The controversial statements came from pastors of churches not affiliated with the 16-million-member Southern Baptist Convention but “they still stand as reminders to us — not only pastors, but all believers — that above all else we must represent the heart of Christ,” wrote Bob Stith, a retired pastor in Southlake, Texas, who has served the SBC in the gender issues role since 2007.

Stith, who has said he was once “negative and condemning” toward homosexuals, wrote in a May 23 statement released by the SBC’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission that Southern Baptists seek to be “proactive and redemptive in reaching out to those who struggle with unwanted same-sex attractions.”

“From the video clips it would appear that both men lead fairly large churches. I wonder how many people in those congregations were gripped with the fear that their personal struggle might be discovered,” Stith wrote. “And how many have loved ones involved in homosexuality? I wonder about the loneliness and isolation they must have experienced, knowing they could never share those burdens.”

Pastor Charles Worley of Providence Road Baptist Church in Maiden, N.C., described on one website as an independent, fundamental “KJV-only” congregation, drew attention from CNN’s Anderson Cooper and from other national media outlets after his May 13 rant went viral over the Web after he said homosexuals should be rounded up behind an electric fence.

It’s not the first time Worley has targeted homosexuals, with Worley referencing lynching in a 1978 sermon linked from the website sermonaudio.com and reported by the New York Daily News on May 23.

Another pastor, Sean Harris of Berean Baptist Church in Fayetteville, N.C., has since expressed regret for his words, claiming he was taken out of context and admitting he spoke carelessly after garnering attention on YouTube.

During the sermon leading up to the vote on a North Carolina marriage protection amendment, which voters passed, Harris told his church that when young boys begin acting effeminate, dads should squash those tendencies by striking their sons.

But in a subsequent YouTube video after news media scrutiny and outcry from homosexual activists, Harris tells an interviewer: “I have learned a lot from this, Justin. And I’ve learned that I need to be more careful and deliberate with my words. And I hope that if I take away anything from this incident, that I will be even better and more deliberate, more careful, with exactly the words I select.”

The SBC’s Stith responded to Harris by stating: “It is encouraging that Mr. Harris has backed away from those comments and pledged to be more careful. The real problem is the lack of understanding as to why this is problematic. Too many people, pastors and otherwise, have either said things like this or thought them, which is why I have consistently urged Southern Baptist entities to provide more training for our people.

“Don Schmierer’s excellent book ‘An Ounce of Prevention’ should be required reading for pastors — and parents. While this example is certainly extreme, I’ve heard far too many stories through the years of men and women who were wounded by well-meaning adults who employed some variation of this approach.”

Stith said he would “caution all pastors to be aware that in this cyber-savvy world, anything you say can be worldwide within moments. Paul says, ‘Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt’ (Colossians 4:6). Will your words meet that standard? Will they hold out hope to anyone in bondage? Will they bring honor to Christ?”

For more information on the SBC’s ministry to people struggling with same-sex attraction and gender issues, visit the website www.sbcthewayout.com.

Bob Stith’s Statement

Jerry Pierce is managing editor of the Southern Baptist Texan, newsjournal of the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention. The complete statement from Bob Stith, SBC national strategist for gender issues, reads as follows:

“Those of us who have served on the Southern Baptist Convention’s Task Force on Ministry to Homosexuals have as a stated objective to help Southern Baptists be ‘proactive and redemptive in reaching out to those who struggle with unwanted same-sex attractions.’ Our goal has always been to help Southern Baptists and others develop compassionate hearts for those who struggle and their families.

“Unfortunately, the watching world too often has witnessed examples of the opposite. While I am grateful that the two most recent instances were not in Southern Baptist churches, they still stand as reminders to us—not only pastors, but all believers—that above all else we must represent the heart of Christ.

“The pastors’ comments that have rocketed across the Internet and been featured in so many news outlets also show a complete lack of understanding of how to minister to those struggling with this particular temptation. Real masculinity cannot be stereotyped. Attempting to force a sensitive son to share all of his father’s interests is a recipe for disaster. Children desperately need the loving involvement of their fathers, not their condemnation. (See “Parenting the Sensitive Soul” by Ricky Chelette.)

