
The original issue can be found at: http://www.baptistpress.com/issue-04/14/2005

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.


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

Ore. court invalidates 'gay marriages'; Conn. embraces civil unions
by Staff
Date: April 14, 2005 - Thursday

HARTFORD, Conn. (BP)--The Oregon Supreme Court handed pro-family leaders in the state a clear victory April 14, ruling that marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples last year are invalid and refusing to take up the issue of civil unions.

The court's 7-0 decision came one day after the Connecticut House gave homosexual couples in that state a watered-down victory, passing a bill legalizing civil unions -- but not before amending it to define marriage as between one man and one woman. The bill passed the House, 85-63, and now goes back to the Senate, where an un-amended version passed earlier, 27-9. Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell has indicated she would sign it if it included the marriage language.

The Oregon case began in March 2004 when Multnomah County -- the state's most populous county -- began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. But the state refused to recognize them and said they were invalid. Liberal and homosexual activist groups then sued the state, seeking recognition of the licenses, which numbered more than 3,000. They also requested that same-sex "marriage" be legalized statewide.

The Multnomah County controversy sparked a grassroots movement to pass a constitutional marriage amendment in Oregon banning "gay marriage." Such an amendment –- called "Measure 36" -- passed in November with 57 percent of the vote.

With the constitution now amended, lawyers for the same-sex couples changed their legal strategy and instead asked the Oregon Supreme Court to legalize Vermont-style civil unions -- unions that grant most of the legal benefits of marriage without using the word "marriage." They also argued that the constitutional amendment did not apply retroactively and that Multnomah County's licenses should be recognized.

But on both arguments, the high court disagreed. Writing for the court, Justice Michael Gillette said that even before the amendment passed, Oregon law already defined marriage as between one man and one woman.

"Oregon statutory law in existence before the effective date of Measure 36 ... limited, and continues to limit, the right to obtain marriage licenses to opposite-sex couples," he wrote. "... &#91;M&#93;arriage licenses issued to same-sex couples in Multnomah County before that date were issued without authority and were void at the time that they were issued, and we therefore need not consider the independent effect, if any, of Measure 36 on those marriage licenses."

The court refused to consider the request to legalize civil unions, saying the issue is "not properly before the court." The original lawsuit dealt only with "gay marriage."

Homosexual and liberal activists now may file a new lawsuit seeking civil unions. The state legislature also is considering such a bill.

The move by the Connecticut House upset people on both sides of the debate. Homosexuals were unhappy because of the marriage provision. Social conservatives have opposed the bill from the start, saying civil unions are de facto "gay marriages."

"It's still same-sex marriage in everything but name," Brian Brown, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, said, according to United Press International.

Homosexual activists were disappointed.

"From my perspective, they're giving with one hand and taking with the other," Mary Bonauto, a Boston lawyer who successfully sued to have "gay marriage" legalized in Massachusetts, said, according to the Associated Press.

"In the end, they have completely accepted and put into law the second-class status of gay and lesbian families in Connecticut," Bonauto added. "That is a very bitter pill to swallow."

Supporters of the House-passed bill said the marriage language would make a court less likely to legalize same-sex "marriage." Such a lawsuit is pending in Connecticut.

But even if the bill passes the Senate and is signed into law by the governor, it would be vulnerable to a ruling by a state court. Both California and Washington state have seen judges strike down similar laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

Constitutional marriage amendments have been shown to provide the only lasting protection against ruling by state judges. So far, 18 states have adopted them.

Connecticut state Rep. T.R. Rowe, a Republican, criticized the bill.

"This is really a radical redefinition of what marriage is," he said, according to the Bristol Press. "We’re going to open up marriage to homosexuals but we’ll give political cover to lawmakers."
--30--
For more information about the national debate over same-sex "marriage," visit <a href="http://www.bpnews.net/samesexmarriage">http://www.bpnews.net/samesexmarriage</a>

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

Land at Harvard: Religious right concerned about many issues
by Tom Strode
Date: April 14, 2005 - Thursday

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (BP)--The religious right is a movement that consists of more than evangelical Christians, is still growing and is concerned about more than abortion and homosexual marriage, Southern Baptist ethicist Richard Land told a class in Harvard University’s religion department.

People of traditional religious values form a movement that has more similarities to the effort to abolish slavery than the one to end segregation, Land said in his visit to the Boston-area campus April 12.

“It is a movement,” the president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission said. “There is no Martin Luther King transcendent figure in the evangelical, traditional values movement the way there was in the civil rights movement. It is much more like the abolitionist movement.

“It’s yet to crest,” Land said. “It’s still growing, and we feel like we’ve got the wind at our back.”

At another forum that evening, Land said, “There’s been too much emphasis on evangelicals in the wake of the election. This was a victory for people of traditional religious values.”

In the 2004 election, religious traditionalists voted strongly for President Bush, according to the Pew Forum’s National Survey of Religion and Politics. Traditionalist evangelicals voted 88 percent for Bush; traditionalist non-Latino Roman Catholics went 72 percent for the president, and traditionalist mainline Protestants voted 68 percent for the incumbent, Land told the students, citing Pew polling data.

