitals to provide the procedure in the first trimester and opens the way for private abortion clinics. Girls under 18 would have to get their parents' consent.

The procedure will be almost free for poor or uninsured city residents. Mexico City is a federal district similar to Washington, D.C., with its own legislature. The district includes the capital and its suburbs and is home to about 20 million people.

Opponents fear the local law could attract women across Mexico seeking abortions. Nationally, Mexico allows abortion only in cases of rape, severe birth defects or if the woman's life is at risk. Doctors sometimes refuse to perform the procedure even under those circumstances.

However the law is unlikely to attract patients from the United States, where later-term abortion is legal in many states. Under the Mexico City law, women having an abortion after 12 weeks face punishment of three to six months in jail. Those performing abortions after that period would face one to three years in jail.

A crowd of abortion-rights supporters chanting ''Yes, we did it!'' gathered at a monument to 19th-century anti-clerical reformer Benito Juarez in downtown Mexico City after the vote.

''I feel happy, because this is a step forward, not backward, for a woman's right and freedom to choose ... about her body and her life,'' said demonstrator Gabriela Cruz, 36.

Proponents of the law say it would save lives.

Botched abortions using herbal remedies, black-market medications and quasi-medical procedures kill about 1,500 women in Mexico each year and are the third-leading cause of death for pregnant women in the capital, said Martha Micher, director of Mexico City's Women's Institute.

''Decriminalizing abortion is a historic triumph, a triumph of the left,'' said city legislator Jorge Diaz Cuervo, a leftist social democrat who voted for the bill. ''Today, there is a new atmosphere in this city. It is the atmosphere of freedom.''

Recent newspaper polls showed that a majority of Mexico City residents support legalized abortions, at least in the first weeks of pregnancy. That is at odds with the Catholic faith, which rejects abortion in the belief that life begins at conception.

''This is an act of revenge against the Catholic church,'' said anti-abortion businessman Carlos Valadez, 40.

The vote alarmed Calderon's party and prompted authorities to send riot police to separate chanting throngs of opposing demonstrators outside the city legislature.

Many of the abortion-rights demonstrations had a distinctly anti-church tone. One demonstrator pranced around in a mock bishop's costume, and some activists peppered their chants and banners with references to church sex abuse scandals.

In the 1920s, Catholics led an uprising against the government for repressing the religion. While church-state relations have improved since then, resentments remain. Leftists interrupted Masses and held protests in Mexico City's Metropolitan Cathedral after last summer's disputed presidential election, accusing prelates of taking sides.

Agustin Guerrero, a legislator who voted for the bill, said there may be no way to resolve such an emotional issue.

''This debate, as heated and important as it is, implies that we will have to live with disagreement over abortion, just as we live with disagreements over other issues,'' said Guerrero, a member of the leftist Democratic Revolution Party that dominates the Mexico City legislature.

Editorial: Muslims deserve a welcoming campus

April 25, 2007

Minneapolis Community and Technical College has been bombarded with letters and e-mails -- most of them hostile, some of them hateful -- since disclosing that it is considering the installation of a foot bath for some Muslim students to use before prayer. This reaction is out of proportion to the modest and cautious inquiry the school has undertaken, and it is certainly out of keeping with Minnesota's long tradition of social tolerance and temperate thinking.

If the downtown Minneapolis school were discriminating in favor of Islam and against other faiths, we would understand the outrage. But it's not. When Christian students asked for space to study the Bible and conduct prayers, the school obliged them. When a Jewish student asked to reschedule an assignment because of a religious observance, the college agreed.

If MCTC were setting some unusual precedent, we might worry. But it's not. St. Cloud State University, the University of Minnesota-Duluth and at least a dozen other colleges around the country have installed small foot-washing facilities for their devout Muslim students -- at modest cost and often using student fees rather than state revenues.

It's worth remembering that this question first arose at MCTC as a matter of safety, not religion. A student slipped and fell after another student used a campus sink to bathe her feet. School officials could have banned the practice of foot-washing in hand sinks, but then they might have run afoul of state law governing religious discrimination and court decisions on religious accommodation.

And so the school found itself wading into that murky question of what the Constitution's "establishment clause" permits and forbids. In our view it has handled that question appropriately. Banning Christmas carols on the official campus coffee cart -- which incensed the school's critics -- seems plainly in keeping with a long string of court rulings that forbid the use of public resources to endorse a particular religion. But accommodating the prayer practices of some devout Muslims seems akin to putting kosher items on the cafeteria menu and letting employees display religious objects in their private workspaces -- accommodations that MCTC has in fact made in the past.

We don't pretend that these decisions are simple. A growing Muslim population means that Minnesota will face difficult questions, time and again, about how far the majority should accommodate the minority -- and how much the minority should adapt to majority norms.

But Minnesota will be a stronger state if it tackles these questions in a spirit of generosity and confidence -- and who wouldn't be confident when the state's schools are full of pious, ambitious young people who are trying to get a college education?

Judge: No Religion at Post Office

April 25, 2007

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) -- Religion has no place in post offices run by churches and other private contractors, a federal judge has ruled, citing the constitutional separation of church and state.