“Ironically, one pastor seemed to be arguing for a genetic causation. How else to explain his statement that the death of all homosexuals in one generation would eliminate future struggles with homosexuality? Even the American Psychological Association no longer argues for strict genetic causation. The sad truth is that the attitudes reflected in these comments are far more likely to exacerbate problems than to help them.

“From the video clips it would appear that both men pastor fairly large churches. I wonder how many people in those congregations were gripped with the fear that their personal struggle might be discovered. And how many have loved ones involved in homosexuality? I wonder about the loneliness and isolation they must have experienced, knowing they could never share those burdens.

“I would especially caution all pastors to be aware that in this cyber-savvy world, anything you say can be worldwide within moments. Paul says, ‘Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt’ (Colossians 4:6). Will your words meet that standard? Will they hold out hope to anyone in bondage? Will they bring honor to Christ?”

But largely underplayed in the major media’s re-telling of Chen’s story is the central reason he fell victim to imprisonment and torture at the hands of Chinese authorities: his efforts to spotlight his government’s forced abortion and sterilization practices.

A self-trained lawyer left blind since youth as the result of a childhood illness, Chen set out to lift the veil on the Chinese government’s coercive actions to enforce its barbaric one-child policy. In 2005, Chen released his findings, catalogued in part in a report by Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, an organization committed “to oppose forced abortion and human trafficking in China.”

What he documented is unnerving: 130,000 forced abortions and sterilizations in one city alone, Linyi in China’s Shandong Province. As part of his detailed investigation, he personally recorded the names and addresses of thousands of victims in his small region, according to LifeNews.com.

For more than three decades, the Chinese government has strictly monitored who among its citizenry can have children and under what circumstances. Urban-residing couples generally are restricted to one child under the 1980 policy. Couples living in rural areas, as well as the disabled and blind, like Chen, are often permitted two children.

What China’s brutal population control has bred is widespread coerced abortion, forced sterilization, infanticide, abandonment and female gendercide—the sex-selection abortion of female babies in favor of males. By some accounts, up to 37,000 unborn babies are aborted in China each day.

According to a former health secretary in the Chinese government, commenting last fall during a private House Budget Committee hearing, China’s one-child policy has likely prevented the birth of more than 400 million babies. That’s the equivalent of the entire U.S. population—plus an additional nearly 100 million more. The policy has given way to a widening disparity between the number of males and females in the Communist nation.

According to a 2010 China census, more than 118 males were born that year in China for every 100 females, a much higher ratio than the natural rate of 105 males for every 100 females born. This gender gap has contributed to a rise in the sex trafficking industry and a shortage of brides.

On paper, the numbers are alarming in themselves. But Chen, admirably, has helped to put a human face—thousands of human faces—to the reality.

His whistleblowing landed him in prison in 2006 for more than four years, followed by house arrest, where he, along with his wife and two children, endured strict monitoring and physical abuse.

But the beatings inflicted on Chen by Chinese authorities did not break his courage. On April 22, he began a journey for his own freedom, scaling the wall surrounding his home, undetected, before setting off on an hours-long walk and meeting a waiting vehicle that whisked him to the security of the U.S. embassy. His plight then became a news sensation half-a-world away.

On May 19, nearly one month after breaking free from Chinese surveillance—and breaking his foot in the process—he arrived with his wife and two daughters on U.S. soil. Among those welcoming Chen to the United States, where he will study with a fellowship at New York University, was Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), who has been instrumental in telling Chen’s story.

“After years of enduring physical and psychological torture, imprisonment, and hate, the man, Chen Guangcheng, who defended Chinese women from the crime of forced abortion is finally free,” Rep. Smith, who nominated Chen for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2010, said upon his arrival.

“Great human rights leaders are never separated from the noble causes they espoused,” continued Rep. Smith, adding, “Chen’s cause is ending China’s One Child Policy and forced abortion.”

