
The original issue can be found at: http://www.baptistpress.com/issue-04/18/2007

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. Supreme Court upholds partial-birth abortion ban
by Tom Strode
Date: April 18, 2007 - Wednesday

WASHINGTON (BP)--The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on a gruesome procedure known as partial-birth abortion April 18, delivering an important victory for legislative efforts to protect unborn children.

The high court's 5-4 decision reversed rulings by two federal appeals courts and affirmed the Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act as the law of the land, marking the first judicially approved restriction on a specific procedure since the justices legalized abortion in 1973. The 2003 law prohibits an abortion technique that involves the killing of a nearly totally delivered baby normally in at least the fifth month of pregnancy.

Chief Justice John Roberts joined Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito in the majority. Kennedy, who affirmed the court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision in a crucial 1992 ruling, wrote in the majority opinion that the ban does not infringe on the right to abortion declared previously by the high court, meaning Roe remains in effect. He said the ban is not vague and does not impose "an undue burden on a woman's right to abortion" based on it being either overly broad or lacking an exception for the mother's health.

Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sharply disagreed in her dissent, calling the decision a retreat from previous rulings. She said the opinion was "alarming," and she described as "irrational" the idea the law advanced a "legitimate governmental interest." Associate Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Stephen Breyer joined Ginsburg in the minority.

President Bush, who nominated Roberts and Alito to the high court, said he was pleased with the ruling, calling it an "affirmation of the progress we have made over the past six years in protecting human dignity and upholding the sanctity of life. We will continue to work for the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law."

The stark contrasts on the court were mirrored in the reactions of pro-life and pro-choice advocates.

"This is a great day for justice. This is a great day for the unborn. And this is a great day for America," said Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.

The Susan B. Anthony List, which seeks to help elect pro-life women to Congress, called the ruling a "watershed moment for the pro-life movement." The organization's statement said the decision "will likely inspire increased support for more common-sense restrictions on abortion across the country."

Rep. Chris Smith, R.-N.J., a congressional pro-life leader, said, "Finally, the high court has found its voice and used its authority to defend helpless children and their vulnerable mothers from the violence of abortion. Scrutiny must be brought to bear on the methods of abortion. The discussion of partial-birth abortion begins that process."

Meanwhile, abortion-rights organizations criticized the decision.

Americans "should be absolutely outraged by this unprecedented and dangerous intrusion into the private relationship between a woman and her doctor," said Joan Malin, president of Planned Parenthood of New York City. "Planned Parenthood will comply with the law. But our doors are not closed."

The ERLC's Land and abortion-rights supporters agreed the decision demonstrated one thing –- elections have consequences. Bush's re-election in 2004 enabled him to nominate Roberts to replace the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Alito to take the seat of Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor upon her retirement, both in 2005. Alito's presence on the court made the difference in the ruling, since O'Connor had voted to strike down a similar state law in a 5-4 decision in 2000.

"Today's decision shows Bush's appointees have moved the court in a direction that could further undermine Roe v. Wade and protections for women's health," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-choice America. "We need to elect more pro-choice members of Congress and a president who will stand up for -– not attack -– our fundamental values of freedom and privacy."

Land said, "Thank God for President Bush, and thank God for Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito.

"If Al Gore or John Kerry, rather than President George W. Bush, had made the nominations to replace the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist and retired Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, then this monstrous partial-birth abortion procedure would have likely been upheld by the highest court as constitutional in the land in a 6-3 vote, rather than being struck down 5-4," Land said. "It would have been a decade or more before there would have been an opportunity to change the balance of the court in favor of this monumental step for justice for our partially born and unborn citizens."

The Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act bars a procedure in which, as typically used, an intact baby is delivered feet first until only the head is left in the birth canal. The doctor pierces the base of the infant's skull with surgical scissors before inserting a catheter into the opening and suctioning out the brain, killing the baby. The technique provides for easier removal of the baby's head. The law allows an exception if the mother's life is threatened.

Congress approved the ban in 2003 with a 64-34 vote in the Senate and a 281-142 vote in the House of Representatives. Congress had twice adopted partial-birth abortion bans in the 1990s only to have President Clinton veto them. In both 1996 and 1998, the House achieved the two-thirds majorities necessary to override vetoes, but the Senate fell short.

After Bush signed the bill into law in November 2003, abortion rights organizations quickly challenged it in three courts and blocked its enforcement. Federal judges in New York City, San Francisco and Lincoln, Neb., struck down the law. Three-judge panels in the Ninth Circuit based in San Francisco, Eighth Circuit based in St. Louis, and Second Circuit based in New York upheld the lower court decisions.

In his opinion, Kennedy said the high court had previously found that the government has an interest in protecting unborn life. He also said there are other abortion methods doctors may use instead of the partial-birth procedure, even though they may be as grisly, and the law's lack of an exception for the health of the mother is acceptable.

