
The original issue can be found at: http://www.baptistpress.com/issue-03/18/2009

DISCLAIMER: Baptist Press should be credited for any reprinted stories that originate with BP.
Suggested credit line: Reprinted from Baptist Press (www.baptistpress.com), news service of the Southern Baptist Convention. 

Please note that Baptist Press periodically carries stories from other sources by permission. Individuals interested in reprinting non-BP stories should contact the entity where the story originated to seek reprint permission.


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

U.S. endorses homosexuality
by Staff
Date: March 18, 2009 - Wednesday

WASHINGTON (BP)--The Obama administration announced March 18 its support for a United Nations declaration urging the global decriminalization of homosexuality three months after the Bush administration refused to endorse it.

The news, reported by the Associated Press, marked a reversal in the United States' position on a non-binding measure considered by the U.N. General Assembly Dec. 18. At that time, 66 countries backed the barrier-breaking declaration, while more than 50 opposed it and the remainder of the 192 members abstained, according to The New York Times.

"The United States supports the U.N.'s statement on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity and is pleased to join the other 66 U.N. member states who have declared their support of the statement," State Department spokesman Robert Wood said, according to AP. 

"The United States is an outspoken defender of human rights and critic of human rights abuses around the world," Wood said. "As such, we join with other supporters of this statement, and we will continue to remind countries of the importance of respecting the human rights of all people in all appropriate international fora."

The U.N. declaration goes beyond decriminalization, according to the Family Research Council (FRC). "It condemns not only 'violence' and 'harassment,' but also 'stigmatization and prejudice,' terms which some would apply to any disapproval of homosexual conduct, no matter how peaceful and loving," FRC President Tony Perkins wrote in his March 18 "Washington Update" e-mail.

In December, officials of the Bush administration said it opposed the proclamation as too broad, charging it might be seen as an effort to abrogate states' rights on such issues as "same-sex marriage," according to The Times. The declaration says in part, "We urge States to ensure that human rights violations based on sexual orientation or gender identity are investigated and perpetrators held accountable and brought to justice."

"We are opposed to any discrimination, legally or politically, but the nature of our federal system prevents us from undertaking commitments and engagements where federal authorities don't have jurisdiction," Alejandro Wolff, the deputy permanent U.S. representative to the U.N., was quoted by The Times as saying in December.

But after an inter-agency review, the Obama administration decided the declaration would not commit the U.S. to any "legal obligations," Wood was quoted as saying in AP.

The Times said the December action marked the first time a "homosexual rights" declaration had been read in the General Assembly.

In addition to the U.S., other U.N. members that declined to endorse the declaration were the Vatican, China, Russia and members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, The Times reported.

In a Dec. 18 written statement, the Vatican said it opposes criminal penalties for homosexuality and violence against homosexuals. The declaration, however, "goes well beyond" those issues, it said. The classifications of "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" used in the document "find no recognition or clear and agreed definition in international law," the Vatican said.

In addition to France, the supporters of the declaration in December included the other 26 members of the European Union, as well as Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Israel, Japan and Mexico, according to news reports.

Seventy U.N. members have laws against homosexuality, according to AP. The death penalty exists for homosexuality in seven countries, Bloomberg News reported. They are Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.
--30--
Compiled by Tom Strode, Washington bureau chief for Baptist Press.


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

Obama's first judicial nominee once ruled against using Christ's name in prayers
by Staff
Date: March 18, 2009 - Wednesday

WASHINGTON (BP)--President Obama's first appeals court nominee is being promoted as a moderate, but he's been at odds with social conservatives in two prominent cases in recent years -- one pertaining to abortion and another concerning a state's legislative prayers.  

The president announced March 17 the nomination of David Hamilton to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which is based in Chicago. Hamilton has served as a federal judge in Indiana since 1994, when he was confirmed by the U.S. Senate as a nominee of President Clinton.