U.S. District Judge Dominic J. Squatrito, in a case involving a church-run post office in Manchester, ordered the Postal Service to notify the nearly 5,200 facilities run by contractors that they cannot promote religion through pamphlets, displays or any other materials.

He also told the agency to monitor those offices, which are distinguishable from government-run facilities and employ workers who are not Postal Service employees, to make sure they comply with his ruling.

Postal officials said they could not immediately comment on the ruling, which is dated April 18.

''We're carefully reviewing the decision and considering our options, including an appeal,'' said Gerry McKiernan, a Postal Service spokesman at the agency's headquarters in Washington, D.C.

Squatrito sided with Bertram Cooper, who in 2003 sued the Postal Service and the Full Gospel Interdenominational Church, which operates the Sincerely Yours Inc. post office on Main Street in downtown Manchester.

When he filed the lawsuit, Cooper, a Navy veteran of World War II and the Korean War, said he became upset when he went to Sincerely Yours.

''I'm walking into a place that's doing government business -- selling stamps, mailing parcels and so forth -- and they're doing this religious bit,'' Cooper, who is Jewish, said in 2003. His phone number is not listed, and he could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

The Manchester office has a label on an exterior wall with the Postal Service's eagle symbol indicating it is a contract postal unit, along with a Sincerely Yours sign over the threshold.

Inside, the facility has evangelical displays, including posters, advertisements and artwork. One of the displays is about Jesus Christ and invites customers to submit a request if they ''need a prayer in their lives.''

The office has prayer cards and an advertisement for a mission run by the Full Gospel Interdenominational Church that receives profits from the post office. There is a television monitor for church-related religious videos.

There is also a sign saying the Postal Service does not endorse the religious viewpoints expressed in the materials in the office.

A worker at the office referred questions to church officials, who did not return a message seeking comment Tuesday.

''There is nothing wrong, per se, with the church exhibiting religious displays,'' Squatrito wrote in his ruling. ''Here, however, the church is exhibiting such displays while it is performing its duties under a contract with the Postal Service., i.e. the U.S. Government.''

Squatrito said that the post office was a state ''actor'' under the First Amendment and that its religious displays violate the clause calling for the separation of church and state. But he said the contract itself does not violate the clause.

Manchester Postmaster Ronald Boyne, who also was a defendant, declined to comment.

The Postal Service had argued that signs make it clear that Sincerely Yours is not an ''official'' postal facility. It also said that it had no proprietary interest in the office, other than postal products and equipment, and that there was no evidence that the agency had a direct financial stake in the office's success.

The agency noted that no government employees work at Sincerely Yours, and insisted the facts demonstrate that the post office is a private entity.

The judge said the Postal Service relies on contractor-run offices to provide services to areas that the agency has determined to be unsuitable for official facilities. Contract offices are typically at colleges, grocery stores, pharmacies and some private residences.

Housing discrimination found against blacks in New Orleans

April 25, 2007

NEW ORLEANS — Blacks already feeling the pinch from a housing shortage in the New Orleans area after Hurricane Katrina are facing racial discrimination in their search for rental property, a survey by housing advocates found.

The survey sent black and white "testers" — paired by matching incomes, careers, family types and rental histories — to inquire about openings at 40 rental properties in metropolitan New Orleans.

The findings, released Tuesday by the Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center, found blacks encountered "less favorable treatment" than their white counterparts in 57.5 percent of those tests.

In one example, an agent told the black tester who responded to an apartment ad on Jan. 22 that only one unit was available, and not until February. The same agent told the white tester later that day that two units would be available Feb. 1 and mentioned two other units.

A woman reached at a number for the New Orleans Landlords Association declined to comment publicly Tuesday evening. No one could be immediately reached at the Apartment Association of Greater New Orleans and the New Orleans Real Estate Investor's Association.

James Perry, the center's executive director, said the group intends to sue several of the landlords.

"At a time when people need housing desperately, we really can't stand to have discrimination occurring," Perry said.

Gay-rights proposals gain in Congress

April 25, 2007

WASHINGTON -- After more than a decade of government inaction, gay-rights proponents in Congress have gotten several major bills moving through the Democratic-controlled chambers, a development that could result in the greatest expansion of federal protections for gays and lesbians in US history.

This week, a key House committee is set to approve a measure that would in some cases make hate crimes based on a victim's sexual orientation a federal offense, as are crimes committed on the basis of the race or religion of the victim.

Also, a bipartisan group of House members introduced a bill yesterday that would ban workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Both pieces of legislation are on track for congressional approval in the coming months.

If Congress passes the bills, gay-rights advocates say, it reflects a dramatic change in the national political landscape. In the dozen years Republicans controlled Congress, GOP lawmakers paid little attention to the gay-rights agenda and kept some gay-friendly legislation from even being considered.

"For millions of Americans, it's a very important affirmation of their lives, and we're not talking about [just] symbolism here," said Representative Barney Frank, a Newton Democrat who is openly gay. "We are talking about real problems that exist in people's lives."

Democratic leaders say that while they have enough votes to approve both measures, they probably could not override a presidential veto. That will probably leave it to President Bush, who has not stated a position on either bill, to decide whether they will become law, and Bush's decision could propel the issue of gay rights into the 2008 presidential campaign.