The charge that the religious right is concerned only about abortion and same-sex “marriage” is a “caricature, a straw man,” Land said.

“We have been engaged for a good while on a whole series of human rights issues both here and abroad,” he said. Evangelicals were the “driving force” behind the passage in recent years of federal legislation to promote global religious freedom, combat sex trafficking and prevent prison rape, Land said.

“We’re going to continue to be concerned about those two issues, but those are not the only two issues we’ve been concerned about and they will not be the only two issues we’ll continue to be concerned about,” he said. “But that’s sort of like criticizing Dr. King for only being concerned about racial equality and racial justice.”

Many evangelical and Roman Catholic traditionalists share a common belief that motivates them to involvement on international issues, Land said.

“We believe that America has a special role to play in the world,” he said. “Now we do not believe that America is God’s chosen nation, but we do believe that God’s providence has blessed this country, and that that is a belief that brings with it obligations and responsibilities and that America has a special obligation and responsibility to be the friend of freedom and the friend of democracy in the world.

“And I cannot tell you the number of Southern Baptists and other evangelicals and Catholics who told me that they were moved to tears by the president’s second inaugural address and the statement that we are going to be the friend of freedom,” Land said. People of traditional religious values “believe America has a special obligation and responsibility because of the blessings we have received to be the friend of the oppressed ... and to help those who want freedom for themselves.”

The “divide in this culture” is traditional moral values, Land said, adding, “I have a lot more in common with Pope John Paul II than I do with &#91;President&#93; Jimmy Carter &#91;a Baptist&#93;.”

Some forces in society, however, “want to exclude religiously informed moral values from taking part in the debate,” Land said. That view conflicts with the distant and recent tradition of American history, he told the class.

“Dr. King took his profoundly Christian beliefs about what was right and what was wrong into the public arena to condemn and to seek to transform a great social evil in our culture,” Land said. “Segregationists were trying to impose their immorality on Dr. King and were doing a fairly successful job of it, by the way. Dr. King, based on his convictions as a Baptist minister like the abolitionists before him, used his religiously informed moral values to challenge that immorality, and when he convinced enough Americans that he was right, it changed. And by the way, they did change the law.”

In a talk and dialogue with leaders from the Cambridge community in the evening, Land rejected the notion that the country’s forefathers “ever intended the separation of church and state to mean the separation of moral values from public policy -- religiously informed moral values and non-religiously informed moral values. In other words, they believed in a secular state; they did not ever imagine a secular society. I believe that every major social issue ... that has been an evil has been corrected primarily because people of religious faith brought their religious convictions to bear on public policy.

“I believe that we have a right and the obligation to bring our religiously informed convictions to public policy,” he said. “We don’t have the right to have the government to sponsor our religion. That’s my obligation, that’s my responsibility, that’s my privilege.”

Forum participants questioned Land about his opposition to same-sex “marriage.”

“I think it will shatter marriage as it’s been defined,” he said. “I also would argue, as &#91;Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin&#93; Scalia did and as Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard Law School has, that if you legalize same-sex ‘marriage,’ there’s no way you can legally stop polygamy. I don’t want to open that Pandora’s box. I don’t think most Americans do.

“Marriage is not just a personal thing; it’s not just a personal relationship,” Land said. “It has enormous civic consequences and enormous civic responsibilities. That’s why most societies, including this one, give benefits to marriage they don’t give to other relationships. And they are called benefits by the way, not rights.”

He cautioned supporters of homosexual “marriage” “from trying to ram this down the throat of the American people through the judicial system.” If the federal judiciary were to force upon the American people a decision like that of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court legalizing same-sex “marriage,” “there will be a significant rebellion that would take the form of a very quick passage” of a federal constitutional amendment limiting marriage’s definition to the union of a man and a woman, Land predicted.

“I’m more than happy to debate this issue in every state legislature in the country,” he said. “I’m more than happy to debate it to ratify a constitutional amendment, if that’s what’s necessary, and ultimately we have government of the people, by the people and for the people. So I would say, make your case. Just don’t try to disqualify people of religious faith from the debate and don’t try to force this on the American people against their will. It won’t work.”

The class Land spoke to was “Choreography of Social Movements,” which was attended by about 20 students and taught by Swanee Hunt, director of the women and public policy program at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. She served as U.S. ambassador to Austria during the first administration of President Clinton.

The evening forum was part of the Cambridge Conversations, a series of discussions hosted by Hunt and her husband, Boston Landmarks Orchestra conductor Charles Ansbacher, in their home. The participants, who numbered about 25, included leaders from the religious, academic, judicial, nonprofit and social work fields, as well as undergraduate and graduate students.
--30--


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

State-funded stem cell studies, slot machines fall short in Md.
by Staff
Date: April 14, 2005 - Thursday

ANNAPOLIS, Md. (BP)--Bills to spark embryonic stem cell research and legalize slot machines failed to survive the final days of the Maryland General Assembly’s 2005 session.

A threatened filibuster by Senate Republicans on April 11, the last day of the 90-day legislative session, derailed a bill to provide $23 million to scientists for embryonic stem cell research.