In 2002, Hamilton struck down an Indiana law that required a woman to receive in-person counseling 18 hours before undergoing an abortion. A Seventh Circuit panel overturned Hamilton's decision in a 2-1 decision.

The Seventh Circuit also reversed a 2005 opinion by Hamilton in which he ruled prayers in the Indiana legislature could not use "Christ's name or title or any other denominational appeal." Hamilton sided with the ACLU's Indiana branch, which filed the lawsuit. 

"All &#91;ministers&#93; are free to pray as they wish in their own houses of worship or in other settings," Hamilton wrote. "The individuals do not have a First Amendment right, however, to use an official platform like the Speaker's podium at the opening of a House session to express their own religious faiths."

Hamilton's "record on the bench suggests a hostility to good law on issues of life and faith," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.

"The historical reality is that the U.S. Constitution does not forbid Indiana from doing what it had always done, that is, allowing each day's chaplains to pray for the legislature as they see fit," Perkins wrote in his daily Washington Update e-mail. "To do otherwise and prescribe the form of prayer -- be it sectarian or non-sectarian (if such a prayer actually exists and is not itself a new sect) -- is what the Constitution actually forbids: state interference with the exercise of religion. That Obama's first major judicial nominee would overturn two centuries of settled First Amendment law to erect the ACLU's interpretation in its place is deeply troubling."

The New York Times quoted an Obama administration official as saying Hamilton served "as a kind of signal" about the types of nominees Obama would select. Administration officials are calling him a moderate -- a description with which Perkins and other conservatives would disagree.

"We would like to put the history of the confirmation wars behind us," the official told The Times.

The Seventh Circuit is the federal appeals court for Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin.
--30--
Compiled by Tom Strode, Washington bureau chief for Baptist Press, and Michael Foust, an assistant editor for Baptist Press.


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

U.N. treaty limiting parents' rights pushed
by Yvette Rattray
Date: March 18, 2009 - Wednesday

WASHINGTON (BP)--California Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer has caused growing concern by encouraging the United States to ratify a United Nations treaty that would allow for what critics describe as government intrusion in parents' lives.

The treaty is known as the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.

"&#91;The treaty&#93; treats children as autonomous beings," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America (CWA), "and restricts parents by negating parental rights."

The treaty calls for a child to grow up in a "family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding," according to the treaty's preamble. Establishing the treaty as binding in the United States would allow Congress to hold ultimate authority over minors, according to Concerned Women for America, and as a result, many legal issues could arise among American families. For instance, spanking could be considered abuse under the treaty, critics say.

Although the nearly 20-year-old U.N. treaty has been accepted by all countries except the U.S. and Somalia, it is seen as a dead issue in America at this time. The treaty would be unlikely to gain approval because it would require two-thirds of the Senate's support for ratification under the U.S. Constitution. 

Boxer said she hopes the treaty will provide for and expand children's rights. 

"Children deserve basic human rights ... and the convention protects children's rights by setting some standards here so that the most vulnerable people of society will be protected," Boxer said in a statement to Fox News.

Parental Rights, an organization based in northern Virginia that operates to protect child-parent relationships, has also expressed its concern about the treaty. According to Parental Rights, under the treaty: 

-- Parents could no longer discipline their children with spankings.

-- Parents would no longer have authority over their child's religion.

-- The government would have primary authority to override every parental decision.

-- Christian schools would be pushed to teach "alternative worldviews."

-- Parents could not opt their children out of sex education.

-- Children would not need parental consent for abortions. 

The treaty was written prior to the creation of the Internet. Wright said the treaty could guarantee that children have access to the Internet, even if their parents think differently. She pointed to a story out of Canada last year in which a Canadian court ruled a father did not have the right to ground his daughter from a school trip. The 12-year-old girl had been grounded for posting photos of herself on an Internet dating site. 

"With the Internet, it's a whole other game," said Wright.

