WASHINGTON (ABP) — As Congress debates clean-energy legislation, a conservative Christian group is ramping up lobbying efforts to raise questions about the science of climate change.

The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation Committee recently hired Shannon Royce, a 25-year veteran of conservative organizations including the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, as executive director.

“If you listen to the hype that you will hear in the media, you will hear that evangelicals really feel strongly about global warming, and the impression is that all evangelicals have bought into this global-warming bandwagon, and it simply is not true,” Royce said in an interview on a Christian radio station in Chicago.

She said cap-and-trade policies being debated in Congress are based on “pseudoscience” about human-induced global warming and would result in increased energy costs that wind up hurting the poor.

“The environmental extremists, and frankly unfortunately even some of our left-wing evangelical friends, see people predominantly as polluters and consumers,” she said. “Now what do you have to do if people are predominantly polluters and consumers? You need less people. It’s not necessarily that these groups are the same groups that would promote abortion abroad. They just won’t let us get food to those people, so they die naturally. It’s not the same as killing them directly, maybe, but it’s still really against the principles of what we believe as Christians.”

Royce’s new employer formed in 2005 to counter a rising chorus of evangelical voices calling Christians to action on climate change. Contrary to pro-environmental groups like the Evangelical Climate Initiative, the Cornwall Alliance supports “stewardship” of the earth but says many environmental concerns are overblown.

Calvin Beisner, the group’s national spokesman, recently testified before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Environment. Beisner claimed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change  exaggerates the threat of catastrophic manmade global warming in part because its “work rests on the naturalist, atheistic world view” instead of a “biblical” world view that “sees Earth and its ecosystems as the effect of a wise God’s creation and providential preservation and therefore robust, resilient, and self-regulating.”

Royce, who formerly worked on Capitol Hill for the Southern Baptist Convention’s public policy arm and was founding executive director of the Arlington Group, a coalition of “pro-family” organizations, said environmentalism began making inroads into evangelical Christianity a number of years ago “with some on the left deliberately courting and engaging some of our Christian friends and brothers on issues like this, and unfortunately I think at times co-opting them, with their concerns.”

“I don’t question the motives of those who have gotten engaged on that, but I think unfortunately the science just doesn’t support this,” she said.

Royce, who until recently worked as Washington director of TheVanguard.org, a conservative alternative to MoveOn.org. , said she is excited to be working with the Cornwall Alliance.

“Environmental stewardship and care for the poor are deeply biblical issues, but secular environmentalism has increasingly set its sights on limiting development and reducing human population,” she said in a press release. “Now, at a time when American families are struggling to make ends meet, Washington is considering a host of ill-advised measures that would make prices for energy, food and other essential needs skyrocket.”

“Climate change alarmists want to prevent economic growth here and around the world,” she said. “But the view that people are the problem — that they are polluters rather than producers — is unbiblical, and evangelicals aren’t buying it.”

–Bob Allen is senior writer for Associated Baptist Press. 

WASHINGTON (ABP) — Conservative organizers of National Day of Prayer-related events expressed disappointment that President Obama chose not to mark the day May 7 in the same elaborate fashion as his predecessor.

But some groups that support strong church-state separation applauded Obama for pulling back from the emphasis that President Bush placed on the event, which in recent years has come under fire for being dominated by conservative evangelicals. And at least one conservative Jewish leader also defended Obama’s decision.

Many Religious Right leaders have roundly criticized Obama for choosing not to observe the day with any sort of White House ceremony. “We are disappointed at the lack of emphasis on prayer on this National Day of Prayer,” said James Dobson in a Capitol Hill press conference with members of Congress to mark the event May 7.

The Focus on the Family founder’s wife, Shirley, has long been the chairperson of the privately funded National Day of Prayer Task Force, which coordinates the Capitol Hill observance of the event as well as similar ceremonies around the country. Earlier, she issued her own statement expressing dismay that Obama did not plan anything resembling the prominent prayer-day observance that Bush held in the East Room of the White House each of his eight years in office.

Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.), who led the press conference following a lengthy prayer service in a House office building, said organizers were disappointed that the White House didn’t even send an official representative of the executive branch to the Capitol Hill ceremony

“I think the president missed a wonderful opportunity," he said.

Obama did, shortly after the Capitol Hill ceremony ended, issue the traditional proclamation marking the day.

“Let us remember those who came before us, and let us each give thanks for the courage and compassion shown by so many in this country and around the world,” he said.

“Let us also use this day to come together in a moment of peace and goodwill. Our world grows smaller by the day, and our varied beliefs can bring us together to feed the hungry and comfort the afflicted; to make peace where there is strife; and to lift up those who have fallen on hard times. As we observe this day of prayer, we remember the one law that binds all great religions together: the Golden Rule, and its call to love one another; to understand one another; and to treat with dignity and respect those with whom we share a brief moment on this Earth.”