The congressional move to expand gay rights is particularly striking given recent history: Besides halting nearly all gay-rights bills while they were in power, the GOP has tried in recent years to get a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

A similar dynamic has played out in the states.

Between 2004 and 2006, voters in 22 states banned gay marriage. But this year, the momentum has shifted : New Hampshire is ready to pass a civil unions bill, and states, including New York and Connecticut, are considering whether to join Massachusetts and draft bills to legally recognize gay marriage.

"The shift has just been seismic in the last year," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay-rights advocacy group. Of the federal legislation, he added, "It's incredibly important for our community, and it's a profound advance in terms of civil rights legislation."

In response, however, conservatives are gearing up a lobbying campaign to try to defeat the hate crimes and anti discrimination legislation.

Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the Republicans' chief deputy whip, said Democrats are wrong to create laws that would mete out special punishment for crimes against people based solely on sexual orientation or other characteristics.

"We need stricter enforcement of present [anti discrimination] law, not a new law protecting special classes of people and not others," Cantor said. "Here in this Congress I feel it is not our duty, nor should it be our business, to distinguish between different kinds of murder. Murder is murder."

A group of African-American clergy members rallied on Capitol Hill yesterday against the hate crimes bill, which they said was akin to granting special legal protections to a class of "sinners."

Several of the ministers said they feared the measure could lead to prosecution of church leaders who preach against homosexuality if, for example, a church member were to commit a hate crime against a gay man or a lesbian after listening to a sermon that denounced homosexuality.

"Courts have an interesting way of interpreting laws, and once this can of worms is open, it will be very hard to close," said Pastor Marvin L. Winans of Perfecting Church in Detroit. "This step of recognizing homosexuality as a protected class would be a huge advancement in this nation toward adopting and condoning this behavior as natural."

But with Democrats in control of the agenda, the hate crimes and anti discrimination bills are on track for passage in both the House and Senate, and Frank said the public is on their side.

He pointed out that, despite the GOP's efforts to portray Democratic lawmakers as pushing a "radical gay agenda," Democrats cruised to victory in last fall's congressional elections.

"We have had an affirmation in the last election that the American people support fairness," he said.

Both gay-rights measures enjoy bipartisan support.

Representative Deborah Pryce -- an Ohio Republican who is co sponsoring the workplace protection bill prohibiting the firing or demotion of employees because of their sexual orientation -- said the measure simply ensures that gays, lesbians, and transgendered people are treated the same as everyone else.

"It is by no means revolutionary in its philosophy," Pryce said. "This is the American way."

Seventeen states, including Massachusetts, already have bans on employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, and the bill introduced yesterday would create a nationwide standard.

A similar federal measure before the Senate in 1996 fell one vote short of becoming law.

The current bill exempts religious institutions, which have their own policies on sexual orientation, as well as the military, which prohibits gays and lesbians from serving under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

The hate crimes bill would allow federal authorities to get involved in investigating state and local crimes if a victim is believed to have been targeted because of sexual orientation or gender identity.

"Law enforcement has been forced to investigate these crimes with one hand tied behind its back," said Senator Edward M. Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat who introduced the bill along with Senator Gordon Smith, Republican of Oregon. "That's wrong, and Congress must set it right."

The White House did not respond to a request for comment regarding the president's position on the gay-rights bills.

Gay-rights advocates say they hope the bills they are focusing on now will open the door to other advances .

They have set their sights on equal tax treatment of domestic partnership benefits -- the Internal Revenue Service considers such benefits taxable income, unlike benefits available to heterosexual spouses -- and to repeal the armed forces' "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Survey Studies Hispanic Religious Views

April 25, 2007

U.S. Hispanics view religious and political life as intertwined, often worship in ethnic congregations and embrace a spirit-filled, charismatic style of Christianity, a new survey says.

The trends cross Roman Catholic and Protestant lines and signal significant shifts in the U.S. religious landscape, considering the explosive growth of the Hispanic population, according to the survey released Wednesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Pew Hispanic Center.

When it comes to political loyalties, religion trumps ethnicity: Hispanic Catholics, who make up two-thirds of the Hispanic population, are solidly Democratic. But born-again or evangelical Hispanics, at 15 percent of the Hispanic population and rising, favor Republicans, though by a much narrower margin.

The bilingual survey involved 4,600 interviews from August to October last year and is billed as one the most detailed looks ever at Hispanics and U.S. public life. It has a margin of error of 2.5 percentage points.

The survey also found that 54 percent of Hispanic Catholics identified themselves as charismatic, compared to about 12 percent of non-Hispanic Catholics.

Though definitions differ, charismatics generally emphasize an intense personal experience with God and believe the Holy Spirit can work through speaking in tongues, healing and prophecy.

Luis Lugo, director of the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, said this brand of Christianity, mostly associated with evangelicals, attracts Catholics who don't feel a strong connection with God through the traditional Mass.

"This is introducing a new way to worship, a new way of being the church," Lugo said. "You could call it bringing the fiesta spirit into the Catholic church."