It is clear that a primary assumption in the 1992 Casey v. Planned Parenthood decision -– "that the government has a legitimate and substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life -- would be repudiated were the Court now to affirm the judgments of the Courts of Appeals," Kennedy wrote. The Casey opinion reasserted the Roe opinion legalizing abortion while upholding a state's authority to enact some restrictions.

"Where it has a rational basis to act, and it does not impose an undue burden, the State may use its regulatory power to bar certain procedures and substitute others, all in furtherance of its legitimate interests in regulating the medical profession in order to promote respect for life, including life of the unborn," he wrote.

Doctors had testified in federal courts that they often do not describe either a technique known as dilation and evacuation (D&E) or the partial-birth procedure to women seeking abortions, and Kennedy said the government has an interest in making certain women are "well-informed."

"It is self-evident that a mother who comes to regret her choice to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound when she learns, only after the event, what she once did not know: that she allowed a doctor to pierce the skull and vacuum the fast-developing brain of her unborn child, a child assuming the human form," he wrote. "It is a reasonable inference that a necessary effect of the regulation and the knowledge it conveys will be to encourage some women to carry the infant to full term, thus reducing the absolute number of late-term abortions."

Kennedy said the federal law differed from the Nebraska ban that was struck down by the justices in 2000. The federal ban provides a specific definition of partial-birth abortion and does not encompass D&E abortions. In his opinion, Kennedy referred to the partial-birth technique as "intact D&E" to distinguish it from D&E. Partial-birth abortion also has been named "dilation and extraction" (D&X).

Kennedy also quoted a nurse who had witnessed a partial-birth abortion.

"The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking," the nurse was quoted as saying. "Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp. … He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used."

Ginsburg acknowledged in her dissent that the decision "does not go so far as to discard Roe or Casey," but it is "hardly faithful" to principles spelled out by the high court in the past. "Congress imposed a ban despite our clear prior holdings that the State cannot proscribe an abortion procedure when its use is necessary to protect a woman's health," she said.

"In candor, the Act, and the Court's defense of it, cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court -- and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives," Ginsburg wrote.

The ruling finally provided pro-lifers with a victory over the dilemma created by the courts regarding a health exception for mothers. That judicial requirement has frustrated attempts to enact a meaningful prohibition on the partial-birth procedure. Until now, the problem that advocates of the ban had been unable to solve was this: If they pass a partial-birth abortion ban without a health exception, the courts strike it down; if they approve a ban with a health exception, it is ineffective because of the judiciary's definition of "health."

In its 1973 Doe v. Bolton opinion, which accompanied the Roe decision, the Supreme Court defined maternal health so expansively that it had the practical effect of permitting abortion for any reason throughout all stages of pregnancy.

In addition to joining the majority opinion, Thomas and Scalia agreed on a concurring opinion that was barely one page long. Thomas said he wrote the concurrence "to reiterate my view that the Court's abortion jurisprudence, including &#91;Roe and Casey&#93;, has no basis in the Constitution."

The justices' decision came in two cases, Gonzales v. Carhart, an appeal from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in which the law was invalidated based on its lack of a health exception, and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood, out of the Ninth Circuit, which also said the ban imposes an undue burden on women and is too vague.

The ERLC signed on to a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the ban in the Gonzales v. Carhart case. The U.S. Conference for Catholic Bishops wrote the brief, which was joined by other religious organizations as well.

The Southern Baptist Convention approved resolutions condemning the partial-birth procedure in both 1996 and 2002.
--30--
With reporting by Michael Foust.


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

TIMELINE: Partial-birth abortion
by Tom Strode
Date: April 18, 2007 - Wednesday

WASHINGTON (BP)--In September 1992, Martin Haskell, an Ohio abortion doctor, described a second-trimester abortion method he named "dilation and extraction" (D&X) in a paper presented at a National Abortion Federation-sponsored seminar. 

Following is a chronology of the attempt to prohibit the procedure widely known as partial-birth abortion: 

-- Early 1993: The National Right to Life Committee obtains Haskell's paper and later publicizes it and begins a campaign to outlaw the procedure. 

-- June 1995: Rep. Charles Canady, R-Fla., introduces in the House of Representatives a bill titled the Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act to prohibit the procedure; Sen. Bob Smith, R-N.H., introduces a companion bill in the Senate. 

-- November 1995: The House of Representatives approves the Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act for first time, 288-139. 

-- December 1995: The Senate passes the ban for first time, 54-44.

-- April 1996: President Clinton vetoes the legislation. 

-- June 1996: Southern Baptist Convention approves a resolution supporting the ban and disapproving of Clinton's veto. 

-- September 1996: House overrides Clinton's veto with a two-thirds majority, 285-137; Senate falls short of a two-thirds majority, 57-41, thus sustaining the veto. 

-- March 1997: House passes reintroduced ban, 295-136. 

-- May 1997: Senate approves ban, 64-36. 

-- October 1997: Clinton vetoes the ban for a second time. 

-- July 1998: House overrides veto, 296-132. 