The bill’s supporters blamed Republican Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich for failing to push its passage, in comparison to his advocacy for slot machines in Maryland.

“The governor could have helped,” the bill’s lead sponsor, state Sen. Paula C. Hollinger, a Baltimore County Democrat, was quoted as saying. “Now he is allowing scientists to wave goodbye to our state.”

Baltimore Mayor Martin O’Malley and former Gov. Harry R. Hughes joined an afternoon news conference April 11 to make a final appeal for the legislation while Ehrlich remained silent on the issue.

The Maryland House of Delegates approved the bill March 28 by vote of 81-53.

Meanwhile, Ehrlich-backed legislation to legalize slot machines in Maryland failed for the third year in a row, though it achieved the closest margin to date.

As reported by the Baltimore Sun: “The Senate quickly passed its version of Ehrlich’s signature initiative. The House, by the slimmest margin possible, passed a stripped-down slots bill of its own. But the Senate and the governor wouldn’t accept the House bill, and the House leadership wouldn’t negotiate, leaving slots to die quietly at the end of the session.”

If the General Assembly fails to legalize slot machines during its 2006 session, Ehrlich told the Sun he believes the issue will help his re-election later in ’06, being able to pin blame on Democrats for the stymied legislation.

The push for embryonic stem cell research in Maryland follows last November’s approval by California voters of the yearly sale of $300 million in bonds to stimulate such research in the state over the next 10 years, for a total of $3 billion. The initiative not only supports embryonic stem cell research but permits the cloning of human embryos for research purposes, which destroys the tiny human beings. Last year New Jersey also established a $380 million fund for a stem cell research institute.

A spokesman for Ehrlich described the proposed $23 million in Maryland funding as “a miniscule amount of money,” but House Speaker Michael E. Busch said it would have been “a step in &#91;California’s&#93; direction.”

The Senate’s majority leader, Baltimore Democrat Nathaniel J. McFadden, told The Washington Times, “The faith community has really been on me about this.” He said the issue “has been rolled into the same contentious debate of the past –- the pro-choice, pro-life debate.”

The Bush administration continues to maintain its ban on federal funding of stem cell research that destroys embryos, which President Bush instituted in 2001.

Stem cells are the body's master cells that can develop into other cells and tissues, building hope for the treatment of numerous afflictions. In addition to being extracted from embryos, the cells may be found in such non-embryonic sources as bone marrow, umbilical cord blood, fat and placentas.

Supporters of embryonic stem cell research claim their line of study has the most potential for creating cures. However, the multi-billion-dollar biotechnology industry has invested many times more in adult stem cell research. Also, embryonic stem cell research has experienced multiple failures, including the worsening of Parkinson's symptoms in one human test group and a tendency to produce tumors in laboratory animals.

Research on stem cells from non-embryonic sources, however, has resulted in more than 40 treatments for such ailments as spinal cord injuries, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, multiple sclerosis and Crohn's disease.
--30--


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

Casting Crowns among most rewarded at GMA Music Awards
by Erin Curry
Date: April 14, 2005 - Thursday

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--Mainstream breakthrough band Switchfoot and the quickly rising Casting Crowns were among Christian music's most recognized artists April 13 during the 36th annual GMA Music Awards at the Grand Ole Opry House in Nashville, Tenn.

Switchfoot won four Doves, including one for Artist of the Year, while Casting Crowns won three, including a Dove Award for Group of the Year. Casting Crowns' lead singer, Mark Hall, picked up honors for Songwriter of the Year and Song of the Year for "Who Am I."

"Songs come and go and styles come and go, but the church will always be there," Hall, a youth pastor at Eagles Landing First Baptist Church in McDonough, Ga., said backstage. "I believe the church is where our talents belong."

The Crabb Family earned Doves in three different song categories, demonstrating their growing reputation as a genre-busting group that is drawing a younger generation of fans to southern gospel music.

"I love the fact that Switchfoot and The Crabb Family share top Dove Award honors this year because it powerfully reveals the variety of cultural expressions of the Gospel through music," said John W. Styll, president of the Gospel Music Association. "These two groups could not be more different culturally and musically and, yet, the message of the Gospel is evident in both of them."

Nicole C. Mullen received her second Female Vocalist of the Year award, and Jeremy Camp won his second straight Male Vocalist honor.

"This right here cannot be what makes or breaks you," Mullen said backstage. "If you're called by Jesus Christ, if you're hired by Him, then nobody can fire you. We believe we're called by Him, whether somebody else recognizes you or not. ... You don't want this to be the height of what you get. I want to make sure my crown in heaven is higher."

The show opened with the big band sounds of Denver & the Mile High Orchestra and featured performers such as BarlowGirl, Natalie Grant, Watermark, Chris Tomlin, David Crowder, Matt Redman and Skillet. Presenters included Sandi Patty, Michael W. Smith, tobyMac, MercyMe, NASCAR driver Bobby Labonte and Jason Illian, a former contestant on "The Bachelorette." The event was hosted by Israel Houghton, Steven Curtis Chapman, Rebecca St. James, CeCe Winans, Smokie Norful and Darlene Zschech.