Lugo said Catholic leaders will be challenged to incorporate clapping, shouting and even speaking in tongues into worship, a potential point of conflict in an institution that cherishes tradition. Those issues will be brought into relief next month when Pope Benedict XVI visits Brazil, the world's most populous Catholic country, where Pentecostals are making inroads.

The embrace of charismatic Christianity has not turned Catholics into Pentecostal Protestants, however. The survey found charismatic Catholics are even more likely to pray the rosary, go to confession or serve in their parishes, suggesting a strengthening of Catholic identity.

The survey found 18 percent of Hispanics have either converted from one religion to another or claim no religious affiliation. Four out of five Hispanic evangelicals are converts from Catholicism, and one in three cited the lack of excitement at Catholic Masses; very few cited dissatisfaction with the church's position on issues.

Two-thirds of Hispanic worshippers attend churches with Hispanic clergy, Spanish services and heavily Hispanic congregations. Not only are new immigrants and Spanish speakers being drawn to ethnic churches, but so are English-speaking, U.S.-born Hispanics, the survey found.

"Latinos are finding each other and worshipping together," said Roberto Suro, director of the Pew Hispanic Center. "Religion is one area where ethnic identity matters a lot."

Edwin Hernandez, director of the Center for the Study of Latino Religion at the University of Notre Dame, who consulted on the study, said ethnic churches affirm cultural roots and the strength of family and community. But rather than isolating Hispanics, Hernandez argues ethnic churches do the opposite through job training, social services and connecting Hispanics across generations.

"Ethnic congregations," he said, "are helping people integrate better."

The survey found Hispanics see religion as a moral compass to guide their political thinking and expect the same of politicians, with the feeling stronger among evangelicals. Most Hispanics believe social and political issues should be addressed from the pulpit.

The racial split over that question at times was stark: About 54 percent of white Catholics believe churches should stay out of politics, compared to 36 percent of Hispanic Catholics, the survey found.

The survey found 43 percent of eligible Hispanic voters consider themselves Democrats and 20 percent were Republican; 20 percent chose independent , the rest had no answer or picked another party. Among Catholic Hispanics, 48 percent said they were Democrats and 17 percent Republicans, while Hispanic evangelicals more narrowly favored Republicans, 37 percent to 32 percent.

On a volatile political topic, two-thirds of Hispanics surveyed said immigrants strengthen society. But the remainder did not, which the survey authors flagged as a sizable minority. One in three evangelical Hispanics said immigrants threaten society, the highest number among all the faith groups.

"It's still a big issue for Latinos to seek out identities in this society, to stake a place for yourself," said Timothy Matovino, director of the Cushwa Center for the Study of American Catholicism at Notre Dame. "Some do that by saying, 'I am American now,' and you show that by distancing yourself from immigrants."

Census estimates say there are more than 42 million Hispanics in America, making them the nation's largest minority group.
Click here to find out more!

McCain-Feingold and free speech

April 25, 2007

The importance of judicial appointments to the pro-life cause was demonstrated just last week when the Supreme Court's newest members, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, joined a five-member majority to uphold a ban on partial-birth abortion. But do grass-roots organizations like Wisconsin Right to Life have a First Amendment right to publicly encourage citizens to support confirmation of pro-life judges? Under the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law, at least for 90 days of every election year, the federal government says no. Today, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case that could lift the muzzle off of organizations like the Wisconsin pro-lifers.

Wisconsin Right to Life's story began three years ago amid the judicial filibuster controversy of 2004. It launched a grass-roots radio campaign urging Wisconsinites to contact their senators, Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold, and urge them to oppose the filibusters. But, there was one problem: Mr. Feingold was running for re-election.

Under McCain-Feingold, passed in 2002, grass-roots organizations such as Wisconsin Right to Life may not use their treasury funds to run broadcast ads that mention the name of a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. Because the Wisconsin organization's ads referred to Mr. Feingold, who was running unopposed in a primary, the Federal Election Commission ruled that the proposed ads violated the McCain-Feingold law. Now, after nearly three years of litigation, the Wisconsin pro-life case provides the high court with an important opportunity to reaffirm the First Amendment and create a meaningful exception to, or perhaps strike down completely, McCain-Feingold's widely despised and discredited "electioneering communications" ban.

Neither the government nor Sen. John McCain, who has personally intervened in the case on behalf of the FEC, is shy in revealing the purposes of the electioneering communications ban: preventing criticism of and limiting voter communication with officeholders.

According to Mr. McCain's brief, Wisconsin Right to Life's advertisements possessed "two critical characteristics" that should make them illegal. "First, the ads took a critical stance regarding a candidate's position on an issue. And, second, they referred to the candidate by name in urging the audience to contact the candidate about the issue." The government argues that Wisconsin Right to Life could avoid the ban by leaving Mr. Feingold's name out of its ads, or, because the ban only applies to television and radio, using print media. But experts agree that not naming the officeholder makes the effort less effective, and grass-roots efforts also fare better when run in broadcast media. In other words, the government can tolerate criticism, so long as it is ineffective.

Alternatively, the government suggests that grass-roots organizations such as Wisconsin Right to Life should use a political action committee (PAC) to finance ads. This option may be fine for large unions and corporations with established, cash-rich PACs. But the PAC option imposes numerous constraints on small nonprofits such as Wisconsin Right to Life that make it difficult or impossible to quickly raise adequate funds for the grass-roots effort when Congress is poised to act.