Presidents since Harry Truman have declared a similar day calling on Americans of faith to humble themselves, give thanks and pray for the good of the nation and the world. President Reagan standardized the observance to the first Thursday in May.

However, in the two decades since then, the event has become closely associated with Dobson’s task force. Critics have decried the group, which limits its leadership and the speakers at many of its events to conservative evangelical Christians, for its exclusivity.

In recent years, some critics have staged rival events that are more ecumenical in nature.

Online applicants to become coordinators for the task force must affirm an evangelical Christian statement of faith that upholds biblical inerrancy. They must also list the name of their local church and describe their involvement in it.

Earlier this year, two religious-liberty groups asked Obama to shun the task force’s celebration and declare a more “inclusive” National Day of Prayer.

As president Obama has shown unprecedented sensitivity to adherents of minority faiths as well as non-believers. He acknowledged atheists in his inaugural address Jan. 20, and during an April 6 appearance in Turkey said that "one of the great strengths of the United States" is that, although “we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."

While many conservative Christians lambasted Obama for his statement — and did so again at the May 7 press conference — other religious leaders and groups applauded him for it, as well as his decision not to observe the National Day of Prayer in the fashion of Bush.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State issued a statement thanking Obama for not re-creating Bush-style observances. Nathan Diament of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations — usually an ally of Religious Right leaders — said in a May 5 blog entry that their criticism of Obama’s decision “is inappropriate — and, moreover, not in keeping with the purpose of the observance which is to unify Americans through a national moment of reflection and aspiration to higher purposes.

Joshua DuBois, the director of Obama’s White House Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, did not immediately respond May 7 to a reporter’s inquiry about Obama’s reasoning in not continuing the ceremony.

But White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked about the subject in his regular May 6 press briefing. “Prayer is something that the president does every day,” he said.

One Baptist leader said that he thought the entire enterprise was “misguided.”

Brent Walker, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, said in a May 5 post on the Washington Post/Newsweek “On Faith” blog, that it isn't "government's job to tell the American people what, where or when to pray.

“Although most presidents have issued prayer proclamations, two of the most ardent supporters of religious freedom, Thomas Jefferson — author of the Virginia Bill Establishing Religious Freedom — and James Madison — father of the Constitution — opposed them.”

Walker concluded: “Exhorting our country to repentance and prayer is altogether proper. Who would argue we don't need it? But it's more appropriately called for by the preachers, priests and prophets among us — not civil magistrates, the Congress or even an American president.”

–Robert Marus is managing editor and Washington Bureau Chief for Associated Baptist Press.

Related ABP stories:

Groups urge Obama to proclaim 'inclusive' day of prayer (4/23)

Ecumenical and evangelical groups tentatively join in day of prayer (5/5/2006)

Bush salutes National Day of Prayer, but some Christians decry politicization (5/6/2004)

WASHINGTON (ABP) — The Interfaith Alliance and Jews on First called on President Obama to proclaim an "inclusive" national day of prayer May 7 instead of endorsing a National Day of Prayer Task Force headed by Shirley Dobson.

Signed by Interfaith Alliance president Welton Gaddy and Jews on First co-directors Jane Hunter and Rabbi Haim Dov Beliak, the letter dated April 21 said the National Day of Prayer, established by President Truman, several years ago was taken over by "exclusivists" in a group that "systematically excludes Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Catholics and even mainline Christians from National Prayer Day events it conducts around the United States."

For the last eight years, the wife of Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, organized National Day of Prayer ceremonies in the East Room at the White House. That drew criticism from religious liberty groups like Americans United for Separation of Church and State claiming the event had been hijacked by the Religious Right and used for a political agenda.

The National Day of Prayer Task Force says on its website the National Day of Prayer is for people of all faiths, but the task force represents a "Judeo-Christian" expression of the observance. Part of its mission statement is "mobilizing the Christian community" to pray for America, and 40,000 volunteer coordinators implementing local events are expected to adhere to "biblical principles through Jesus Christ."

According to Religion News Service, a spokesman said in the past a White House liaison contacted the National Day of Prayer Task Force asking about participation in White House events but this year the organization hasn't "heard a peep" from the Obama administration.

Joshua DuBois, executive director of the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, told RNS it is too early to be talking about planning for the event.

In the meantime, the task force plans to broadcast its Capitol Hill service from 9 a.m. till noon on Thursday, May 7, live via webcast and through GOD TV on Direct TV and Sky Angel.

Honorary co-chair for this year's event is Beth Moore, an author and Bible teacher who attends First Baptist Church in Houston. Also taking part are NFL coach Tony Dungy, entertainer Ricky Skaggs and NASCAR legend and current Fox Sports analyst Darrell Waltrip.

The Interfaith Alliance/Jews on First letter discouraged President Obama from issuing a separate proclamation to the National Day of Prayer Task Force, claiming the group has a record of using such statements to raise the status of its events.