-- September 1998: Senate falls short in override attempt, 64-36, thus sustaining the veto for a second time. 

-- October 1999: Senate approves ban in next session of Congress, 63-34. 

-- April 2000: House passes slightly different version, 287-141; Congress fails to work out a final version to send to the president.

-- June 2000: Supreme Court votes 5-4 in Stenberg v. Carhart case to overturn Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban, which is modeled after the federal measure. 

-- June 2002: SBC adopts resolution calling for President Bush to make enactment of a partial-birth abortion ban a priority. 

-- July 2002: House passes revised version of the Partial-birth Abortion Ban in 274-151 vote. Senate never acts on bill during this session of Congress. 

-- March 2003: Senate votes 64-33 in favor of ban, but its version includes non-binding resolution endorsing 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion. 

-- June 2003: House votes 282-139 for ban, minus the resolution endorsing Roe v. Wade. 

-- September 2003: House-Senate conference committee reports out final bill without Roe resolution. 

-- October 2003: House approves conference committee report on bill, 281-142; Senate passes conference committee report, 64-34. 

-- Nov. 5, 2003: President Bush signs the ban into law.

-- Nov. 5-6, 2003: Three U.S. District judges issue injunctions preventing law from going in effect. The judges, along with three appellate courts, subsequently strike down the ban as unconstitutional.

-- April 18, 2007: U.S. Supreme Court, in 5-4 ruling, reverses lower courts and upholds ban on partial-birth abortion.
--30--


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

2 Baptist students among shooting victims
by Erin Roach
Date: April 18, 2007 - Wednesday

BLACKSBURG, Va. (BP)--Two of the 32 victims in the April 16 shootings at Virginia Tech University had ties to Southern Baptist ministries. 

Rachael Hill, 18, was a freshman at Virginia Tech and was attending a French class at Norris Hall when she died at the hands of gunman Cho Seung-Hui. Hill graduated in 2006 from Grove Avenue Christian School, a ministry of Grove Avenue Baptist Church in Richmond, Va., with an enrollment of about 260 students.

"Rachael was an incredible witness for Christ, the love of Christ shone through her to others," Clay Fogler, the school's administrator, wrote in an e-mail to Baptist Press.

Fogler gave BP a copy of a letter he sent April 17 to members of the Grove Avenue school community in which he noted Hill's "beauty, intelligence, poise, leadership, and other wonderful traits."

"We offer our prayers, spiritual support, and love to her parents and relatives as they go through this tragedy," Fogler wrote. "Any parent would have counted it a privilege to have called her their daughter."

Hill was the only child of Alan and Tammy Hill of Glen Allen, Va., the Richmond Times-Dispatch said.

"I was her principal for a year and had worked with her for several years," Martha Isaacs, a former employee of the school, told Baptist Press. "She was a wonderful young lady, very bright, very gifted. She had a close relationship with her parents and her fellow students here. She was very spiritually mature. She loved the Lord and was just an asset to our school."

In his letter, Fogler said Hill was "perpetually prepared" and one of her favorite verses was Song of Solomon 8:5, which says, "Who is this coming up from the wilderness, leaning upon her beloved?"

"Rachael saw herself as the one coming out of the wilderness and needing to lean on her Savior more and more," Fogler wrote. "The world has lost one of its brightest prospects, but the Lord is glorified through the Daughter of the King that she is, the life that she lived, and the impact Rachael had on others in the name of Jesus Christ."

Some say the quote from Christian author C.S. Lewis that Hill submitted for her senior yearbook was almost prophetic. It said, "God, who foresaw your tribulation, has specially armed you to go through it, not without pain but without stain."

Mark Becton, pastor of Grove Avenue Baptist Church, told The Washington Post the school plans to retire Hill's jersey from her time on the school's volleyball team. She was honored last year as sportswoman of the year, he said. 	The Times-Dispatch reported that Hill was interested in biology though she had not yet declared a major at Virginia Tech, and she was an excellent piano player.

Brian Bluhm, 25, was just weeks away from graduating with a master's degree in water resources after also earning an undergraduate degree in civil engineering at Virginia Tech. He was attending a class in advanced hydrology in Norris Hall when he was killed, The Post reported.

Bluhm was active in the Baptist Campus Ministry at Virginia Tech, and he was known for his sense of humor and his exceptional enthusiasm for the Hokies and the Detroit Tigers baseball team. Bluhm was born in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, spent some of his childhood in Detroit and moved with his parents to Louisville, Ky., when he was 7, the Detroit Free Press reported. 

His passion for the Tigers led Bluhm to help found a blog dedicated to the team, Motownsports.com. On Monday, several people posted messages to the site, asking if Bluhm had been safe when the shootings occurred, the Free Press said, but he didn't answer. As a tribute to the Tigers fan, a Detroit announcer asked for a moment of silence for the shooting victims -- including Bluhm -- before the team's game against the Kansas City Royals Tuesday night.