This delay can be fatal to a grass-roots campaign. As Wisconsin Right to Life asserts, "A lost opportunity at the critical time is an opportunity lost forever." And data show that McCain-Feingold freezes many groups out of the process at the most critical time. For one thing, it's not as if Congress stops voting close to an election. Within the 60 days preceding the 2004 election, for example, there was a 156 percent increase in the number of House bills and resolutions introduced over the previous 60-day period. In recent years, within blackout periods, the House and Senate have voted on such high-profile issues as abortion, impeachment, homeland security and appropriations.

Worse yet, the ban on ads often extends far beyond 60 days before the election. In presidential races, for example, the ad ban is triggered for 30 days before the national party conventions and 30 days before the primary in each state reached by a broadcast station. In many broadcast markets, stations serve several states. As a result, in markets such as Chicago, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., the blackout period extends upward of 200 days in a presidential election year.

Officeholders have no right to insulate themselves from criticism for even a single day, let alone 200. If the First Amendment means anything, it ought to mean that a nonprofit membership organization such as Wisconsin Right to Life can speak freely about politicians and issues -- especially close to an election. The right to do so is central to the First Amendment and fundamental to the maintenance of a healthy democracy.

Boom in Christianity Reshapes United Methodists

April 25, 2007

The United Methodist Church is the latest Protestant group caught in the shifting currents of world Christianity. While the American denomination is shrinking at home, its congregations in the developing world are growing explosively.

Over the last decade, the number of United Methodists outside the U.S. more than tripled. The denomination's largest district is now in the West African nation of Ivory Coast. At the next national church assembly, the 2008 General Conference in Texas, overseas delegates will have more say than ever in the church's future — as many as 30 percent could come from abroad.

"Trends suggest that Christianity is going to continue to grow as a global phenomenon, and denominations that have thought of themselves as being predominantly North American in character are going to have to get over that," said William Lawrence, dean of the Perkins School of Theology, a Methodist seminary in Dallas.

Nearly 8 million United Methodists are now in the U.S., with another 3.5 million church members overseas. The denomination is the third-largest in the nation behind Roman Catholics and Southern Baptists, and middle-class worshippers mostly fill the pews of its American churches.

But if current patterns continue, within decades the typical United Methodist will be from Africa. While international congregations expand, the denomination's U.S. ranks have decreased by 19 percent since the 1970s.

In a sign of the times, the United Methodist high court, called the Judicial Council, will hold a session in the Philippines on Wednesday. It will be the first gathering outside the U.S.

Many in the mission-minded church see the new overseas ties as a gift. Yet as the experience of other Protestant groups indicates, there also is conflict ahead. Christians overseas have been deeply influenced by the zeal of the missionaries who brought them the faith. In the developing world, traditional Bible teachings aren't questioned — they're accepted.

As United Methodists debate how they should interpret Scripture on issues from salvation to sexual orientation, delegates from overseas will be a steadfast conservative voice in the fight.

"You definitely see among the African delegations a much more conservative perspective on issues of homosexuality," said retired United Methodist Bishop C. Dale White, a liberal who oversaw publication of the book "United Methodism at Risk: A Wake-Up Call," which contends that conservative groups are trying to take control of the denomination.

"In the past two General Conferences, we've seen a readiness of conservative American delegates to make common cause with the African delegates who very sincerely believe that in their context, if the United Methodist Church is open to ordaining gay and lesbian people, that it will hurt their outreach there," White said.

A similar dynamic is eroding the 77 million-member world Anglican Communion, the loose association of churches that traces its roots to the Church of England.

The fellowship was once dominated by its liberal-leaning European and North American provinces, including the U.S. Episcopal Church. But these days, the communion's biggest and fastest-growing churches — by far — are conservative and African. The 2003 consecration of the first openly gay Episcopal bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, caused an uproar that threatens to break up the Anglican family.

Tensions over sexuality are far less acute in United Methodism. Still, advocates for full inclusion of gays and lesbians have been challenging the church's ban on ordaining "self-avowed, practicing homosexuals" at national policy meetings for the last three decades.

"I do think that the world Anglican Communion and what's happening with the Episcopal Church in America — that whole dynamic can teach United Methodism," said Maxie Dunnam, chancellor of Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Ky., who has worked extensively with Methodists overseas. "The issue is how we're going to understand ourselves as a world church.

"How rigid are we going to be with defining who we are?"

Through a spokesman, United Methodist Bishop Benjamin Boni, head of the Ivory Coast Annual Conference, declined to be interviewed because of this week's Judicial Council session.

The panel is taking up a technical issue that will determine the size of the Ivory Coast delegation to the next national church assembly, and Boni was concerned that commenting could be seen as trying to influence the ruling, his spokesman said.

But the impact of the Ivory Coast district on the United Methodists is clear. With about 700,000 members, it became the biggest United Methodist conference as soon as it joined the church in 2004, after years as an independent fellowship. Ivory Coast church leaders are so passionate about their faith that they send missionaries out to other African nations.