The letters said making the group's events appear to be official and endorsed by the government crosses First Amendment lines separating government from religion.

Instead the leaders urged Obama to issue "a single proclamation for the day that calls for an Inclusive National Day of Prayer and Reflection that restores and reflects our nation's best values by explicitly inviting clergy from diverse faith traditions to participate equally and fully — especially in events held on government property."

–Bob Allen is senior writer for Associated Baptist Press.

MONTPELIER, Vt. (ABP) — On April 7, Vermont became the first jurisdiction in the United States to successfully legalize same-sex marriage through legislative means.

The decision comes less than five days after the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously overturned a law banning gay marriage in that state, and on the same day that the District of Columbia Council voted 12-0 to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.

By a vote of 100-49, members of the Vermont House of Representatives provided the necessary two-thirds majority necessary to override Republican Gov. Jim Douglas’ veto of a same-sex marriage bill the chamber had passed just days before.

“I have never felt more proud of Vermont as we become the first state in the country to enact marriage equality not as the result of a court order, but because it is the right thing to do,” said a statement from Tem Shumlin, president pro tem of the Vermont Senate. That chamber voted 23-5 for the override just before their House colleagues completed the deal.

The outcome was in doubt until close to the end of the vote, because the original bill had passed the Vermont House a few votes shy of the two-thirds majority needed. But a handful of Democratic legislators who had voted against the original bill decided to support their caucus on the override. Meanwhile, none of the House Republicans who had supported the original bill switched their votes to oppose the override.

Douglas said that, while he expected his veto might be overridden, he was nonetheless saddened by the outcome.

"What really disappoints me is that we have spent some time on an issue during which another thousand Vermonters have lost their jobs," he said, according to the Burlington Free Press. "We need to turn out attention to balancing a budget without raising taxes, growing the economy, putting more people to work."

The Green Mountain State joins Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa as the only jurisdictions in the United States with legal same-sex marriage. California briefly legalized gay marriage last year after a ruling by the state’s highest court, but voters passed a constitutional amendment in November that overturned the decision.

All the other states’ decisions to legalize gay marriage were also forced by court decisions, causing gay-marriage opponents to claim that “activist judges” were illegitimately interpreting state constitutional provisions.

Vermont has long been one of the nation’s most liberal states on gay-rights issues. In 2000, gay couples in Vermont became the first in the country to enjoy nearly identical rights and responsibilities to marriage under civil unions. But many gay-rights proponents argued that the separate-but-equal status accorded to gays under civil unions was unjust and inherently discriminatory.

Same-sex couples can enter into civil unions or domestic partnerships in several other states and cities across the country. But federal law does not recognize any rights, responsibilities or protections accruing to same-sex couples thanks to the Defense of Marriage Act, which Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law in 1996.

In the D.C. move, the council’s decision to have the District recognize marriages performed elsewhere improves the status of Washington’s same-sex couples, who before could only join a domestic-partnership registry. But it may set up a federal showdown over same-sex marriage, as Congress has final veto power over any D.C. law.

–Robert Marus is managing editor and Washington bureau chief for Associated Baptist Press.

Related ABP stories:

Iowa Supreme Court says state cannot deny marriage to gays (4/3)

Gay marriage moves ahead in Calif. after state Supreme Court ruling (5/15/2008)

DES MOINES, Iowa (ABP) — Iowa will soon join the ranks of states that allow same-sex marriage, thanks to a unanimous April 3 ruling by the state’s highest court.

The Iowa Supreme Court said a law limiting marriage to heterosexual couples violates the Iowa Constitution’s equal-protection provisions. The justices said their decision would take effect three weeks from the date it was handed down, meaning same-sex couples will be able to marry in the Hawkeye State beginning April 24.

“Our responsibility … is to protect constitutional rights of individuals from legislative enactments that have denied those rights, even when the rights have not yet been broadly accepted, were at one time unimagined, or challenge a deeply ingrained practice or law viewed to be impervious to the passage of time,” wrote Justice Mark Cady, in the seven-member court’s opinion in Varnum v. Brien (No. 07-1499).

“The framers of the Iowa Constitution knew, as did the drafters of the United States Constitution, that ‘times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress,’” Cady continued, quoting from the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision striking down a state sodomy law.

The justices determined that a 1998 Iowa law liming marriage to heterosexuals denied gay couples equal protection under the law, thus violating the Iowa Constitution. “A statute inconsistent with the Iowa Constitution must be declared void, even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion,” Cady wrote.

The case began in 2005, after six gay couples were denied marriage licenses by officials in Polk County, where Des Moines is located. They sued, and a lower court found in their favor. County officials appealed to the state's highest court.

The justices rejected several arguments by county officials defending limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, saying they were not sufficiently rational nor tied to a legitimate government interest to justify treating gay Iowans differently from their straight fellow citizens.