But the substance of the treaty is not the only concern from critics. After a treaty is signed, it requires a committee to oversee and enforce the treaty. The committee then suggests what a country needs to do in compliance. CWA has been critical of not only the Convention on the Rights of the Child but also on The Convention on the Elimination on All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).

The U.N. Committee on CEDAW has gone beyond what is necessary to enforce the treaty in countries that have ratified it, consistently interfering with cultural, legal and personal issues in countries, Concerned Women for America reported. Some countries had to change all of their textbooks and teachings, CWA said.

"There are outrageous things from the committee that the countries must do," Wright said.  
--30--
Yvette Rattray is an intern with the Washington bureau of Baptist Press.


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

'What if?' theme focuses 2009 Pastors Conference on Great Commission
by Mark Kelly
Date: March 18, 2009 - Wednesday

MOBILE, Ala. (BP)--Ed Litton believes that in a time of seismic cultural changes and economic uncertainty, Southern Baptists face both danger and opportunity. The danger, he says, is that churches will retreat into a safe place, while the opportunity is to trust God and see Him move powerfully to change people's hearts and transform society.

As president of the SBC's Pastors' Conference, Litton is crafting a program for the annual meeting in Louisville, Ky., that he hopes will spark the latter. And he is challenging pastors to exert unusual effort to help that happen.

"We're in a time of seismic change in our culture. There are huge shifts taking place," said Litton, who is pastor of First Baptist North Mobile in Saraland, Ala. "And people are feeling a lot of economic pressure today. There's a palpable fear and, I sense, a withdrawing. That's dangerous. The danger is that we're going to kind of lock up and ride this thing out when we have a great opportunity to trust God, to believe God, and to reach out more during this crisis than ever before."

The dramatic political and social changes occurring in America -- from the rise of aggressive atheism to the shooting of a pastor in the pulpit -- should drive Christians to evaluate their priorities in light of their mission, Litton said.

"I would love to see a passionate revival to the Great Commission. I think the Great Commission solves a lot of those problems for us because ultimately it's the transformation of people's hearts that matters," he said. "We need to come back to the Great Commission and say, 'This is what we're here to do.' 

"It could help us streamline when we go budget cutting and having to deal with difficult things," Litton added. "What really is mission essential here? What can we afford to get rid of and what can we never afford to get rid of? Those kinds of questions are being dealt with every day by pastors all over this country."

As he consulted with SBC President Johnny Hunt about the need for a "Great Commission resurgence" among Southern Baptists, Litton found himself reminded of Philippians 2:2 -- "Make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose." (NASB)

He said he found himself wondering how things would be different if all Southern Baptists truly had the mind, love, spirit and purpose of Christ.

"We came up with the idea of asking the simple question, 'What if?'" Litton said. "It's a counter-factual. If we answer that question correctly as God's people, I am convinced we will experience a resurgence of the Great Commission in Southern Baptist life. It will help us focus in very difficult times in this country and throughout the world."

Organized under the "What if?" theme, the 2009 Pastors' Conference, set for June 21-22 in Louisville, will bring pastors together to seek a transforming revival of passion for the Great Commission.

Litton said the program will feature a widely varied slate of speakers: 

-- J.D. Greear, Summit Church in Durham, N.C.; 

-- Mac Brunson, First Baptist Church in Jacksonville, Fla.; 

-- Chuck Colson, Prison Fellowship;

-- Mike Landry, Sarasota (Fla.) Baptist Church; 

-- Ed Stetzer, LifeWay Research;

-- Francis Chan, Cornerstone Church in Simi Valley, Calif.

-- Tom Elliff, International Mission Board; 

-- Michael Catt, Sherwood Baptist Church in Albany, Ga.; 

-- Fred Luter Jr., Franklin Avenue Baptist Church in New Orleans, La.; 

-- Johnny Hunt, First Baptist Church in Woodstock, Ga.; 

-- David Platt, Church at Brook Hills in Birmingham, Ala.