Last month, 14,000 Ivory Coast congregants filled a sports stadium in Abidjan for a service commemorating a partnership with United Methodists in Texas. An overflow crowd of about 3,000 listened from outside for the four hours of singing and prayer, according to Texas Bishop Janice Riggle Huie, who preached at the service.

"People were so hungry to hear the word of God," Huie said. "Growth in the developing countries, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere, will certainly outpace growth in the United States for a long time to come."

Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

April 24, 2007

One-Size Politics Doesn't Fit All: Evangelical social reform is a many-splendored thing

May Issue

These are anxious days in the trenches of the culture war. The Federal Marriage Amendment is dead. A rollback of President Bush's restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research appears likely after he leaves office. Human cloning looms ominously.
Related articles and links

What's more, Christians who speak publicly on these vital causes are called theocrats and worse. This faith-hostile context makes productive debate over contentious issues, such as global warming, ever more difficult among evangelicals.

Little wonder, then, that evangelicals who dispute the cause of and remedy for global warming are critical of fellow evangelicals who signed the Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI) statement last year. They have three complaints, outlined in a March letter to L. Roy Taylor, chairman of the board of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). First, they believe too many evangelicals are uncritically joining the global-warming campaign. Second, they criticize the campaign for adding another priority to our crowded agenda, shifting emphasis away from "the great moral issues of our time." And third, they argue that evangelical leaders lack "the expertise to settle the controversy, and that the issue should be addressed scientifically and not theologically."

The letter, signed by Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Don Wildmon of the American Family Association, and more than 20 other conservative Christian leaders, also attacks Richard Cizik, the NAE's vice president for governmental affairs, for his vocal public stance on global warming.

The letter accuses Cizik of orchestrating a "relentless campaign," speaking "without authorization for the entire organization," and advancing "his own political opinions as scientific fact." It concludes, "If he cannot be trusted to articulate the views of American evangelicals on environmental issues, then we respectfully suggest that he be encouraged to resign his position with the NAE."
All Spheres of Life

There are many problems with the letter, not least being that the signatories, as they acknowledge, don't even belong to the NAE. Does Dobson think it would be appropriate for members of the NAE to call publicly for his resignation?

But the letter's most troubling assumption is that a conservative approach to social issues represents the sum total of the NAE's mandate and the evangelical political calling. Citing USA Today, the letter notes, "We believe that some of [the secular media's] misunderstanding about evangelicalism and its 'conservative views on politics, economics, and biblical morality' can be laid at Richard Cizik's door." Actually, restricting evangelicals to the narrower agenda of "conservative views on politics, economics, and biblical morality" is the bigger problem. This plays into convenient mainstream stereotypes of Christians being obsessed with sexual issues or pawns of the Republican Party.

It also underestimates the scope of modern evangelicalism, as well as Christ's call for us to be salt and light in all spheres of life. Historically, Christian leaders from John Chrysostom to William Wilberforce to Carl F. H. Henry have addressed a broad array of issues. They did not give in to fear of diluting the gospel message, nor did they make common cause with non-Christians uncritically. While some Christians may question global warming, none can doubt our responsibility to be stewards of God's creation.

In response to the letter, the NAE board pointedly reaffirmed its 2004 document, "For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility." This text lists environmental stewardship (although not specifically global warming) among seven key evangelical priorities. The others are religious freedom, the family and children, the sanctity of human life, the poor, human rights, and peace in a violent world.

The NAE, which represents 60 denominations, has not taken the public stand on global warming that Cizik has. While Cizik should practice discretion in his private remarks (as should any public figure), confusion over whom Cizik is representing on this issue is inevitable, no matter how many times he tells reporters he speaks only for himself.

And yes, as the letter notes, evangelicals have not reached a consensus on the magnitude of global warming, its causes, or the remedy. So? Evangelicals don't agree about the Iraq War or the formula for immigration reform or even the best strategy to halt abortion. No evangelical group—Right or Left—can claim to represent all evangelicals. Even the NAE, while formally representing 45,000 churches, does not imagine that all those churches have bent the knee to every item in its "Call to Civic Responsibility." Every evangelical social-political ministry has a unique constituency and a unique calling. Add to this the ambiguous nature of social reform, and it's easy to understand why evangelicals sometimes find themselves in political disagreement.

This diversity—even if it risks misunderstanding in the media—is something we should celebrate. That a wide spectrum of evangelicals feel called to engage in social justice is good for evangelicalism, the nation, and the world. But determining priorities and strategies is a matter of prudential judgment, and anyone who thinks they have the very mind of God on any matter should take heed.

Evangelicals from the Left, Right, and center are wise to heed Paul's words: "If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be?" (1 Cor. 12:17).

So let's stop questioning each other's evangelical credentials and just do the work we believe God has called us to.

Copyright © 2007 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Catholic candidates clash

April 23, 2007

BOSTON --Presidential contenders Chris Dodd and Sam Brownback -- one Democrat, one Republican -- demonstrated Monday how their political differences are rooted in their varying interpretations of their shared Catholic faith.

The two senators, appearing jointly at a Boston College forum on faith and politics, differed on abortion rights, civil unions for gay couples and embryonic stem cell research. Nonetheless, they used modest tones to suggest that Democrats and Republicans could bridge such gaps with more tolerance for their opponents' positions.