"We know he was very active in the online community," Rob Matwick, vice president of communications for the Tigers, told the Free Press. "We felt it was appropriate that we at least remember him with a moment of silence."

A post left on Bluhm's blog April 17 characterized Bluhm as "intelligent, thoughtful, considerate, and polite in all of his postings."

"Anything he wrote, you wanted to know what he was saying because he was always right," the poster, Bill Ferris, said, according to the Free Press.

Bluhm had accepted an engineering job in Baltimore and secured an apartment there with plans to move in July, The New York Times said.

"He deserved every good thing in the world, and we are all shocked and deeply saddened to have lost him," Hannah Barnhill, one of his friends, told The Times.
--30--


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

Relief team 'wanted to be available'
by Brandon Pickett/SBCV
Date: April 18, 2007 - Wednesday

BLACKSBURG, Va. (BP)--Less than 200 yards from the key scene in the worst mass shooting in U.S. history sits a Southern Baptist Disaster Relief trailer. Volunteers from various Southern Baptist Conservatives of Virginia churches were mobilized as the tragic news began to unfold from Virginia Tech; they arrived at the campus the morning of April 17.

The volunteers are trained to serve in natural disasters, but this one was manmade. So when the SBCV feeding unit first arrived in Blacksburg, coordinators said they didn't know how God was going to use them, they just wanted to be ready.

"We wanted to be available for whatever needs developed," said Jack Noble, SBCV area missionary. "Part of responding to an event like this is just bring what you have and be ready."

And that's what they did. The SBCV feeding unit provided meals for about 200 officers who have been stationed on the campus around the clock and for law enforcement workers connected with President Bush's appearance at an afternoon convocation to begin the community's healing process. Meals also were served to some of the students attending a candlelight vigil. Virginia Tech officials permitted the DR team on campus to set up a feeding line in the shadow of Norris Hall -- less than 200 yards from where 30 people were killed on Monday morning.

SBCV officials also were asked if they could transport grieving parents who had just flown into town and had no other way to campus. Coordinators contacted area churches who came with their church vans to shuttle the families.

The Baptist volunteers, many of whom came from hours away, say they feel privileged that God is using them in the midst of tragedy. "When I first heard about this, I thought right away about how could I help," said Mark Gore from North Main Baptist Church in Danville.

"I just feel led that that's what I need to do with my time -- be a good steward of what He's given me. My biggest prayer is that God would give me wisdom to say the right thing to these hurting people," Gore said.

Noble said the relief effort is a long way from over, because the needs go deeper than food and transportation. "The best thing you can do is show up prepared and ready to respond and that's what we did -- met the needs. And that's what we're continuing to do," Noble said. "We are even now surveying the campus, talking to students and teachers, looking for opportunities to serve and share the Good News of Jesus Christ to a hurting community."
--30--
Brandon Pickett is a media missionary with the Southern Baptist Conservatives of Virginia state convention.


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

Long-term student needs get BGAV focus
by Erin Roach
Date: April 18, 2007 - Wednesday

RICHMOND, Va. (BP)--The Virginia Tech campus currently is saturated with media representatives and an array of volunteers and professionals who want to provide help to students and families devastated by the killing rampage.

"The support system that they have right now will not last them for as long as the trauma is going to last," Terry Raines, disaster relief coordinator for the Baptist General Association of Virginia mission board, told Baptist Press.

"In two to three weeks the students are going to disperse to go home. They're going to be away from one another who have shared this experience and they will be away from the crisis care support network that's in place there on campus for them," Raines said.

With students' long-term needs as the focus, the mission board activated two of its crisis care chaplains to develop resources that will be given to students, their parents and their home churches.

The resources will describe secondary stress, which Raines said is "sort of the common cold version of post-traumatic stress." Chaplains will explain what symptoms to watch for and what students and parents can do to work through their feelings in a healthy way, he said.

"What do you say to these folks? What do you not say to these folks? How do you respond to questions?" Raines cited as some of the topics the resources for parents and churches will address.

"Then at the end, it will have some referral-type resources," he said. "For the version that is sent to the churches in Virginia we will have names and contact numbers of crisis care chaplains that we have trained that are in the areas of those home churches."

As sponsor of the Baptist Campus Ministry at Virginia Tech, the mission board has been working through the staff and students there to minister to the broader campus community. Raines said BCM staff members have developed over the years relationships with the university administration and other campus organizations, and that network will be utilized in distributing the resources developed by BGAV chaplains.

Jim Burton, senior director of the partnership mobilization division at the North American Mission Board, said the resource development "opens up a whole new dimension of long-term recovery for Southern Baptists, and I appreciate the leadership the Virginia Baptist Mission Board is giving here."

Burton has asked Virginia leaders to tell about their plans at an upcoming national meeting of disaster response volunteers.

"I think this is a good learning curve for us because it takes a long time for people to get over this, and we're very concerned about the students and how they respond once they get home and more of the realities begin to sink in," Burton said.