The program also includes former Southern Baptist pastor and 2008 presidential candidate Mike Huckabee.

A key influence in shaping the program was the fact that so few young pastors participated in the 2008 annual meeting in Indianapolis, Litton said.

"Some of our lineup is designed to include younger people who have a message and a voice that fits the theme we are presenting, who demonstrate in their ministry and their life a commitment to the Great Commission," Litton said. "I want to appeal to pastors to bring a younger pastor with them."

Another difference this year is that Litton is issuing a broad appeal for donations to support the conference, which could cost as much as $140,000. The Pastors' Conference must raise the entire cost of the conference each year.

"We are asking churches, large and small, to consider giving something to support the Pastors' Conference. Raising those funds is a large part of what I have been doing since I was elected," Litton said. "We've had several people be very generous. My pastor brothers of the largest have been absolutely, powerfully, wonderfully supportive. But we still have a ways to go on that."

Many years, Pastors' Conference presidents lead megachurches that can underwrite the majority of the expense, Litton said. The current economic situation, however, has created a need for a broader range of participation in financial support. The website for the Pastors' Conference, sbcpc.net, now has a donation page to make that easier, he said. 

Litton said he believes that when Southern Baptists are challenged, they will rally to a need, whether it's about a "Great Commission resurgence" or getting more involved in supporting the Pastors' Conference.

"This is a time for us to walk by faith and to live out our faith and to believe God. I think that's happening all over the convention. Churches are going to rally," he said. "We went through Hurricane Katrina here in Mobile, and it was amazing how Southern Baptists rallied. I've never been more proud to be a Southern Baptist. 

"I think this is our hour to do that, even economically, in this country."
--30--
Mark Kelly is an assistant editor of Baptist Press. For information about the Pastors' Conference program during the 2009 SBC annual meeting, visit sbcpc.net.


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

Seafarers & campers get youthful ministry
by Megan Norris Jones
Date: March 18, 2009 - Wednesday

MOBILE, Ala. (BP)--The International Ministries Center in Mobile, Ala., is a place where seafarers and internationals feel at home.

So Mick and Adelaide fit right in.

Australian by birth, a happy black dog named Mick with dingo-like ears and Adelaide, who "looks Australian," if a dog can, made the trek from the other side of the world to call the Mobile center home.

Bringing the two dogs from Australia "wasn't the cheapest thing to do," Jarrod Watts acknowledges, "but they are part of the family."

'AN OPENING TOOL'

Watts, himself an Aussie, met his American wife Jessica when she was doing summer missions in his home country. The couple have been married for five years and in June 2008 they embarked on another missions adventure. This time, however, Watts was the one living on foreign soil -- in Mobile.

Working at the IMC, the Wattses serve as US/C2 missionaries, appointed to a two-year ministry assignment through the North American Mission Board that helps fill needs in local associations and prepare future ministers for service.

Mick and Adelaide help with the ministry too, serving as an avenue for outreach at the International Ministries Center.

"They are an opening tool to talk to people," Watts said. "People want to come up and pet them and that helps start conversations."

Thomas Wright, executive director of missions for the Mobile Baptist Association, appreciates such out-of-the-box evangelism techniques.

"US/C2 missionaries bring the enthusiasm and creative thinking of young, committed missionaries," Wright said.

At the IMC, Watts serves as chaplain, reaching out to seafarers who arrive in Mobile's port. He leads chapel services and works in one-on-one evangelism. It's a constantly changing ministry as people come and go every few days, but he finds it rewarding. In 2008, more than 200 decisions were made through the work at the IMC. "The most exciting part is what we're here for -- seeing people come to know Jesus," Watts said.

Jessica Watts, meanwhile, coordinates the IMC's International Language School, which hosts English as a Second Language classes in five churches in the Mobile area. Before she and her husband arrived, one woman was directing and teaching at all of the locations by herself. 