As chairman of both the Congressional-Executive Commission on China and the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health and Human Rights, Rep. Smith held a pair of hearings earlier this month calling for Chen’s freedom and protection. On both occasions, Chen himself phoned in unexpectedly from China. The calls came directly to the cellphone of fellow Chinese human rights activist Bob Fu, founder and president of the Texas-based China Aid Association, who was present at the hearings to address lawmakers on the plight of Fu.

“I am not a hero,” said Chen through Fu’s translation. “I’m just doing what my conscience asks me to do. I cannot be silent when facing these evils against women and children.”

The United States should not be silent about China’s one-child policy either. Though physically blind, Chen, for one, is not blind to the evil of China’s brutal forced abortion practices.

The new chairman, Richard D. Piles, pastor of First Baptist Church in Camden, Ark., circulated an email notice May 21 of the change in trustee leadership.

Piles, who has been serving as the ERLC trustee vice chairman, noted in the email, “The [ERLC trustees’] Executive Committee remains committed to their previously scheduled task of making a public report by June 1 regarding Dr. Land and charges against him of racism and plagiarism.”

Richard Land, the ERLC’s president since 1988, is undergoing trustee scrutiny after a March 31 radio broadcast that sparked controversy over his remarks about the Trayvon Martin shooting and prompted an allegation of plagiarism over the use of a source he did not identify on the broadcast.

The former ERLC trustee chairman, Steve Faith, a retired pastor and director of missions from New Albany, Ind., resigned from the trustee board, citing “his desire to commit more of his time and energy toward the local church where he is a member as they are currently without a pastor,” Piles stated in the email.

Both Piles and Faith were elected to their ERLC leadership positions during the trustees’ September 2011 meeting in Nashville, Tenn.

An ad hoc committee created by the ERLC trustee executive committee on April 18 is investigating the plagiarism allegation involving material Land failed to attribute to a Washington Times columnist on the March 31 broadcast.

Faith was among 12 participants in a May 2 meeting when concerns of African American leaders in the SBC were voiced to Land, prompting a five-part, two-page apology by Land that was issued May 9.

Faith issued a statement later on May 9 that the ad hoc committee is working “with due diligence and will bring a thorough and complete report to the ERLC Executive Committee who will prayerfully consider the findings. The ERLC Executive Committee will bring a report to the full board of trustees and then release a public statement by June 1.

“It is important to understand that our Southern Baptist polity places Dr. Land under the authority of the ERLC trustees who are elected by and accountable directly to the Convention,” Faith said. “The trustees are aware of their responsibility to the Convention and to the watching world.”

In addition to Piles, other members of the ERLC executive committee are Donald L. Mason, a Georgia layman; Stephen W. Long, a director of missions in Ohio; Christopher L. Slaughter, a West Virginia layman; and Stephen G. Veteto, a Colorado seminary educator.

Art Toalston is editor of Baptist Press.

The full text of Richard Piles’ statement follows:

“On Friday, May 18, Dr. Steve Faith resigned from his position of chairman and trustee of the ERLC. Dr. Faith cited his desire to commit more of his time and energy toward the local church where he is a member as they are currently without a pastor.”

“Dr. Richard Piles, who was previously serving as vice-chairman, has assumed the role of chairman. The Executive Committee remains committed to their previously scheduled task of making a public report by June 1 regarding Dr. Land and charges against him of racism and plagiarism.”

Dr. Richard D. Piles, Pastor
FBC Camden, AR

By a 61 to 39 percent vote, North Carolina citizens chose May 8 to protect marriage as only the union of one man and one woman. One day later, President Obama announced he had “evolved” in adopting a different position, one affirming same-sex “marriage.”

“At a certain point, I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married,” said the president May 9 in an ABC News interview. In fact, he has come nearly full circle on the issue, with a history that includes expressing a belief that “marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”

The pair of actions—North Carolina’s affirmation of traditional marriage and the president’s redefinition of it—help comprise the latest episode in the intensifying battle for the family.