“While the [government’s] objectives asserted may be important (and many undoubtedly are important), none are furthered in a substantial way by the exclusion of same-sex couples from civil marriage,” the court said. “Our equal-protection clause requires more than has been offered to justify the continued existence of the same-sex marriage ban under the statute.”

In regard to one of the chief arguments attorneys for Polk County marshaled — that heterosexual-only marriage benefits children — the court said neither scientific evidence nor reason bear that assertion out.

“Plaintiffs presented an abundance of evidence and research, confirmed by our independent research, supporting the proposition that the interests of children are served equally by same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents,” the court said. “If the statute was truly about the best interest of children, some benefit to children derived from the ban on same-sex civil marriages would be observable. Yet, the germane analysis does not show how the best interests of children of gay and lesbian parents, who are denied an environment supported by the benefits of marriage under the statute, are served by the ban. Likewise, the exclusion of gays and lesbians from marriage does not benefit the interests of those children of heterosexual parents, who are able to enjoy the environment supported by marriage with or without the inclusion of same-sex couples.”

The court also discussed an argument for heterosexual-only marriage not raised by Polk County in the case: the religious argument. The justices noted that, while the sanctity of marriage is very important to many religious believers, neither the state nor federal governments have any business sanctifying marriage.

“This proposition is the essence of the separation of church and state,” the court said. “As a result, civil marriage must be judged under our constitutional standards of equal protection and not under religious doctrines or the religious views of individuals. This approach does not disrespect or denigrate the religious views of many Iowans who may strongly believe in marriage as a dual-gender union, but considers, as we must, only the constitutional rights of all people, as expressed by the promise of equal protection for all.”

The opinion noted that its decision does nothing to affect religious marriage. “A religious denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and a marriage ceremony performed by a minister, priest, rabbi, or other person ordained or designated as a leader of the person’s religious faith does not lose its meaning as a sacrament or other religious institution,” Cady wrote. “The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the same meaning as those celebrated in the past. The only difference is civil marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete understanding of equal protection of the law. This result is what our constitution requires.”

He concluded that the court was simply doing its job. “We have a constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of the law. Faithfulness to that duty requires us to hold Iowa’s marriage statute, Iowa Code section 595.2, violates the Iowa Constitution. To decide otherwise would be an abdication of our constitutional duty. If gay and lesbian people must submit to different treatment without an exceedingly persuasive justification, they are deprived of the benefits of the principle of equal protection upon which the rule of law is founded.”

Predictably, the decision met with immediate disdain from religious conservatives.

U.S. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) released a statement shortly after the decision was handed down saying the decision was “another example of activist judges molding the Constitution to achieve their personal political ends. Iowa law says that marriage is between one man and one woman. If judges believe the Iowa legislature should grant same-sex marriage, they should resign from their positions and run for office, not legislate from the bench.”

King urged state legislators to pass a proposed amendment to the Iowa Constitution to ban same-sex marriage permanently, “to give the power that the Supreme Court has arrogated to itself back to the people of Iowa.”

Last fall, California voters narrowly approved an amendment that upended the California Supreme Court’s earlier decision to legalize gay marriage. Critics said the amendment’s success owed to the millions that conservative out-of-state groups — most notably the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — had poured into a campaign to support the amendment. They also argued that the campaign was misleading and frightened many voters into thinking same-sex marriage would somehow be imposed on unwilling churches and synagogues.

But the constitutional-amendment process in Iowa is more cumbersome than California’s, and any amendment would take several years to pass — including approval by two consecutive sessions of the state’s legislature, followed by a public vote.

Iowa State Sen. Matt McCoy (D-Des Moines), the state’s first openly gay legislator, posted a YouTube video April 3 in which he noted that the previous, Republican-controlled Iowa Senate had already rejected a similar amendment once.

“Now Democrats control the Iowa House and the Iowa Senate, and legislative leaders say the issue won’t come up for a vote,” he said. “But even if it does, constitutional amendments must be approved by two different two-year General Assemblies before they go to the people for a vote. In short, there’s no way a flood of out-of-control money can be used to scare Iowans into going backwards on civil rights. I believe marriage equality is here to stay, and Iowans will quickly realize that it’s no big deal.”

Iowa will join Massachusetts and Connecticut as the only states with legalized same-sex marriage. Legislators in Vermont — which already allows same-sex couples to enter into “civil unions” virtually identical to marriage — recently passed a same-sex marriage bill by wide margins, but the Republican governor has promised a veto.

–Rob Marus is managing editor and Washington bureau chief for Associated Baptist Press.

Related ABP stories:

Connecticut latest jurisdiction to legalize same-sex marriage (10/10/2008)

PHOENIX (ABP) — The Arizona Supreme Court March 25 delivered the latest in a string of blows to the movement to provide tax funding for tuition at private and religious schools.