After a conference call with Raines and Jack Noble, disaster relief coordinator for the Southern Baptist Conservatives of Virginia, Burton told BP something he appreciated Noble noticing.

"One of the things that Jack Noble pointed out is the agencies that had a presence on that campus before the crisis are the ones that are going to have a presence long-term," Burton said. "I think there are a lot of people showing up in Blacksburg right now, and in every disaster a lot of times that adds to the confusion.

"But I think this points back to the strength of Southern Baptists having Baptist Collegiate Ministries," Burton said. "The fact that it was so well established at Virginia Tech, this doesn't give us a short-term presence. This gives us a history and a future to build upon to help this community put themselves back together."

The BGAV's disaster relief department also is assessing the need for a temporary childcare unit that could be deployed to the university campus to assist people who are volunteering their time to help students, Burton said.

A disaster relief kitchen unit from the SBCV continues to feed law enforcement officials and other people on campus, Burton said, adding that Southern Baptists are working alongside the American Red Cross and the Salvation Army in the effort and that Wednesday night will probably be the last time they need to prepare meals.
--30--


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

CULTURE DIGEST: 'Voluntourism' a new trend for American vacationers; ...
by Erin Roach
Date: April 18, 2007 - Wednesday

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--More Americans are opting to spend their vacation time participating in what Christians have known for years as mission work -- building houses and schools or visiting orphanages.

The new term for this trend is "voluntourism," and some say it was spurred by the tragedies of 9/11, the Southeast Asia tsunami and Hurricane Katrina. College students are choosing charitable or humanitarian work over a week at the beach during spring break, the Associated Press reported, and baby boomers with money to spend and time to donate also are fueling the trend.

"Immersion with volunteerism is so much more than you could get by sitting on a beach or on a tour bus," Sally Brown of Ambassadors for Children told AP, adding that the number of travel organizations that offer voluntourism trips has probably doubled in the past three years.

The nonprofit Ambassadors for Children lets participants mix purpose with pleasure by boarding them at a four-star hotel in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, and allowing them to spend three of the eight days visiting an orphanage, library and preschool, AP said.

Mike Wood spent a recent vacation in Honduras, building latrines and pig pens in a village without electricity, running water or cell phone reception, AP said. He spent the days digging holes, pouring cement and cutting wood, and he managed to sneak in some visits to nearby Mayan ruins.

"It's hard work, but there's nothing to worry about," Wood, a history teacher, told AP. "No one can get ahold of you so you're not worrying about the stock market or worrying about family too much. There's no communication so it's a very nice break from the pressures of the job."

Some participants told AP that voluntourism is more draining than traditional vacations but much more rewarding. 

"To see the people's faces -- they were so happy we were helping them. That's something you don't forget," said Peggy Fuller, a North Carolina dermatologist who used her sabbatical to build houses in Sri Lanka.

Others spend their time working as mentors to disadvantaged youth, tutoring and learning how the less fortunate of the world live, AP reported March 29.

"You feel that you're helping people and you're also getting to learn about a different culture, whether it's West Virginia or Tanzania," Alyssa Stahl, a Chicago banker, said.

ACLU TARGETS INVOCATIONS AT CIVIL MEETINGS -- The American Civil Liberties Union is intimidating local governments into believing it's against the law to deliver a sectarian prayer at the beginning of a city or county meeting, and the Alliance Defense Fund is offering legal assistance for governments that want to continue the practice.

"It's amazing that, in a country founded on religious liberty, the right to open a public meeting with a prayer would be under attack," ADF Senior Legal Counsel Mike Johnson said in a news release. "But that is exactly what the ACLU has been doing the past several months -- using its familiar tactics of fear, intimidation and disinformation to force municipalities into passive compliance with its agenda to eliminate our First Liberty, religious freedom."

City council members is Thomasville, N.C., voted 6-1 in March to adopt a prayer policy drafted by ADF that will allow the prayers to continue in compliance with the U.S. Constitution.

"This is a freedom of speech issue, pure and simple," councilman Dwight Cornelison said. "It's our hope that other municipalities will stand up to the ACLU's threats and realize that when the ACLU comes calling, their constitutional rights are under attack."

In Yadkin County, N.C., officials gave in to ACLU threats and decided to drop all references to Christianity from the opening invocations at county board meetings. They think prayer is just as effective if a specific deity is never mentioned, according to a report by McClatchy Newspapers. 

"It's some sort of moment where you stop and think about what you're doing and hope that what you're doing is the right thing for the county," commissioner Christopher Chad Wagoner said.

Johnson of ADF encouraged other local governments concerned about the constitutionality of their invocations to contact the legal alliance.

"ADF and its allies will continue to offer assistance to any municipality which finds itself under attack from the ACLU for simply continuing a practice that the Supreme Court knows is 'deeply embedded in the history and tradition of our country," Johnson said.

IMUS' REMARKS REFLECT CULTURE, CWA SAYS -- When radio host Don Imus used a racial epithet to refer to members of the Rutgers University women's basketball team, his remarks were indicative of a culture saturated with demeaning rap lyrics, Concerned Women for America said April 12.