President Bush, in a written statement, expressed his gratitude for the Christian music industry.

"Gospel music brings joy to countless individuals and contributes to America's spiritual foundation," he said. "For more than three decades, &#91;the GMA Awards have&#93; offered an opportunity to recognize the best and brightest gospel performers for their achievements and creativity. Our country is a richer place because of your music.

"I commend this year's honorees and the GMA for your dedication to sharing the good news through music," Bush added. "Your work reminds us of God's love and boundless mercy and inspires others to serve a cause greater than self."

The GMA Music Awards will be televised in national syndication during the month of June through network affiliates and independent stations.

Following is a complete list of Dove Award winners: 

-- Song of the Year: "Who Am I"; Mark Hall; Club Zoo Music (BMI), SWECS Music (BMI) 

-- Songwriter of the Year: Mark Hall 

-- Male Vocalist of the Year: Jeremy Camp 

-- Female Vocalist of the Year: Nicole C. Mullen 

-- Group of the Year: Casting Crowns 

-- Artist of the Year: Switchfoot 

-- New Artist of the Year: Building 429 

-- Producer of the Year: Ed Cash 

-- Rap/Hip Hop Recorded Song of the Year: "Hittin' Curves"; Dichotomy A; Grits; Teron Carter, Stacy Jones, Otto Price, S. Moss; Gotee Records 

-- Modern Rock Recorded Song of the Year: "Control"; Reset EP; MuteMath; Paul Meany, Darren King, Adam LeClave; Teleprompt Records/Word Records 

-- Rock Recorded Song of the Year: "Stay"; Stay; Jeremy Camp; Jeremy Camp; BEC Recordings 

-- Rock/Contemporary Recorded Song of the Year: "Dare You to Move"; The Beautiful Letdown; Switchfoot; Jonathan Foreman, Sparrow Records 

-- Pop/Contemporary Recorded Song of the Year: "Who Am I"; Casting Crowns; Casting Crowns; Mark Hall; Beach Street Records/Reunion Records 

-- Inspirational Recorded Song of the Year: "Voice of Truth"; Casting Crowns; Casting Crowns; Mark Hall, Steven Curtis Chapman; Beach Street Records/Reunion Records 

-- Southern Gospel Recorded Song of the Year: "He Came Looking for Me"; Driven; Crabb Family; Gerald Crabb; Daywind Records 

-- Bluegrass Recorded Song of the Year: "Heroes"; Heroes; The Isaacs; Rebecca Isaacs Bowman, Sonya Isaacs; Gaither Music 

-- Country Recorded Song of the Year: "Forever"; Driven; The Crabb Family; Jason Crabb, Gerald Crabb; Daywind Records 

-- Urban Recorded Song of the Year: "You Don't Know"; I Owe You; Kierra Kiki Sheard; Rodney Jerkins, Danny Nixon, Fred Jerkins, LaShawn Daniels, Delisha Thomas; EMI Gospel 

-- Traditional Gospel Recorded Song of the Year: "Through the Fire"; Driven; The Crabb Family featuring Donnie McClurkin; Gerald Crabb; Daywind Records 

-- Contemporary Gospel Recorded Song of the Year: "Again I Say Rejoice"; Live From Another Level; Israel & New Breed; Israel Houghton, Aaron Lindsey; Integrity Gospel 

-- Rap/Hip Hop Album of the Year: Welcome to Diverse City; tobyMac; Toby McKeehan, Christopher Stevens, Paul Meany, Solomon Olds, Joe Baldridge, Jeff Savage, Robert Marvin, Josiah Bell, Max Hsu, Michael Linney; ForeFront Records 

-- Modern Rock Album of the Year: Fight the Tide; Sanctus Real; Tedd T.; Sparrow Records 

-- Rock Album of the Year: Day of Fire; Day of Fire; Scott Humphrey; Essential Records 

-- Rock/Contemporary Album of the Year: Wire; Third Day; Paul Ebersold; Essential Records 

-- Pop/Contemporary Album of the Year: Undone; MercyMe; Pete Kipley; INO Records -- Inspirational Album of the Year: Hiding Place; Selah; Jason Kyle, Nicol Sponberg, Allan Hall, Todd Smith; Curb Records 

-- Southern Gospel Album of the Year: Driven; The Crabb Family; Jason Crabb, Adam Crabb, Aaron Crabb, Kelly Bowling, Jerry Yoder; Daywind Records 

-- Bluegrass Album of the Year: Angels Gathering Flowers; The Lewis Family; Wayne Haun; Thoroughbred Records 

-- Country Album of the Year: Passing Through; Randy Travis; Kyle Lehning; Word Records 

-- Urban Album of the Year: Everyday People; Nicole C. Mullen; Nicole C. Mullen, David Mullen, Tommy Sims, James "Big Jim" Wright, Andrew Ramsey, Shannon Sanders; Word Records 

-- Traditional Gospel Album of the Year: A Tribute to Mahalia Jackson; Lynda Randle; Barry Beckett; Gaither Music 