“It saddens me and grieves me that the president has endorsed same-sex ‘marriage,’” said Richard Land, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. “This is an issue that every time the American people have had a chance to vote on, including [in North Carolina], they have voted overwhelmingly to keep marriage as between a man and a woman.”

The Tar Heel state voters who said yes to God’s definition of marriage joined voters in 29 other states that have chosen to enshrine traditional marriage in their state constitutions. Put another way, marriage maintained its perfect batting average—now 32 for 32—when the question of same-sex “marriage” has been placed before the people on the ballot in some fashion. Voters in four other states—Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington—will likely have the opportunity to vote on the marriage issue in November.

The North Carolina vote came amid same-sex “marriage” advocates’ continued suggestion that, pointing to some recent polls, support for protecting traditional marriage is on the rocks. Reality, though, is not always what polls suggest. Just before North Carolinians headed to the polls May 8, a Public Policy poll showed the amendment winning by a 57 to 39 margin—four percentage points closer than the actual final 22-point spread. This has been true elsewhere. And the margins of victory have seldom even been close. Of the 30 states that have voted on constitutional marriage amendments, only two—California and South Dakota—decided the question by less than a double-digit margin. On average, states have approved amendments with 67 percent of voter support.

Meanwhile, a different message echoes from the nation’s capital. On Monday, President Obama followed announcement of his shift on marriage by decrying the Defense of Marriage Act, stating, “Congress is clearly on notice that I think it’s a bad idea.” Naturally, this step follows the Justice Department’s announcement in February 2011 that it would no longer defend the 1996 law—specifically the portion defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman for federal purposes—against legal challenges; the law popularly known as DOMA also protects states from being forced to recognize same-sex “marriages” performed elsewhere.

Repeal of DOMA would put marriage on a collision course with the states. The deceptively titled Respect for Marriage Act (S. 598) introduced in the Senate would do just that. Under such a repeal measure, the 30 states with constitutional amendments preserving traditional marriage could quickly see their line in the sand crossed by the federal government. With DOMA dismantled, states would lack federal protection in refusing to accept same-sex “marriages” performed elsewhere.

A radical shift in a host of other things would result as well. Financial benefits, including health care coverage, could be mandated to “wedded” same-sex couples. Business owners’ conscience rights could be trampled under foot. Elementary school textbooks would be rewritten to teach a new “normality” of two mommies or two daddies. To be sure, myriad laws would necessarily be changed to reflect a supposed legislative enlightenment on what constitutes marriage.

For millennia, civil governments have understood the profound implications of marriage on society. That’s why governments—apart from in just a few nations in recent years—have chosen not to expand the marriage institution beyond the recognition of one man and one woman.

To be sure, marriage isn’t much ado about nothing. As one considers its impact on children and the future of society, the marriage vow “I do” has much ado about most everything.

Nancy Keenan, head of one of the country’s leading abortion rights organizations for nearly eight years, will leave her post at the end of the year, The Washington Post reported May 10.

Also in this edition: PepsiCo halts research using aborted tissue; boycott ends, Unborn babies recognized inside White House, not outside, Miss Delaware stands for life despite discouragement, and Kansas Republican sidelines pro-life proposal.

In an interview with the newspaper, Keenan, 60, said she is concerned about the pro-choice movement’s future and believes younger leaders are needed to offset the rising tide of pro-lifers among Americans under 30 years of age. NARAL’s polling has shown 51 percent of pro-life millennials consider abortion a “very important” voting issue, while only 26 percent of abortion rights supporters under 30 think of it in that way, according to The Post.

“There is an intensity gap between our side, being pro-choice, and the other side,” Keenan told the newspaper.

Millennials will constitute 40 percent of the voting public by 2020, according to The Post.

“This issue has got to be a voting issue for them,” Keenan said. “If we want to continue protecting abortion rights in this country, this is so clearly the case.”

She said, “There’s an opportunity for a new and younger leader. Roe v. Wade is 40 in January. It’s time for a new leader to come in and, basically, be the person for the next 40 years of protecting reproductive choice.”

Pro-life blogger Jill Stanek wrote in response to Keenan’s announcement, “[T]he fact is the pro-abortion movement is suffering attrition. It has killed off its future supporters.