"Both Imus' remarks and pop culture laud the objectification of women," Janice Crouse of CWA said. "We hope that Imus' remarks about the talented women on Rutgers' basketball team will be the tipping point that ends such language and prejudice in American media.

"MTV and other television and radio stations regularly air lyrics that promote selling women as prostitutes and are filled with degrading words about women," Crouse added. "Last year's Academy Award winning song lauded the pimp culture. It's time to say 'enough already!'"

Morality in Media joined CWA in noting that popular culture has made trash talk acceptable among adults and youth alike in America today.

"Companies that pulled ads from the Don Imus Show are to be commended, but companies should also pull ads from music channels that daily pour forth a cultural swill that makes the Don Imus insult look tame by comparison," Robert Peters of Morality in Media said.

"The outrage directed at Imus is more than justified, but it will prove to be largely a hollow victory if corporate America continues to give rappers who degrade women, glamorize criminal and other anti-social behavior and promote racial stereotypes a high-profit, high-profile national platform to corrupt the minds and hearts of children and to pollute mainstream culture," Peters said.

BARNA TOUTS 'REVOLUTIONARY PARENTING' -- Parents who faithfully and consistently apply God's words on life and family have a better chance at raising desirable children, Christian pollster George Barna says.

An April 9 news release promoting Barna's new book "Revolutionary Parenting" is short on polling data, but it mentions three dominant approaches to parenting -- parenting by default, trial-and-error parenting and revolutionary parenting.

"Revolutionary parenting, which is based on one's faith in God, makes parenting a life priority," Barna, chairman of The Barna Group, said. "Those who engage in revolutionary parenting define success as intentionally facilitating faith-based transformation in the lives of their children, rather than simply accepting the aging and survival of the child as a satisfactory result."

Barna sought out young adults who considered knowing and serving God their top life priority, possessed a biblical worldview and believed that their main purpose in life is to love God. Then he worked back to research what parenting characteristics produced such children.

One of the most sobering outcomes of the research, the news release said, was that less than one out of every 10 young adults in the United States meets those simple criteria.

For more information, visit barna.org.
--30--


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

Travel to SBC includes tour options
by Staff
Date: April 18, 2007 - Wednesday

SAN ANTONIO (BP)--The Alamo and other historic and cultural sites around San Antonio will be featured on tours offered to messengers and their families in conjunction with the June 12-13 annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention.

The tours, by Daisy Tours of San Antonio, will be offered Sunday, June 10, and Wednesday, June 13, from 2-5 p.m.

In addition to the Alamo, featured sites will include Mission San Jose and other 18th-century missions in San Antonio; the San Fernando Cathedral; the 65,000-seat Alamodome; the 750-foot-tall Tower of the Americas; and the El Mercado Mexican market.

Three different tours, each with its own theme, are available: "Hello San Antonio," "Viva San Antonio" and "Missions of San Antonio."

Further tour information and registration information can be accessed at www.sbc.net by clicking on the SBC annual meeting link in the center of the page and then "San Antonio Attractions," which links to the tours and various other points of interest in the San Antonio area. Daisy Tours also can be reached by phone at 1-800-285-8601 or 210-225-8600.

"Planning for the SBC annual meeting," convention manager John R. (Jack) Wilkerson noted, "has been deliberate in our efforts to include activities for the entire family, in addition to new efforts to facilitate attendees with special needs."

Wilkerson, vice president for business and finance with the SBC Executive Committee, recapped various travel options to San Antonio for the SBC annual meeting in the Henry B. Gonzalez Convention Center; the June 9 Crossover evangelistic outreach; and various pre-SBC meetings such as the Pastors' Conference and Woman's Missionary Union missions celebration.

San Antonio is served by most major air carriers and thus air travel should be relatively easy, Wilkerson said.

For those planning to drive, he noted that downtown parking may be limited, thus pushing parking rates for most hotels to $10-$20 per day and public parking to $6-$10. Most hotels in the airport area offer free parking to guests of the hotel, he added.

Shuttles will be available to and from most San Antonio hotels for the SBC sessions and the Sunday-Monday Pastors' Conference in the Henry B. Gonzalez Convention Center and the Woman's Mission Union meeting in the Marriott Rivercenter Hotel.

Wilkerson noted that the Marriott Rivercenter, Marriott Riverwalk, Hilton Palacio del Rio and the LaQuinta Inn & Suites Convention Center will not be shuttled as they are located adjacent to the convention center.

Hotel shuttle tickets will be available at the convention center information desk for $10, with children 12 and under riding free when accompanied by parents who purchase tickets.

Childcare (birth-3 years) and children's conferences (ages 4-12) have been planned for the San Antonio meeting, with registration information available at www.sbc.net, the Southern Baptist Convention's website.