Because her work as a US/C2 missionary is temporary, Jessica has focused on restructuring the language programs so they are based in their respective churches and can continue functioning without direct supervision from the IMC once her term of service has ended. 

"Mostly what I'm doing is encouraging the churches and the volunteers," she said.

CAMP MINISTRY

Another US/C2 missionary in Mobile is Emily Toles, who is based at the association's Camp Whispering Pines in Citronelle.

Since September 2008, Toles, a native of north Alabama, has been helping with ongoing retreats and events and preparing for the camp's busy summer season. In addition, she is working in community outreach, developing a coffeehouse ministry and assisting with ongoing repairs as the camp continues to recover from the destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

"We're working on getting the buildings up and building up the programs," Toles said.

Toles said she has had to adjust to full-time camp life, especially after spending her college years in Chicago, but she is enthusiastic about the US/C2 program. "NAMB is really great. They're really supportive and good about checking in," she said.

The work of the three US/C2 missionaries is beneficial for both them and the association, Wright said.

"The nature of &#91;the&#93; position includes flexibility and proactive response to overwhelming and changing community needs," he said. "Associational missions provide a crucible for placing young missionaries in high-need areas where they can make an eternal difference."
--30--
Megan Norris Jones is a correspondent for The Alabama Baptist (www.thealabamabaptist.org), newsjournal of the Alabama Baptist Convention. This year's Annie Armstrong Easter Offering for North American Missions, with a goal of $65 million, helps support Southern Baptists' 5,600 North American missionaries. For more information, visit www.anniearmstrong.com.


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

In discussing cloning, let's be honest
by Michael Foust
Date: March 18, 2009 - Wednesday

<i>Editor's note: For a Q&A about stem cell research click  here .</i>

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--When I was a kid I would often get up early on Saturday mornings, make a bowl of cereal and watch cartoons. One of my favorite cartoon characters was the speedy Accelleratii Incredibus. And, like all children, I never got tired of seeing his menace, Carnivorous Vulgaris, fall off a cliff.

Confused? I'm talking, of course, about Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote, two characters that Warner Brothers often provided with supposed scientific names. Road Runner cartoons were part of the one-hour Looney Tunes cartoon special, which included short clips of my other favorite characters, including Bugs Bunny.  

Americans could learn a lot from these cartoons of yesterday, because I'm afraid we're on the verge of engaging in Looney Tunes logic when it comes to discussing the issue of cloning in the wake of President Obama's executive order on embryonic stem cell research.

Take, for instance, an editorial that ran in The New York Times March 16 urging the National Institutes of Health -- which Obama gave 120 days to set guidelines -- to broaden "the range of stem cells that can be studied." 

"Scientists believe that one way to obtain the matched cells needed to study diseases is to use a cell from an adult afflicted with that disease to create a genetically matched embryo and extract its stem cells," the editorial read. "This approach -- known as somatic cell nuclear transfer -- is difficult, and no one has yet done it."

Sounds wonderful, huh? We'll apply this tongue-twisting procedure known as somatic cell nuclear transfer and everyone will be healed. There's only one problem. Somatic cell nuclear transfer is the scientific name for cloning. The New York Times editorial board endorsed human cloning, and few noticed.

I doubt that The New York Times plays word games when writing other stories. For instance, I bet that when it wrote about the bald eagle being taken off the endangered species list, it didn't refer to America's national bird as the "haliaeetus leucocephalus" (the scientific name for bald eagles). No, that would have confused readers. But because Americans are far less likely to support cloning if we use the c-word, The Times went the Looney Tunes route. 

If America is going to have a debate about cloning -- as it appears we're on the verge of doing -- we all should at least be honest. There are two categories of cloning: 1) reproductive cloning, in which a cloned embryo is placed inside a woman in hopes that it will implant and grow into a full-sized baby, and 2) research or therapeutic cloning, in which an embryo is cloned in order to harvest its stem cells -- a procedure that of course destroys the embryo. In each instance, somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is used to create the embryo. The only difference is what is done with the embryo.