“Furthermore, it continues to kill off 3,300 more chips off the ole’ block every day. So the ‘intensity gap’ is only going to widen, thanks to the birth gap,” said Stanek, whose whistleblowing as a nurse helped bring about passage of a federal law protecting babies who survive abortions.

PepsiCo halts research using aborted tissue; boycott ends

PepsiCo will no longer permit research for its products using tissue from unborn children.

The soft drink company announced it was halting the use of the aborted fetal cell line HEK-293 – a human embryonic kidney colony – by Senomyx in research to develop flavor enhances for its beverages. A PepsiCo official revealed the decision in a letter to Children of God for Life, which announced the action April 30.

Children of God had led a boycott of the company since last May after it was learned Senomyx, a biotechnology firm, was using the fetal tissue in its research. The fetal cell line was used in testing but not in Pepsi products, according to Children of God.

“Senomyx will not use HEK cells or any other tissues or cell lines derived from human embryos or fetuses for research performed on behalf of PepsiCo,” said Paul Boykas, PepsiCo’s vice president of global public policy, in a letter to Children of God, according to the pro-life organization.

Children of God Executive Director Debi Vinnedge said her organization was “absolutely thrilled” with PepsiCo’s decision. “They have listened to their customers and have made both a wise and profound statement of corporate integrity that deserves the utmost respect, admiration and support of the public.”

The boycott, which was endorsed by more than 30 pro-life organizations, immediately ended with the announcement of PepsiCo’s decision.

When Senomyx’s use of cells from an aborted baby was revealed last year, Campbell Soup Co. quickly ended its relationship with the biotech firm, but PepsiCo refused.

Unborn babies recognized inside White House, not outside

Unborn children receive security clearances at the White House, but they have no protection elsewhere in the District of Columbia.

The White House Visitors Office sent an email newsletter May 7 to members of Congress and other recipients that outlined the process of registering unborn babies for tours.

“We have received a number of calls regarding how to enter security information for a baby that has not yet been born,” wrote Ellie Schafer, director of the White House Visitors Office.

“Crazy as it may sound, you MUST include the baby in the overall count of guests in the tour. It’s an easy process.”

The email explains the process of entering the unborn child’s security information.

“Once, the baby is born, you should send an email to the [Visitors Office] inbox with the tour request ID number, the baby’s given name, their actual birthday and gender,” Schafer wrote.

Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) called it “ironic that President Obama’s staff recognizes the existence of unborn babies for purposes of providing security within the White House – yet, there is no indication that President Obama has any problem with the fact that throughout the District of Columbia, abortion is now legal for any reason up to the moment of birth. Notably, the newsletter provides no guidance on what the staff should do if an unborn baby is first registered for security purposes, but then aborted.”

Pro-life advocates in Congress are backing the District of Columbia Pain-capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which prohibits abortions at 20 weeks or more into pregnancy based on evidence a baby in the womb experiences pain by that point.

“If the President wants to provide for the security of the unborn child immediately outside of the White House gates, as well as inside, he should endorse this bill,” wrote Johnson, NRLC’s legislative director.

Miss Delaware stands for life despite discouragement

Maria Cahill has continued to express her pro-life views as the reigning Miss Delaware despite being told not to by some.

“I heard a lot of people say that because I was Miss Delaware and represented the Miss America Organization, for that reason, I had no right to talk about anything political,” Cahill said, according to an April 25 report by Townhall.com. “In my mind, I thought exactly the opposite.”

She has spoken out for the pro-life cause since she was crowned last summer, according to Townhall. That included an appearance at the March for Life in January at Washingon, D.C., an event she attends yearly.

“I was really debating going as Miss Delaware or not. I did not tell my directors I was going,” Cahill said.

Advocating for unborn children is not new for Cahill. “I was always involved growing up. Ever since I can remember, I was volunteering at pro-life events,” she said..

Kansas Republican sidelines pro-life proposal

The Republican president of the Kansas Senate has put an end this session to an effort to limit abortions by changes in the tax code.