Online registration for churches sending messengers to the annual meeting opened March 1 and can be accessed at www.sbcannualmeeting.net. Last year, the fourth year for online service, 80.1 percent of the messengers to the annual meeting in Greensboro, N.C., registered online, up from 79 percent for the 2005 meeting in Nashville, Tenn. The traditional registration method also is available for those churches that are unable or may not opt to access the online registration. Registration cards are available from state convention offices.
--30--


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

DOCTRINE: Are you living under a curse?
by Jimmy Draper
Date: April 18, 2007 - Wednesday

<i>EDITORS' NOTE: Today is the third day in a week-long series of columns on biblical doctrine by former LifeWay Christian Resources President Jimmy Draper. The series coincides with "Baptist Doctrine Study" week within the Southern Baptist Convention.</i>


NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--I was once told that most, if not all, Christians are plagued with one or more curses, and that until these curses are broken we can expect all sorts of serious problems in our lives. 

A few of the indications that Christians live under curses, according to some, are mental and emotional breakdowns, chronic illnesses, miscarriages, marriage and family problems, financial difficulties, headaches or even being clumsy and accident prone. One proponent of this teaching holds that curses touch the life of every person.

It's also been said that if these curses are not broken, they are passed down from generation to generation indefinitely. Thus, I may suffer for a curse placed upon my ancestors. We are told that our words can cause a curse. Tell a child he is a poor student, and he will be. Tell your husband that he looks sick, and he will be. 

The claim is that we unintentionally can put a curse on ourselves or others simply by the improper use of our words. If only these curses could be broken we could be restored physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually.

But what is the biblical response to all of this? All true curses in the Bible were invoked by God or in behalf of God by His prophets or apostles. This is very important. Satan and demons are real and they are working against believers, but no curse is attributed to Satan anywhere in the Bible. So there is, in fact, no such thing as a Satanic or demonic curse. 

When God pronounced a curse in the Bible, it was a divine judgment upon sin. No human being could break a curse pronounced by God; he could only submit to it and repent under it. Sometimes the curse or judgment was pronounced by the servant of God as in Deuteronomy 27-28. Blessing or cursing in life was all conditioned upon the people's obedience to God. When God's people obeyed Him, He blessed them. Whey they disobeyed Him, He brought divine judgment or discipline upon them. It is the same today for us.

This curse of God is not a curse in the sense of an evil spell, but simply the judgment of God. The proper response to the judgment of God is repentance, not exorcism. The Apostle Paul even pronounced a curse in Galatians 1:8-9 as an act of judgment upon false doctrine. 

Sometimes the curse of God referred to the judged thing itself. For instance, in Deuteronomy 7:26 the Israelites were told to not bring an "abhorrent" or "cursed" thing into the house. In Joshua 6 the children of Israel were warned about taking plunder from Jericho -- and injunction Achan violated. The people then became the object of God's judgment because of Achan's disobedience. These curses are real -- genuine. But they were divine curses, a synonym for divine judgment, not a curse from Satan.

There are no examples in the Old Testament or New Testament of a saved person who was under a Satanic curse which had to be broken by some kind of Christian exorcism, and there are no instructions in Scripture about how to conduct such an exorcism. If this was one of the major problems facing Christians, surely God would have given us clear instructions about how to deal with it.

Most conclusions about the need to exorcise curses are drawn by teachers of this false doctrine through their own personal experiences, rather than from biblical theology. God alone truly "curses" and it is a revelation of His justice when His people have failed to respond to Him in absolute obedience. 

"Curse" in the Old Testament is summed up in the statement from Jeremiah ll:3, "Let a curse be on the man who does not obey the words of this covenant." The New Testament likewise supports this idea:

"For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, because it is written: Cursed is everyone who does not continue doing every thing written in the book of the law. Now it is clear that no one is justified before God by the law, because the righteous will live by faith. But the law is not based on faith; instead, the one who does these things will live by them. Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, because it is written: Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree" (Galatians 3:10-13).

According to some, every curse has a cause and we must find the cause in order to properly deal with the curse. Proponents of this wayward theology often provide Proverbs 26:2 as a prooftext. Ironically, this verse claims precisely the opposite of what such false teachers espouse and actually destroys their entire argument. The Hebrew text literally reads, "Like a sparrow in its flitting, like a swallow in its flying, a curse that is causeless does not alight." That means a curse without divine sanction never lands on anyone or anything. In other words, it has no effect.

Can criticism or negative words curse another person? Some people claim that Ecclesiastes 10:20 teaches as much. However, this verse in no way suggests that a curse could be invoked on a king or a rich person by the spoken word. It simply means that if they hear what you say ("a bird of the sky may carry the message"), they will respond -- and probably not favorably. Be careful what you say!

Furthermore, if criticism caused a curse, a public figure, like a pastor, would be covered up with curses and would have time for nothing but around-the-clock exorcism. Thank God that isn't necessary!