A unanimous five-member court said a plain reading of a provision in the Arizona Constitution outlaws two small programs that provided publicly funded vouchers that students could use to attend private and parochial schools. One program was for students with disabilities; another served children in foster care.

“The voucher programs appear to be a well-intentioned effort to assist two distinct student populations with special needs. But we are bound by our constitution,” wrote Justice Michael Ryan in the court’s Cain v. Horne opinion. “There may well be ways of providing aid to these student populations without violating the constitution. But, absent a constitutional amendment, because the Aid Clause does not permit appropriations of public money to private and sectarian schools, the voucher programs violate Article 9, Section 10 of the Arizona Constitution.”

Constitutional amendment to undo the ban

The decision affects about 475 students, who will continue to receive the vouchers until the end of this school year. Unless Arizona voters approve a constitutional amendment to undo the ban on aid to religious institutions, the programs will end.

Attorneys for the state had argued that the Arizona Constitution provision in question — which bans any public appropriation “in aid of any church, or private or sectarian school, or any public service corporation” — should be interpreted the way that the federal Supreme Court has interpreted the religion clauses of the First Amendment. In 2002, a divided court OK'd an Ohio school-voucher program, saying indirect aid to religious schools did not violate the Constitution’s ban on government support for religion.

But the Arizona court agreed with attorneys for religious-liberty and public-school advocates, saying the state’s charter provides more specific guidance than the federal Constitution on indirect government aid to religious institutions.

Parents with children in the program intervened in the case on its behalf. One of them, Andrea Weck, told the Arizona Republic that the scholarships had enabled her to enroll her autistic daughter in a small private school for children with learning disabilities. "The opportunity created by the scholarship program changed Lexie from the inside out," Weck said.

Vouchers have proven to be unpopular 

Voucher programs — once hailed by education reformers as a way to rescue kids in failing public-school systems and encourage competition that would improve such schools — have proven unpopular both at the ballot box and in state courts. Voters in California and Utah recently rebuffed statewide voucher programs, and the highest courts in Maine and Florida have cited similar provisions of their states’ charters to prohibit vouchers for religious schools. In early March, Congress voted to discontinue funding for an experimental voucher program in the District of Columbia.

Public-school advocates as well as supporters of strong church-state separation have long opposed voucher programs that include religious schools, saying they violate the spirit of the First Amendment.

Many other states have constitutional provisions similar to Arizona’s. In the 2004 Locke v. Davey decision, the federal Supreme Court said that states could use such provisions to provide a higher bar on government aid to religious institutions than the Constitution requires.

—Robert Marus is managing editor and Washington bureau chief for Associated Baptist Press.

Related ABP stories:

Maine high court upholds law barring religious vouchers (4/28/2006)

Florida Supreme Court overturns statewide voucher program (1/6/2006)

Supreme Court rules that states can't be forced to fund religion (2/25/2004)

WASHINGTON (RNS)—A national grassroots network that came together after the 9/11 terrorist attacks for the sole purpose of praying for the president has lost more than 25,000 members since Barack Obama’s election last November. But more than 41,000 new members have signed up.

For John Lind, president of the Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Presidential Prayer Team, those figures indicate the ministry that claimed to be—and aimed to be—nonpartisan when it began in 2001 has lived up to its mission.

“The only … president we’ve been under has been (George W.) Bush, so you’ve got to be realistic and say, ‘Wow, this could be a substantial dip in our database,’ but it wasn’t,” he said in an interview. “I think it’s a positive. It’s almost two-to-one new member to unsubscribed.”

That doesn’t mean it’s been a smooth transition for nearly half a million members who receive weekly e-mail updates guiding them in how to pray for the president. Some have sent the ministry messages saying that it has been “very difficult” to move from praying for Bush to praying for Obama.

“I did not want to pray for Obama because I didn’t vote for him, but then I realized that I had to pray for him, and it has literally changed my life to pray for him,” wrote a woman who only signed her name as “Betty.”

“God really changes our hearts if we allow him to do so. So, thank you for your part in getting us all together.”

Other team members, like Barbara Brown from Foresthill, Calif., said they realized they needed to put prayer ahead of politics after Election Day.

Brown was quoted in a recent profile on the ministry’s website: “I still have to remind some of my Democrat friends that no, President Obama did not inherit all of our nation’s problems from President Bush’s administration, and I have to remind some of my Republican friends that even though we did not vote for President Obama, he is now our president and he deserves our respect, honor and prayers as commanded by God.”

Since the ministry went online in 2001, Lind said, it has had 1.7 million people take part in its initiatives, which include praying not only for the president and his administration, but also military members and grandparents.

The site featured several “40 Days to Pray the Vote” projects leading up to the election and “77 Days of Prayer” between Election Day and Inauguration Day.