Three days after the House of Representatives passed the bill in an 88-31 vote, Senate President Steve Morris sent the measure to a committee just two days before the close of the legislative session, effectively killing the measure.

Under the proposal, taxpayers would be unable to deduct money spent on an abortion or for supplemental health insurance to cover the procedure, The Kansas City Star reported. The bill also would prevent employers from taking deductions for contributions to health plans for supplemental coverage of abortion and companies from receiving tax credits for donations to Planned Parenthood, according to the report. In addition, the measure would ban state employees, including medical residents, from performing abortions on state property.

Morris was concerned the legislation might affect the accreditation of the University of Kansas Medical Center, according to The Star. “While I will always fight for pro-life values, we must also protect the accreditation of our flagship medical center,” Morris said, the newspaper reported.

Kansans for Life’s Kathy Ostrowski said the medical center’s accreditation is not in danger and described Morris’ explanation as “a phony excuse.” The language in the proposal regarding the medical center is the same that exists in all of this year’s budget proposals, including proposals supported by Morris, said Kansans for Life’s state legislative director.

But another pandemic, one less discussed yet more destructive, has infected lives in every city, every community, and perhaps nearly every church. Call it the pornography pandemic.

The prevalence of porn is well known. In this digital age, the images are no longer limited to salacious magazines or adult stores. Such content is readily available on the Internet, on smart phones, on cable and satellite TV, in hotels. No longer do viewers have to actively look for it; it looks for them.

By some estimates, the porn industry brings in more than $13 billion per year. That dwarfs revenues by the four major professional sports associations—the National Football League, the National Basketball Association, the National Hockey League and Major League Baseball—each of which takes in only single-digit billion-dollar revenues annually.

But what many may not realize is that distribution of obscene pornographic material is illegal. As the Supreme Court has ruled, such obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment. Yet, regrettably, at the behest of the administration, federal prosecutors, whose job it is to help quarantine the infectious and illegal porn pandemic from spreading, are turning a blind eye to its purveyors. The silence on the issue is deafening. Under the current administration, the Justice Department has not initiated even one case against obscenity violators.

Now many in the faith community as well as some lawmakers are demanding that the nation’s top enforcement agency step up to the task.

In an effort spearheaded by the War on Illegal Pornography coalition, more than 5,100 individuals signed a joint letter to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) urging them to “hold hearings on the harm from pornography and the need to vigorously enforce U.S. laws prohibiting distribution of obscene adult pornography.” The April 4 letter, which also represents the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and more than 125 other organizations, laments that the Justice Department “has stopped all enforcement of these laws at a time when our nation is suffering an untreated pandemic of harm from pornography.”

The letter builds on, and points back to, a letter by 75 congressmen and 42 senators sent a year earlier to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder urging him to vigorously enforce federal obscenity laws. “Illegal adult obscenity contributes to violence against women, addiction, harm to children, and sex trafficking,” the lawmakers wrote. “This material harms individuals, families, and communities and the problems are only getting worse.”

One former top Justice Department porn investigator knows this all too well. “Addiction to pornography is now commonplace among adults and is even a growing problem for children and teenagers,” Patrick Trueman, president of Morality In Media and former chief of the child exploitation and obscenity section in the Justice Department under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, writes in a new pamphlet entitled “The Pornography Pandemic.” “Few who are addicted will get help, and the consequences can be lifelong and severe.”

“Pornography is an ugly corruption of that which God created for good,” says Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission President Richard Land, quoted in the pamphlet. “It perverts and distorts all of the God-given purposes for sexual intimacy.”

Knowing where to find help for porn addiction is part of the battle. The ERLC offers a number of resources at its Issues at a Glance page on pornography. In addition, Trueman, who spoke at length on the issue during a May 5 broadcast of Richard Land Live! recently launched a new website, pornharms.com, to provide resources to help individuals who are ensnared by pornography to find a way out.