-- Contemporary Gospel Album of the Year: Live From Another Level; Israel & New Breed; Israel Houghton, Aaron W. Lindsey; Integrity Gospel 

-- Praise & Worship Album of the Year: Arriving; Chris Tomlin; Ed Cash; Sixsteps Records 

-- Instrumental Album of the Year: The Passion of the Christ Original Motion Picture Soundtrack; Various; John Debney; Mel Gibson; Integrity Music/Sony 

-- Children's Music Album of the Year: Angel Alert!; Various; Celeste Clydesdale, David T. Clydesdale; Word Music 

-- Spanish Language Album of the Year: Te Amo Dios; Praise Street Worship Band; Dave Moody, James Cobble Jr., Wesley Pritchard, Eulises Canada, Nelson McSwain; Lamon Records 

-- Special Event Album of the Year: The Passion of the Christ: Songs; Third Day, Steven Curtis Chapman, MercyMe, Scott Stapp, POD, Brad Paisley, Sara Evans, Big Dismal, Lauryn Hill, Kirk Franklin, Yolanda Adams, MxPx, Mark Hoppus, Charlotte Church, BeBe Winans, Angie Stone, Dan Lavery; Tim Cook, Mark Joseph, Gregg Wattenberg, Steven Lerner; Lost Keyword Records/ Wind-Up Records 

-- Musical of the Year: Emmanuel -- Celebrating Heaven's Child; Joel Lindsey, Russell Mauldin; Brentwood-Benson Music 

-- Youth/Children's Musical of the Year: Fear Not Factor; Dennis Allen, Nan Allen; Brentwood-Benson Music 

-- Choral Collection of the Year: Live ... This is Your House; Carol Cymbala; Brooklyn Tabernacle Music 

-- Worship Song of the Year: "Blessed Be Your Name"; Matt Redman, Beth Redman; Thankyou Music, Worshiptogether.com Songs 

-- Recorded Music Packaging of the Year: Happy; Jan Cook, Tim Frank, Emily West, Clark Hook, Susan Levy; Clark Hook, Michael Lavine; Universal South 

-- Short Form Music Video of the Year: "Dare You to Move"; Switchfoot; Nina Grossman Warner; Robert Hales; HIS Entertainment; Sparrow Records 

-- Long Form Music Video of the Year: Switchfoot Live In San Diego; Switchfoot; Dwight Thompson; Dwight Thompson; New Revolution Entertainment; Sparrow Records
--30--


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

‘Whatever it takes’ attitude underscored by Johnny Hunt
by Cory Miller
Date: April 14, 2005 - Thursday

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (BP)--Pastors and Christian leaders need a “whatever it takes” mentality toward their ministry, Johnny Hunt said during Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary’s “The Shepherd and His Sheep” conference April 12.

Hunt, senior pastor of the Atlanta-area First Baptist Church of Woodstock, said helping pastors and ministers is one of his top goals in ministry, behind evangelizing the lost and discipling believers.

Voicing a heart to “help pastors to succeed,” Hunt said, “I want to empower them, to encourage them to make a difference for God’s Kingdom.”

Midwestern President R. Philip Roberts underscored Hunt’s words. “Johnny Hunt is an exceptional pastoral leader,” Roberts said, “and we were honored to have him lead us in such an effective and encouraging experience."

The first step in developing a whatever-it-takes attitude is passion, Hunt said in addressing the conference’s 260 participants at the Kansas City, Mo., camus.

“‘Whatever’ means you will do everything to pursue your life’s cause,” Hunt said.

Passion for something will “plow through, jump over or dig under its obstacles,” Hunt said, describing his own passion as “refusing to leave the world the way I found it.”

Hunt listed five reasons people lack passion: they allow the “precious to become familiar,” they focus on “acceptance and approval,” the society they live in is passive, apathy increases as they get older and they see no purpose beyond themselves.

Hunt said his passion drives him to continue in ministry.

“Passion may be the only thing going for you, but with God’s help it may be the only thing you need,” he said. “My passion for Christ, His Word, His people, His calling; it just fuels my soul.”

He added: “Passion is what gives extravagance to ministry.”

Second, a whatever-it-takes mentality involves focus, Hunt said.

“Our churches today have plenty of speed,” he observed, “but they don’t seem to know what direction they’re going.”

Focus in the church begins with a focused leader, Hunt said.

Being focused, he said, involves managing six areas well: time, priorities, resources, budget, people and influence.

The third component, Hunt said, is determination.

Determination involves a persistence that does not accept defeat, “rules out failure” and “says, ‘I will not give up,’” Hunt said.

“The only true measurement of determination,” he pointed out, “is action.”

The fourth component of a whatever-it-takes mentality is not making excuses, Hunt said.

“‘Whatever it takes’ means that you will eliminate the somethings that will prevent your life’s cause,” he said. “If you really want to do something, you’ll find a way; if you don’t, you’ll find an excuse.”

The only person who believes an excuse, he said, is usually the one offering it.

“Doing whatever it takes starts with passion, proceeds to focus, maintains determination, and concludes with accomplishment, not excuses,” Hunt said.