The latest initiative is “Praying Through the 1st 100 Days” of the Obama presidency; more than 31,500 people have signed up for a daily e-mail that provides them with a verse of Scripture and a short prayer at the start of each day.

“It just kind of jump-starts their day,” Lind said.

Officials of the ministry say they don’t have specific information about the party or church affiliation of their members, but they believe most have been evangelical Christians.

Peggy Gustave, who directs member services, estimates about 95 percent are Christian. She is aware of some Jewish members and at least one Baha’i member. On a recent day, she received 1,500 e-mail messages.

“I think with some people, they kind of want to be encouraged to pray for this president, even if they see that some of his agenda may not follow their bent,” she said.

“We refer them back to our mission Scripture, … which says to pray for those in authority over us. Period.”

Lind offered similar encouragement when he recorded his latest message for “Presidential Club” members who donate $25 or more a month to the ministry, saying the prayer efforts for the Obama administration are necessary.

“He and his administration are facing … enormous things on their plate,” Lind said he told them. “We can’t let our guard down.”

In that message, Lind also mentioned that he and six board members prayed with Bush in person during a 26-minute visit to the Oval Office on his last full day as president.

He called the meeting “just a terrific time.”

Bush spokesman Rob Saliterman confirmed that team members met with the former president Jan. 19.

Team officials hope to have the same opportunity with Obama, Lind said.

“We’ve tried to kind of let the dust settle a little bit,” he said. “We want an appointment with President Obama.”

WASHINGTON (ABP) — The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty is among several religious and civil-liberties groups objecting to proposed rules giving federal prisons more leeway to ban religious books that officials believe could incite violence or criminal behavior.

Two years ago, Congress passed a law that allows the Bureau of Prisons to restrict prison-library materials that "seek to incite, promote or otherwise suggest the commission of violence or criminal activity."

That was in response to an outcry over revelations that prison chaplains were purging from chapel libraries any materials not on a list of approved titles. Titles pulled from shelves included Code of Jewish Law by the medieval Jewish philosopher Maimonides and Rick Warren's The Purpose Driven Life.

Proposed changes to the prison bureau's regulations on religious beliefs and practices, however, would allow exclusion from chapel libraries materials that simply "could" incite, promote or suggest violence or crime.

Groups led by the American Civil Liberties Union said in public comments that broadening the standard from banning materials expressly intended to incite violence to banning anything that officials think might be disruptive "needlessly deprives prisoners of access to vital religious works." 

They said such language could theoretically ban works including the Bible, because of Old Testament verses that call for sinners to be stoned, and Martin Luther King's Letter from Birmingham Jail, because it advocates disobeying unjust laws as a matter of civil disobedience.

The groups said the new regulations would violate the Second Chance Act, in which Congress clearly intended to limit prison-library censorship to a strict standard. The amended regulations also do not require prisons to notify prisoners when censorship occurs, which the complaint says violates due-process rights of both prisoners and publishers.

The regulations also are unclear about who is authorized to censor materials, raising the specter of those decisions being made by low-level administrators. The groups said new language should specify that any decisions about banning a book be made by senior officials in the Bureau of Prisons central office.

David Shapiro, staff attorney with the ACLU National Prison Project, said prison officials "need to follow the law, not engage in the business of banning religious material."

"Distributing and reading religious material is as protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as worshiping in churches or preaching from the pulpits," Shapiro said in a press release. "It is not the role of the government to dictate what is religiously acceptable."

-30-

Bob Allen is senior writer for Associated Baptist Press.

WASHINGTON (ABP)—With a March 9 executive order, President Obama made official what many scientists had long anticipated—and many religious conservatives had long feared—lifting his predecessor’s ban on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research.

“In recent years, when it comes to stem-cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values,” Obama said, in a statement accompanying his executive order.

“In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent. As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research—and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly.”

He had been widely expected to reverse a policy, first instituted by President Bush 7 1/2 years ago, that severely limited the kinds of embryonic stem-cell “lines” available for federally funded research. But Obama went further, with a memorandum accompanying the executive order, asking officials in his administration to institute policies to ensure that political pressure will not come to bear in the government’s future decisions about science policies.

Potential for new treatments, cures 

Scientists have studied embryonic stem cells more than a decade because of their potential to become any one of more than 200 types of tissues in the human body. The research, scientists say, has the potential to produce treatments and even cures for a wide array of injuries and degenerative conditions that are disabling and even fatal.

“At this moment, the full promise of stem-cell research remains unknown, and it should not be overstated. But scientists believe these tiny cells may have the potential to help us understand, and possibly cure, some of our most devastating diseases and conditions,” Obama said.

“To regenerate a severed spinal cord and lift someone from a wheelchair. To spur insulin production and spare a child from a lifetime of needles. To treat Parkinson’s, cancer, heart disease and others that affect millions of Americans and the people who love them.”