While the two Catholics agreed that marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman -- not gay couples -- they differed in talking about their views on homosexuality.

Dodd, the father of two young girls, said, "I think it's a good question to ask how you would like your children treated."

Brownback, however, called homosexual acts immoral -- as has the Catholic church -- and said sanctioning them threatens the stability of traditional marriage.

"When you take away the sacredness or the uniqueness of marriage and you start redefining it, a lot of people just say, `Well, the institution doesn't have the meaning to me,'" Brownback said.

In a moment of agreement, Dodd, D-Conn., and Brownback, R-Kan., urged President Bush to work with Congress to devise a solution for Iraq.

Brownback said he told Vice President Dick Cheney and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley last week that the administration should consider a "three-state, one-country" solution in which Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis live independently but under the banner of a federal city in Baghdad.

Neither Cheney nor Hadley reacted to the proposal, Brownback said.

"I'm frustrated that both parties have gotten to more in the way of fighting than trying to figure out what we can do," he said afterward during an interview with The Associated Press.

Dodd, who voted in 2002 to authorize military action in Iraq, said he now felt the war was wrong and called the Bush administration's justifications "fabricated."

Brownback said, "I don't think it's fair to the troops on the ground to second-guess it four years later."
© Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

List Recognizes 10 Most Influential GOP 'King Makers' among Christian Conservatives

April 24, 2007

A list of the top 10 GOP “king makers” was recently released, highlighting some of the nation’s most influential Christian leaders.

“When Focus on the Family founder James Dobson can raise doubts by questioning whether Fred Thompson is a ‘Christian,’ or prays the nation doesn’t get ‘stuck’ with a President John McCain, that really reflects the power religious conservatives have to shape the GOP run for the White House,” said Kevin Eckstrom, editor of RNS, in a statement. “We wanted to find out who the GOP candidates are talking to, and maybe more importantly, who is returning their calls.”

Written by national correspondent Daniel Burke and senior correspondent Adelle M. Banks, the list features several outspoken Christian conservatives as well as activists and grassroots organizers.

The top GOP “King Makers,” in no particular order, are as follows:

• James Dobson – founder of Focus on the Family who has around 220 million listeners from his radio broadcasts.

• Richard Land – the president of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), the public policy entity of the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest protestant denomination in the United States.

• Rod Parsley – pastor of the megachurch World Harvest Church, which has about 14,000 members. The church is located in Ohio, which is a major swing state during elections.

• Michael Farris – founder of the Homeschool Legal Defense Association. According to RNS, one observer said he had "a network of home-schoolers that will do anything for him."

• Pam Olsen – president of the Florida Prayer Network who has a network of pastors throughout the state. Florida is also a key swing state for elections.

• Don Wildmon – head of the American Family Association (AFA) and major speaker about societal issues. He speaks on 185 radio stations in 36 states.

• Tony Perkins – president of the Family Research Council (FRC), an outspoken Christian lobbying group located in Washington.

• Steve Scheffler – head of the Iowa Christian Alliance which as 4,000 members. According to RNS, it is the most active and credible religious group in the state.

• Jay Sekulow – chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, originally founded by outspoken Christian Pat Robertson. Sekulow has argued several cases in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.

• Tamara Scott – Iowa leader of Concerned Women for America, a large U.S. conservative Christian political action group. She has talked with nearly every GOP candidate, according to RNS.

Religion News Service is a Washington-based source of news about religion, ethics, spirituality and moral issues

Huckabee selling conservative message

April 23, 2007

Mike Huckabee is confident Republican primary voters will buy his conservative message. The question is whether he can stick around the presidential race long enough for them to have a chance to hear it.

With only $544,157 raised during the first quarter and $373,918 cash on hand, the former Arkansas governor's campaign account pales compared with the three best-heeled GOP candidates -- former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani and Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

But Huckabee suggests the Big Three aren't anywhere close to having a lock on the nomination because his natural constituency -- religious conservatives, an important group in GOP primary politics -- is still searching for a Republican to rally behind.

"I have to stay in the field long enough for them to know me. These are not impulse buyers," Huckabee said in an interview with Politico editors and reporters as part of a series of sessions with Republican candidates in advance of the May 3 GOP Presidential Candidates Debate. The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library is hosting the debate in conjunction with MSNBC and Politico.com.

Ten candidates have accepted invitations to participate in the debate, the first of the cycle for Republican presidential candidates. It will air exclusively on cable's MSNBC, with full coverage on MSNBC.com. The Politico will stream the debate live on Politico.com, providing an exclusive and unprecedented opportunity for viewers to ask and vote on questions via the Internet.

The Aug. 11 Ames, Iowa, Straw Poll will be key for Huckabee's chances. Huckabee said he doesn't necessarily have to be among the first two finishers but that he can't be much farther behind that.

Huckabee, 51, is trying to break out of a crowded pack of Republican presidential candidates, each of whom is trying to portray himself as the most conservative. A Baptist pastor before entering politics, Huckabee cites his record of opposing abortion and gay marriage and his views on other socially conservative issues.