“Passion gives you priorities, focus gives you your concentration, and determination your willpower,” he said, listing six principles that guide his life and ministry:

-- Calling to a higher standard.

-- Knowing his purpose in life.

-- Refusing the status quo.

-- Facing great questions, like “What would I attempt if I knew I could not fail?”

-- Teaching others to be givers.

-- Measuring growth.
--30--


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

FIRST-PERSON: Euthanizing newborns in the Netherlands
by R. Albert Mohler Jr.
Date: April 14, 2005 - Thursday

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (BP)--Advocates for euthanasia routinely chide opponents that "slippery slope" arguments are fallacious and irrelevant. A decision to allow euthanasia in some cases, they say, does not in fact open the door for the killing of yet others. 

Tragically, however, the "slippery slope" argument is neither fallacious nor irrelevant, as recent developments in the Netherlands have made graphically clear. Once doctors are allowed to choose death over life, the resulting Culture of Death will inevitably discount human life in other contexts as well.

The latest proof of this comes in a March 10 article published in the New England Journal of Medicine. In "The Groningen Protocol -- Euthanasia in Severely Ill Newborns," Dutch doctors Eduard Verhagen and Pieter J. J. Sauer defend the policy they established for euthanizing newborns in the Netherlands.

The infamous "Groningen Protocol" was released last year, leading to a wave of moral outrage and revulsion. Doctors Verhagen and Sauer, affiliated with the University Medical Center in Groningen, developed guidelines for euthanizing newborns. In the face of international outrage, the doctors decided to defend their policy in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine. That journal's publication of this article marks a critical milestone in America's medical debate, and sets a chilling precedent for even more ominous developments in the future. 

"Of the 200,000 children born in the Netherlands every year, about 1,000 die during the first year of life," the doctors report. "For approximately 600 of these infants, death is preceded by a medical decision regarding the end of life. Discussions about the initiation and continuation of treatment in newborns with serious medical conditions are one of the most difficult aspects of pediatric practice."

Thus, the authors argue that when "a medical decision regarding the end of life" is necessary with respect to newborns, policies should be in place that would allow doctors to choose euthanasia -- the willful killing of a newborn baby -- as a medically accepted practice, at least under certain circumstances.

"Suffering is a subjective feeling that cannot be measured objectively, whether in adults or in infants," the doctors admit. "But we accept that adults can indicate when their suffering is unbearable. Infants cannot express their feelings through speech, but they do so through different types of crying, movements, and reactions to feeding." 

This debatable clinical observation sets the stage for Verhagen and Sauer to argue that infants should have a "right" to euthanasia if they are likely to experience extreme pain and discomfort, and if they face a poor prognosis and "a poor quality of life."

The doctors advise that, in the Netherlands, "euthanasia for competent persons older than 16 years of age has been legally accepted since 1985." That observation is true, though the Dutch began experiments with illegal euthanasia long before 1985. The so-called "Dutch Cure" has become a standard feature of medical practice in the Netherlands. "Voluntary" euthanasia is now considered a legal "right" for all those 16 years of age and older. Recently, Dutch physicians have been arguing for the age of consent to be reduced to age 12. Beyond this, what has been described as "voluntary" euthanasia has, by some reports, led to involuntary forms of euthanasia as well. The legal notion of "consent" is a thin legal principle, easily manipulated in actual practice.

Verhagen and Sauer pose the central question of their policy with clarity: "The question under consideration now is whether deliberate life-ending procedures are also acceptable for newborns and infants, despite the fact that these patients cannot express their own will. Or must infants with disorders associated with severe and sustained suffering be kept alive when their suffering cannot be adequately reduced?"

Of course, the way a question is posed largely determines the shape of the answer. The Dutch doctors frame their question with the assumption that infant suffering can, in some cases, be beyond medical alleviation or treatment.

"In the Netherlands, as in all other countries, ending someone's life, except in extreme conditions, is considered murder." They go on to argue, "A life of suffering that cannot be alleviated by any means might be considered one of those extreme conditions." The "might" in that sentence is critical, for this is not a universally held belief.

The "Groningen Protocol" was developed in order to protect physicians who induce the death of infants from interrogation, investigation and possible prosecution by police. Admitting that infants and newborns are being euthanized in the Netherlands, Verhagen and Sauer developed their policy to "provide all the information needed for assessment and to prevent interrogations by police officers."

The revulsion and reaction to the release of the "Groningen Protocol" apparently surprised the Dutch physicians, who described media reports of their policy as "blood-chilling accounts and misunderstandings concerning this protocol." But, if these doctors hoped that publishing their argument in the New England Journal of Medicine would help, they are likely to be severely disappointed.

The doctors divide seriously ill newborns and infants into three different categories. The first are almost certain to die, given unquestionably terminal diseases or conditions. Infants in the second category "have a very poor prognosis and are dependent on intensive care." Verhagen and Sauer argue that these babies "may survive after a period of intensive treatment, but expectations regarding their future condition are very grim." They describe these infants as characterized by "an extremely poor prognosis and a poor quality of life."