Don't believe me? Then check out the National Institutes of Health's own online glossary on stem cell research (stemcells.nih.gov/info/glossary.asp). There, under the definition of somatic cell nuclear transfer, it says, "SCNT can be used for therapeutic or reproductive purposes, but the initial stage that combines an enucleated egg and a somatic cell nucleus is the same. See also therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning." 

It's important to keep all this in mind when parsing President Obama's March 9 words concerning cloning, in which he said he would make certain the government "never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction." The Associated Press immediately picked up that sentence and sent out a story worldwide with a first sentence proclaiming, "President Barack Obama says human cloning is 'dangerous, profoundly wrong' and has no place in society." Headlines screamed: "Obama says no to human cloning."

I wish that was true. 

Sadly, Obama only drew the line at reproductive cloning. That's been his position for at least several years. When a senator, he was a co-sponsor of a bill that would have prohibited reproductive cloning while leaving therapeutic cloning legal. He did not, though, sign on to a Senate bill that would have banned both types of cloning. 

When Americans think of clones, they think of walking, talking, breathing people. They think of an army of clones as depicted in the latest "Star Wars" movies. They don't think of embryos in a Petri dish. Obama and his allies know this, and that's why they've chosen to say they're opposed to cloning, when in fact, they're probably not. 

The NIH glossary -- as well as common sense -- defines a clone as an "identical" copy "of a molecule, cell, or organism." Although the NIH's own glossary remains honest, the fear among pro-lifers is that in issuing its guidelines, the NIH won't be so forthright. The NIH may recommend that federal tax dollars go toward funding research not only on stem cell lines derived from "excess" embryos, but also on stem cell lines taken from cloned embryos -- all while not calling it "cloning." 

The only thing keeping Americans from directly funding scientists' attempts at research cloning is what is called the Dickey-Wicker Amendment -- but some in Congress are aiming for that, too, and want to see it overturned.

It's one thing to argue for funding of research cloning. It's another thing to argue for its funding while engaging in word games meant to confuse the public -- or not acknowledging it at all.

Pro-lifers in Missouri have seen this movie before. In 2006, Missourians went to the polls to vote on Amendment 2, a constitutional amendment that prohibited embryonic stem cell research from ever being banned. The ballot language -- approved by Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, who backed the proposal -- said the amendment would "ban human cloning or attempted cloning." The 2,000-word text of the amendment, though, said something entirely different. It defined cloning as an attempt "to implant in a uterus" an embryo; then, several paragraphs later, it actually prohibited the banning of "somatic cell nuclear transfer." In other words, all the amendment did was ban reproductive cloning while allowing research cloning. Amidst all the confusion about the language, it passed, 51-49 percent.

That same year, New Scientist magazine reported that scientists attending the American Society of Human Genetics conference were urged to use the phrase "somatic cell nuclear transfer" instead of "therapeutic cloning" -- simply to avoid the dreaded c-word.

Supporters of research cloning say its funding is necessary in order to provide a limitless supply of stem cells but also to provide -- as The New York Times implied -- a stem cell that genetically matches a patient. The NIH, though, would be better served to recommend an increase in funding for what are known as  iPS stem cells , which are created from everyday skin cells and also provide a genetic match but don't require cloning or embryos at all -- and which actually have seen laboratory successes. 

Is America on the verge of a scenario where scientists, at taxpayer expense, quietly create hundreds of clones in laboratories across the nation, all with the approval of the administration and Congress but with the large majority of Americans unaware? Are we about to create life in order to destroy that very life -- with taxpayers picking up the tab? We could be, if America doesn't do its homework -- and if scientists, politicians and some media members aren't forthright and continue using Looney Tunes logic.
--30--
Michael Foust is an assistant editor of Baptist Press.