However, such stem-cell research has proven highly controversial, because the embryos are destroyed in the process of harvesting the stem cells.
In addition, some scientists have proposed cloning human embryos from patients with certain diseases. Such cloning would prevent rejection of any new tissues or organs grown from the stem cells and used for those patients.

Tantamount to abortion

Religious conservatives—and many non-religious bioethicists—find both prospects ethically troubling. Conservatives, in particular, consider the destruction of five-day-old embryos as tantamount to abortion.

“This is a sad day for the sanctity of all human life in America,” said Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission .

Land asserted the Obama administration “has declared open season on unborn babies, allowing them to be destroyed for the sole purpose of harvesting their fetal tissue in the hopes of discovering treatments for maladies and diseases affecting older and bigger human beings.”

Supporters of embryonic stem-cell research—and polls consistently show large majorities of the public and of professional biologists in favor of it—counter that it is done on frozen embryos that would otherwise be discarded because they are by-products of fertility treatments.

Stem-cell-research opponents roundly criticized the Obama order, noting that recent advances in creating embryonic-like stem cells from adult tissue in ways that don’t destroy embryos have shown the promise to render the moral quandaries over stem-cell research moot.

“Adult stem cells have been proven to treat every single disease the president mentioned in his speech today, from Parkinson’s to diabetes, heart disease to spinal cord injuries,” said a statement from the conservative Christian group Family Research Council . “The action by the president today will, in effect, allow scientists to create their own guidelines without proper moral restraints.”

The group urged Congress to renew a federal law—known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment—that bans federal funding for research that destroys or harms human embryos. President Clinton’s administration interpreted the law to ban funding for the destruction of the embryos themselves, but not for funding of research on the resulting lines of stem cells.

Obama’s separate memorandum instructed White House officials to “develop recommendations for presidential action designed to guarantee scientific integrity throughout the executive branch” on science-policy decisions.

President Bush’s administration was regularly criticized by some scientific groups for decisions in science-related areas—such as stem-cell research, global warming, teenage sex education and HIV-prevention efforts—that seemed influenced more by conservative political ideology than the latest research and the scientific community’s consensus on those issues.

Obama said he issued the memorandum to make certain “that in this new administration, we base our public policies on the soundest science; that we appoint scientific advisers based on their credentials and experience, not their politics or ideology; and that we are open and honest with the American people about the science behind our decisions.”
 
With additional reporting by Tom Strode of Baptist Press

WASHINGTON (ABP)—The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could lead to the first major church-state decision under the panel’s current makeup.

The justices announced they would hear Salazar v. Buono, a case that involves a cross—a predecessor of which was first erected as a World War I memorial in 1934—standing on government-owned land in California’s Mojave National Preserve.

The current version was built of painted metal pipes by a local resident in 1998. The next year the National Park Service, which oversees the land, denied an application to build a Buddhist shrine near the cross.

The agency studied the history of the monument and, determining that it did not qualify as a historic landmark, announced plans to remove it. Congress intervened with a series of amendments to spending bills attempting to preserve the cross.

In 2001 Frank Buono, a former Park Service employee who once worked at the preserve, filed suit with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union. They claimed that the cross violated the Constitution’s ban on government establishment of religion.

A series of federal court decisions ruled against both the cross and the government’s attempts to preserve it through legislative maneuvers. In 2007, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against a 2003 law that ordered the government to give the parcel of land the cross sits on to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in exchange for a privately owned plot elsewhere in the park.

“We previously held that the presence of the cross in the preserve violates the Establishment Clause” of the First Amendment, wrote Judge Margaret McKeown in that decision. “We also concluded that a reasonable observer aware of the history of the cross would know of the government’s attempts to preserve it and the denial of access to other religious symbols.”

McKeown said even an observer who didn’t know the monument’s history would assume that it was a government symbol, because the vast majority of land in the area is owned by the government—even if a private organization actually owned the small plot on which the cross stands.

“Under the statutory dictates and terms that presently stand, carving out a tiny parcel of property in the midst of this vast preserve—like a donut hole with the cross atop it—will do nothing to minimize the impermissible governmental endorsement.”

Supporters of the cross—including the VFW, the American Legion and other veterans’ groups—argue in a brief that a decision allowing removal of the cross would endanger other religious symbols on federal property, such as grave markers in national cemeteries.

The last time the court handed down decisions involving religious displays on government property was in 2005. That was before Chief Justice John Roberts took over for the late William Rehnquist and Justice Samuel Alito replaced retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.  

O’Connor—considered a moderate on church-state issues—voted against Ten Commandments displays in Kentucky and Texas. Alito is likely to be more open to such monuments on public property.

But the case may turn on a different issue—whether Buono has legal standing to assert the case in the first place. The high court’s 2007 decision in Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation significantly limited most potential plaintiffs’ ability to sue over government endorsements of religion.