The third category of infants are those "who experience what parents and medical experts deem to be unbearable suffering." The doctors admit that this group of infants "is difficult to define in the abstract," but would include "patients who are not dependent on intensive medical treatment but for whom a very poor quality of life, associated with sustained suffering, is predicted." They offer as an example a child "with the most serious form of spina bifida."

Note carefully that the doctors define infants in the second and third groups as those who face a poor "quality of life." This concept is the fuse that detonates the movement for euthanasia. Doctors and other medical professionals presume to be able to determine and define an adequate quality of life for human existence. Once doctors become the quality control engineers for the human race, they can define whatever category they choose as constituting those with an inadequate quality of life, who can then be denied medical treatment or, in some cases, see their lives terminated.

"Neonatologists in the Netherlands and the majority of neonatologists in Europe are convinced that intensive care treatment is not a goal in itself," the doctors claim. "Its aim is not only survival of the infant, but also an acceptable quality of life." For the second category of infants, the doctors argue that forgoing or not initiating life-sustaining treatment is acceptable "if both the medical team and the parents are convinced that treatment is not in the best interest of the child because the outlook is extremely poor."

The explicit shift to active euthanasia comes in the cases of infants in the doctors' third category. "All possible measures must be taken to alleviate severe pain and discomfort," the doctors argue. "There are, however, circumstances in which, despite all measures taken, suffering cannot be relieved and no improvement can be expected. When both the parents and the physicians are convinced that there is an extremely poor prognosis, they may concur that death would be more humane than continued life." That is a breathtaking assertion. These doctors argue that, if parents and physicians agree, they may choose death for an infant believed to be suffering "severe pain and discomfort."

All this would be sufficiently frightening, but reports out of the Netherlands indicate that some doctors are killing newborns without the knowledge or consent of parents.

Even in the Netherlands, parents are not allowed to request euthanasia for their newborns, acting as representatives of their child. This poses a problem for doctors who would wish to euthanize infants. Since newborns "cannot ask for euthanasia," and since their parents are unable to act as legal representatives to indicate consent, this poses a legal challenge. "Does this mean that euthanasia in a newborn is always prohibited?" The Dutch doctors think not.

"We are convinced that life-ending measures can be acceptable in these cases under very strict conditions; the parents must agree fully, on the basis of a thorough explanation of the condition and prognosis; a team of physicians, including at least one who is not directly involved in the care of the patient, must agree; and the condition and prognosis must be very well defined. After the decision has been made and the child has died, an outside legal body should determine whether the decision was justified and all necessary procedures have been followed."

All this amounts to a bureaucratic rationalization for killing newborn babies. There can be no doubt that the practice of killing newborns is already a reality of Dutch medical culture. Verhagen and Sauer report that "there are 15 to 20 cases of euthanasia in newborn infants" each year in the Netherlands. Two Dutch court cases, both decided in the 1990s, ruled that physicians had met "the requirements for good medical practice" in ending the lives of infants, even though the practice is apparently illegal. Here again, the "slippery slope" is aided and abetted by courts that will not prosecute doctors who are violating the very laws intended to protect individuals from euthanasia -- much less involuntary euthanasia. In the aftermath of the two court cases, physicians requested additional guidance and guidelines. Verhagen and Sauer report that the Dutch government has failed to provide these guidelines, "despite having promised repeatedly, since 1997, to do so."

Over the last several years, 22 cases of euthanasia in newborns were reported to Dutch district attorneys' offices. Verhagen and Sauer reviewed the cases, reporting that all of them "involved infants with very severe forms of spina bifida."

The reluctance of Dutch courts to evaluate doctors -- even in matters of life and death -- is made apparent when Verhagen and Sauer report on these cases. 

"The decisions were always made in collaboration with, and were fully approved by, both parents. The prosecutor used four criteria to assess each case: the presence of hopeless and unbearable suffering and a very poor quality of life, parental consent, consultation with an independent physician and his or her agreement with the treating physicians, and the carrying out of the procedures in accordance with the accepted medical standard. The conclusion in all 22 cases was that the requirements of careful practice were fulfilled. None of the physicians were prosecuted."

Finally, the doctors argue that "all cases must be reported if the country is to prevent uncontrolled and unjustified euthanasia and if we are to discuss the issue publicly and thus further develop norms regarding euthanasia in newborns." This is a clear assertion that the euthanizing of newborns should be standard medical procedure, so long as such physician-directed deaths are neither "uncontrolled" nor "unjustified." Of course, these doctors presume that euthanasia itself is justifiable and that they possess the moral wisdom to decide when euthanasia would be "unjustified."

Verhagen and Sauer provide two tables of data that accompany their article. In the first table, the doctors indicate that all 22 cases of newborn euthanasia considered in their study involved an "extremely poor quality of life." Stunningly, their report also indicates that, in the case of at least 18 of these infants, a "predicted inability to communicate" was a factor in making the decision for death.

Their article also raises another frightening question. If Dutch citizens age 16 and older can request euthanasia, and if doctors and parents can agree that newborns and infants can be euthanized under certain circumstances, what about children beyond infancy but under age 16? This is not a hypothetical question, for children are also being euthanized in Dutch clinics and hospitals. Should we expect yet another "Groningen Protocol" for older children?