What about the idea that curses can traverse generations? In Exodus 20:5-6, God said, "... I the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the fathers' sin, to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing faithful love to a thousand generations of those who love Me and keep My commands." Consider the fall of Adam (Genesis 3:14-17) in which the curse of death is pronounced as a judgment of God upon sin, and it continues from generation to generation. 

The Hebrew phrase "to the third and fourth generation" is an idiom meaning "indefinitely." Certain diseases can be hereditary. The pollution of the earth affects future generations. But there is a limit to this. It is true that we may suffer the natural effects of our ancestor's sins just as indicated, but that does not extend to God's direct judgment. There may be a genetic cause, but there isn't a direct judgment of the children as a result of the sins of their parents. We are accountable to God for our own sins.

Spiritual warfare is real. However, God has provided for this spiritual warfare and has given us a more than adequate defense in the form of our spiritual armor, described in Ephesians 6:10-17. We do not need additional procedures for dealing with "evil curses." When we confess our sins, repent of them and confess Jesus as our Lord, we enter into full and unrestricted freedom and blessing!
--30--
Jimmy Draper is the former president of LifeWay Christian Resources.


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

Living in enemy territory
by Don Pucik
Date: April 18, 2007 - Wednesday

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (BP)--It has happened once again. Evil has surfaced unmistakably in a form everyone can see. The world will struggle with this for days to come, asking, "Why would a good and loving God allow such evil to happen?" Meanwhile the parents and friends will weep, struggling with their own questions drawn from a darkened, bottomless well of unspeakable pain and disorientation.

For believers it is a harsh reminder that the world we live in is at war. Evil is not simply an idea or an act. Evil is fueled by an individual consciousness nearly as old as creation itself. The early Christians never asked, "Why did God allow....?" They knew better.

The world we see is profoundly affected by a world we cannot see. Consider such Scripture passages as:

"And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience" (Ephesians 2:1-2).

"Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places" (Ephesians 6:11-12).

"For we wanted to come to you -- I, Paul, more than once -- and yet Satan hindered us" (1 Thessalonians 2:18).

"Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you" (James 4:7).

"Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour" (1 Peter 5:8).

We tend to see everything bad that happens in terms of something God allows or disallows. Yet, we also fiercely (and correctly) hold on to the idea of personal choice. We choose -- which makes us responsible for our actions. We can be influenced by evil, but we are ultimately responsible for the evil we choose to do.

Angels make choices too, just like us. Millennia ago, the Bible explains that some of God's creatures rebelled. The angels sinned. Man sinned. The world as God intended devolved into moral and spiritual chaos.

Jesus came to rescue us from the enemies of our soul, both in this world and the world we cannot see.

It is true that God is sovereign. He is the Lord of Lords. He is the King. Jesus came announcing the Kingdom of God (Matthew 4:17). He taught us to pray that God's Kingdom would break through into this world, demonstrating that He is the King (Luke 11:2). He "bound the strong man" and demonstrated God's reign by restoring creation and creatures to a condition reflective of God's rule (Matthew 12:28-30), then expects you and me to "gather with Him" -- doing the same kind of ministry today.

Jesus calls the devil the "ruler of this world" (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11). The devil tempts Jesus by offering Him the very kingdoms under his control in exchange for worship (Luke 4:5-7): If the devil does not control the kingdoms of the world, how could Jesus be tempted? He was tempted only if it was a legitimate offer by the ruler of this world.

Jesus calls Satan a liar and a murderer (John 8:44), who steals truth from the hearts of people who do not know God (Matthew 13:19), keeping them blind to the reality of a living God (2 Corinthians 4:4). He animates evil in the world, influencing and empowering those who do not know God to reject God and do everything that is offensive to God (1 John 5:19).

In the face of clear, biblical teaching, the church too often slumbers on, fumbling around trying to answers questions about "why did God allow this to happen?" rather than running to the secret place, combating the mortal enemy of the souls of mankind. We are called to do battle.

When we are responsive to Jesus and doing life under His directional control, Jesus said the gates of hell would not be able to withstand the forward movement of the church (Matthew 16:18). Far from being on the defensive, the church Jesus builds goes on the offense against an unseen army of evil at work in this world.

C. S. Lewis writes in "Mere Christianity:"

"One of the things that surprised me when I first read the New Testament seriously was that it talked so much about a Dark Power in the universe -- a mighty evil spirit who was held to be the Power behind death and disease, and sin. The difference is that Christianity thinks this Dark Power was created by God, and was good when he was created, and went wrong. Christianity agrees with Dualism that this universe is at war. But it does not think this is a war between independent powers. It thinks it is a civil war, a rebellion, and that we are living in a part of the universe occupied by the rebel. Enemy-occupied territory -- that is what this world is."

Do you realize where you are living today? The horrific acts of violence at Virginia Tech are a reminder that there is no place where you and I can sit down, relax and forget about the imminent threat of evil. You and I are doing life in the middle of a battlefield that is raging all around us every day -- right now.
--30--
Don Pucik is associate executive director of the Arkansas Baptist State Convention.