The justices won’t hear the Salazar case until their 2009-2010 session begins in October. While President Bush’s administration defended the cross, President Obama’s administration may have a view of the First Amendment more in line with the 9th Circuit’s. They could withdraw the appeal altogether or simply choose not to defend vigorously Congress’ attempts to preserve the cross.

WASHINGTON (ABP)—President Obama’s first proposed budget signals a dramatic shift in prioritizing domestic poverty, centrist and liberal Christian leaders said.

Nonetheless, some expressed concerns that portions of the proposal did not go far enough in alleviating poverty. And many conservative Christian leaders have echoed the criticisms of other conservatives—that Obama’s proposal is far too large and would create the most massive expansion of government social-service programs since Lyndon Johnson’s administration.

Jim Wallis, founder and CEO of Sojourners, termed inequality between the haves and have-nots “a sin of biblical proportions” in the United States.
Budgets are “moral documents” that reveal the nation’s priorities and values, Wallis said. For Christians, he said, there is “a religious obligation” to look out for the poor and vulnerable in society.

“For a long time we’ve almost thought that we don’t need to bring values to bear or virtue to bear on our economic decisions—the ‘invisible hand’ of the market would make everything come out all right—but that hasn’t happened,” Wallis told reporters. “I would say the invisible hand has let go of the common good.”

Wallis insisted the common good “has not been part of our decision-making for a long time now.”

“This budget is a step, I think a dramatic step, to try to restore a sense of the common good,” he said.
Wallis and other faith leaders applauded money in the budget for health care, the environment, education and increased foreign aid, but they also voiced concerns about the proposal they plan to address in coming weeks.

Candy Hill, senior vice president of social policy and government affairs for Catholic Charities USA, questioned the president’s proposal to cut tax deductions for charitable giving for Americans in the top income brackets. She said most people who make contributions to Catholic Charities don’t do so for a tax break, but because they support its mission and care for the poor.

Noel Castellanos, CEO of Christian Community Development Association, also lamented the budget does not include funds for immigration reform.

“In the Latino community you are going to hear more and more outrage and concern about the fact that no policy change means that we’re going to rely on this enforcement-only strategy that divides families through ICE (the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an agency of the Department of Homeland Security) raids and creates more havoc of people who are victims of a system that is broken,” Castellanos said.

But the leaders on the call said the particulars matter less than the overall budget trend.

“This budget clearly is an attempt to reverse a trend,” Wallis said. “For three decades we’ve had a growing trend of massive inequality in this country. Those who have been promoting that trend have said that policies, regulations and practices which enhance and benefit the wealthiest among us will eventually benefit us all.”

“I think that has proven to be false,” he said. “The central moral issue in this budget, and in American politics right now, is whether we should begin to reverse the massive trend toward growing inequality after three decades.”

Wallis said it is time for the government to stop helping “the undeserving rich.”

“We’ve had this notion of the undeserving poor for a long time,” Wallis said. “I’m saying now there has been a class of undeserving rich, who have been helped far more than they should be helped.”

Wallis called the proposed budget “a fundamental moral shift.”

“We have our concerns,” he said. “But I think, fundamentally, the moral issue is whether this trend of inequality can now be halted and reversed, and we can begin to rebalance the budget more in the direction of the common good.”
 
 

WASHINGTON (ABP)—In a groundbreaking free-speech case, the Supreme Court said the city of Pleasant Grove, Utah, can’t be forced to accept the gift of a monument to a small religious sect’s precepts—even though the town already displays a donated monument to the Ten Commandments in its city-owned Pioneer Park.

But in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, the opinion of a unanimous court also made clear the decision turned on whether the Decalogue monument was government speech or private speech—not on the religious content of the speech itself. That means the existing monument could be open to a challenge under the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which bans government endorsement of religion.

The court’s decision overturns an earlier one by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A panel of the lower court had said the sect, called Summum, has as much right to erect a monument in the park as the Fraternal Order of Eagles did in the 1960s, when it donated the Ten Commandments monument.

Leaders of the sect, based in nearby Salt Lake City, asked Pleasant Grove officials in 2003 to display the monument to the “Seven Aphorisms of Summum,” which the 33-year-old group says were handed to Moses on Mount Sinai along with the Decalogue.

The courts long have established that government entities providing public forums for private speech—such as speakers’ corners in city parks—cannot discriminate in what sorts of speech are allowed. But the Supreme Court said the Ten Commandments monument and other privately donated displays in the park have effectively become government speech, and therefore, the city can refuse to endorse some messages.

Some supporters of church-state separation, including the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, had filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the justices to take up the church-state issues the case raised.

“Because of the peculiarities of Tenth Circuit jurisprudence, Summum couched its legal claims principally in the language of free speech and viewpoint discrimination,” the brief said. “The proper locus of its complaint is, however, the Establishment Clause—which the Founders intended to serve as the principal bulwark against the government’s resort to rank denominational prejudice.”