Like several other candidates, Huckabee is walking a fine line between backing President Bush, who has some deep pockets of support among conservatives despite unpopularity overall, and playing up his own independent stands on issues.

The Bush administration's biggest mistake, Huckabee said, has been the runaway federal spending it presided over with the recently expired Republican Congress. Relations with Congress would improve if he's elected, Huckabee said, citing his work with the Democratic-controlled Arkansas legislature during his 10½ years as governor.

In addition, the president has not always explained himself and his policies well, Huckabee said. "I would spend a lot more time communicating with the American people."

Still, Huckabee has little patience for many Bush critics, particularly over Iraq. Huckabee said as president he would convene panels of experts to assess the war and leave military planning to the generals. It's pointless to harp on Bush's decision to launch the Iraq invasion in March 2003, he added.

"Knowing what we knew then, yes, it was the right decision," he said, noting dictator Saddam Hussein's past, trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction and gassing Kurds in Northern Iraq. "The easiest job in the world is quarterbacking the game that was played yesterday."

Huckabee is straddling a middle ground on immigration, a potentially volatile issue among Republicans, some of whom prefer strict border enforcement, while others are attracted to the benefits of cheaper labor from abroad.

Enforcement of sovereign borders is very important, he said, but there has to be a "rational" way to process workers already in the nation. Instead of angry rhetoric decrying porous borders, said Huckabee, Americans should take it as a compliment that so many people are clamoring to enter the country.

Huckabee was born in Hope, Ark., and graduated from Ouachita Baptist University. A longtime pastor, he was president of Beech Street Communications (the parent company of the UHF TV station owned by the Beech Street Baptist Church) from 1986 to 1992. He made his first run for public office in an unsuccessful 1992 U.S. Senate bid.

Then-Arkansas governor Bill Clinton won the presidency that year, and his lieutenant governor, Democrat Jim Guy Tucker, moved up to the top job. Huckabee won a special election to be lieutenant governor and won a full term in 1994.

When Tucker resigned in 1996 after a Whitewater-related conviction, Huckabee moved into the governor's seat.

During his decade in office, Huckabee signed a series of tax cuts, signed a law requiring parental consent for abortion, increased penalties for church arson and beefed up the right of parents to home-school their children, among other acts.

Despite holding similar positions on issues as others in the GOP field, Huckabee has at least one distinguishing characteristic in his political arsenal -- his relatively recent role as a health guru and marathon runner. He is often recognized as much for his dramatic weight loss -- more than 100 pounds -- and newly adopted health-conscious lifestyle as for his public policy prescriptions.

Huckabee's faith is also an important part of his campaign. He easily expounds on how his religious beliefs would inform his policy choices as president, and he challenges Republican rivals to do the same. He's also on the prowl for inconsistencies among other presidential candidates, including Giuliani's statements that he supported gun control as New York mayor but would not push those policies elsewhere.

"You don't have a different application of the Second Amendment in one state from another," Huckabee said.

Andrew Dowdle, assistant professor of political science at the University of Arkansas, said Huckabee should appeal to religious and business conservatives, but a lack of campaign cash and low name recognition will be ongoing problems.

"He's somebody who on paper would look like a good candidate," Dowdle said. "The big hurdle is that viability question: Can he raise enough money and can he get enough press coverage to be considered a serious candidate?"

Moreover, primary front-loading will make it difficult for a long-shot candidate to gain momentum quickly in late 2007 and early 2008.

"His big challenge is finding people who believe enough in his prospects to give him significant chunks of money," Dowdle said.

What was missing from Edwards' prayer

April 23, 2007

Does John Edwards include Jews in his prayers? Or Muslims? Or Hindus? Or any other non-Christians?

He didn’t the other day. The other day, in order to commemorate those killed at Virginia Tech, Edwards led a prayer “in Christ’s name” at Ryman Auditorium, which bills itself as “Nashville’s Premier Performance Hall.”

Edwards has a perfect right to pray publicly or privately any way he wants to. But people who are not Christians often feel left out of prayers like his.

And if prayers are supposed to comfort, I wonder how comforted the loved ones of Liviu Librescu felt.

Librescu, a professor at Virginia Tech, was gunned down after barricading the doorway of his classroom so his students could escape out the windows. Librescu was a Holocaust survivor, a Jew, and not addressed by Edwards’ prayer.

I went down the list of the other victims and I saw students whose hometowns were listed as being in Indonesia, India and Egypt. And it is quite possible they may have been Hindus or Muslims or a number of other non-Christian religions.

Edwards probably did not know the religions of those killed at Virginia Tech when he gave his prayer, but isn’t that the point? Why not include all religions in your prayers?

If you are running for president, why not demonstrate you want to be the president of all Americans by being inclusive, rather than exclusive?

My colleague, Mike Allen, first reported the story of Edwards and his prayer and has a completely different take on this than I do. I encourage you to read it on Politico.com.

In his story, Allen tells how Edwards only decided to do a prayer at all after talking with a political consultant. (I guess Edwards didn’t have time to take a poll.) This consultant is a “strategist for reconnecting with the long-lost Reagan Democrats.”

And Edwards’ prayer might have been popular with some Christian conservatives who think Christ’s name should be used more in public discourse. (Some obje