Verhagen and Sauer recognize that the "Dutch Cure" is considered murder by many outside the Netherlands. "This approach suits our legal and social culture," the doctors allow, "but it is unclear to what extent it would be transferable to other countries."

Verhagen and Sauer may be unclear about the transferability of their protocol to other cultures, but the Culture of Death is not found only in the Netherlands. Here in the United States, the logic behind the "Groningen Protocol" is gaining traction. The "Dutch Cure" now seems to be a contagious Dutch disease.
--30--
This column was adapted from Mohler's Crosswalk.com weblog. Mohler is president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky. For more articles and resources by Mohler, and for information on "The Albert Mohler Program," a daily national radio program broadcast on the Salem Radio Network, visit www.albertmohler.com.



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

FIRST-PERSON: What are Islamic schools teaching?
by Daniel Pipes
Date: April 14, 2005 - Thursday

PHILADELPHIA (BP)--"Shocked" is how Aisha Sherazi, principal of the Abraar Islamic school in Ottawa, described the reaction of the school's administration and board on learning that two of its teachers had incited hatred of Jews.

And "shocked" was how Mumtaz Akhtar, president of the Muslim-Community Council of Ottawa-Gatineau, described his own reaction to the front-page news about the Abraar school.

But they may have been the only two persons on the planet to be "shocked" to learn that teachers at an Islamic school are promoting anti-Semitism or other aspects of the Islamist agenda. The fact is, inquiries into Islamic schools repeatedly uncover just such a radical Islamic outlook. Some examples:

-- New York City: An investigation by the New York Daily News in 2003 found that books used in the city's Muslim schools "are rife with inaccuracies, sweeping condemnations of Jews and Christians, and triumphalist declarations of Islam's supremacy."

-- Los Angeles: The Omar Ibn Khattab Foundation donated 300 Korans (titled “The Meaning of the Holy Quran”) to the city school district in 2001 that within months had to be pulled from school libraries because of their anti-Semitic commentaries. One footnote reads: "The Jews in their arrogance claimed that all wisdom and all knowledge of Allah was enclosed in their hearts.... Their claim was not only arrogance but blasphemy."

-- Ajax, Ontario, 50 kilometers east of Toronto: The Institute of Islamic Learning is a Canadian emulation of the extremist Islamic schools of Pakistan. It focuses exclusively on religious topics, has students memorize the Koran, demands total segregation from the Canadian milieu and requires complete gender separation. Former students complained about the school's cult-like devotion to its head, Abdul Majid Khan, and complained that it is a "twisted religion."

Then there are four leading Islamic schools in the Washington, D.C., area:

-- The Muslim Community School in Potomac, Md., imbues in its students a sense of alienation from their own country. Seventh-grader Miriam told a Washington Post reporter in 2001, "Being American is just being born in this country." Eighth-grader Ibrahim announced that, "Being an American means nothing to me."

-- A textbook used at the Islamic Saudi Academy of Alexandria, Va., in 2004, authored and published by the Saudi Ministry of Education, teaches first-graders that "all religions, other than Islam, are false, including that of the Jews &#91;and&#93; Christians." An ISA class valedictorian, Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, was recently indicted for plotting to assassinate President Bush.

-- The U.S. government revoked the visas in 2004 of 16 people affiliated with the Institute for Islamic and Arabic Sciences in America, of Fairfax, Va. In the words of the Washington Post, "That decision followed accusations that the institute, a satellite campus of al-Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University in Riyadh, was promoting a brand of Islam that critics say is intolerant of other strains of the religion as well as Christianity and Judaism." In addition, the IIASA is under investigation for ties to terrorism.

-- The Graduate School of Islamic Social Sciences of Ashburn, Va., referred to as a "purported" educational institution in an affidavit justifying a raid on the school, had its financial records seized in 2002 on suspicions of links to terrorism.

Nor are schools the exception among Islamic institutions in North America. A recent study by Freedom House found a parallel problem of venomous anti-Jewish and anti-Christian materials in U.S. mosques. The most prominent American Muslim organizations, especially the Council on American-Islamic Relations, spew anti-Semitism and hosted a neo-Nazi. The same applies in Canada, where the head of the Canadian Islamic Congress, Mohamed Elmasry, publicly endorsed the murder of all Israelis over the age of 18.

So long as Muslim leaders simply declare themselves, in the spirit of Capt. Renault in the movie “Casablanca,” "shocked, shocked" whenever news of Islamist supremacism leaks out, this cancer will continue unabated. The Islamic schools, the mosques and other Muslim organizations like CAIR and CIC will continue their cat-and-mouse game so long as it works.

It won't work only when outside pressure is brought to bear on them by politicians, journalists, researchers, moderate Muslims and others. They must state clearly and frequently the unacceptability of Islamist venom. Only then will today's fraudulent "shocked" reaction finally become sincere.
--30--
Daniel Pipes, director of the Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum, is author of numerous books on the troubled region. His website is www.danielpipes.org.