As the pornification of America continues to sweep onward with pandemic force, it must be met with a no-tolerance defense. That includes the Justice Department restarting prosecution of obscene pornography distributors and those ensnared by porn seeking the help they need to overcome their addictions. Only then will we begin to see a purification of America.

If you want the government to implement rather than ignore obscenity laws, please urge your senators and representative to support hearings on prosecuting pornography and urge Attorney General Holder to restart such prosecutions. To listen to the May 5 broadcast of Richard Land Live! featuring guest host Barrett Duke, vice president for public policy and research of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, interviewing Patrick Trueman about anti-pornography efforts, please click here. For more information on this issue, please visit the ERLC’s Issues at a Glance page on pornography, or visit pornharms.com.

Baptist Press reports and posts the apology in its entirety:

• As Land issues 5-part apology, NAAF pres. awaits trustee action

The group, which describes itself as a “unified voice” for Hispanic evangelicals, honored Land with the conference’s Champions of Justice award. He is president of the SBC’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.

Land received the award in absentia, as the NHCLC met for its annual board meeting and Recognition and Celebratory Service in Los Angeles, Calif. In addition to Land, Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean and Professor of Liberty University School of Law; Robert Gittelson, co-founder of Conservatives for Comprehensive Immigration Reform; and Matthew Soerens, U.S. Church Training Specialist for World Relief, were presented with the justice award.

Samuel Rodriguez, president of the NHCLC, commended Land’s work on the immigration issue both inside and outside the evangelical community, expressing appreciation for Land’s “biblical and humanitarian commitment to the immigrant community.”

“Dr. Land stands as a champion of a biblical immigration solution while simultaneously confronting injustice and racism within and outside the confines of the evangelical community,” Rodriguez said. “His many years of service speak to a man who has sacrificed much for the cause of righteousness and justice.”

Land said he was humbled to receive the award. “I have such tremendous admiration for the courage and the faith of Dr. Samuel Rodriguez and the group that he leads, as they lead this fight for justice and for fairness,” he added.

Land said he believes it’s crucial to find a pathway for a just, fair and comprehensive immigration reform, reiterating his commitment to the immigration issue and to working with the NHCLC.

“I am going to remain dedicated to this issue, working alongside Dr. Rodriguez and others until we achieve comprehensive immigration reform in the United States,” Land said.

“We need to begin to reweave the torn fabric of our nation’s society by affirming the diversity of our culture and the tremendous contributions that have been made and are being made by all elements of our society,” Land said.

But almost entirely absent from media mention is a brewing scandal that combines aspects of all of these unfolding sagas. This thriller, which packages together the unpredictability of winning with the predictability of ruined lives and Vegas-style interests with lots of cash to be frittered away, is a concerted effort by the pro-gambling lobby to legalize various forms of online gambling. “Horror” might better characterize it.

Reeling from slowed business and smaller coffers in the wake of a 2006 law to clamp down on the illegal practice of online gambling, the gambling lobby is roaring back in an effort to convince the government to license and regulate betting on the niche game of Internet poker; all online games involving wagering are currently illegal.

Their renewed inspiration is a recent Justice Department opinion arguing that a major federal law on Internet gambling applies only to sports betting. Their rallying point is legislation introduced last summer by Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX). Cosponsored by 30 representatives, the Internet Gambling Prohibition, Poker Consumer Protection, and Strengthening UIGEA Act of 2011 (H.R. 2366) would legalize online wagering of poker and place the cyber activities under government regulation.

While some might think the idea offers a winning hand, it’s a bad bet for America. The measure’s name itself is misleading. Contrary to its suggestive title, the Barton bill would not “strengthen UIGEA”—short for the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which President Bush signed into law in 2006—but instead weaken it.

The purpose of UIGEA, passed as part of a broader bill without objection in the Senate and with only two dissenters in the House, was to clarify that Internet gambling is illegal, reinforcing a 1961 law that banned gambling via wireless communication. It also went a step further: to put enforcement teeth to the law by requiring banks and financial institutions to block transactions between U.S.-based customer accounts and offshore gambling merchants, the biggest profiteers of the industry.

The effect of UIGEA on the online gambling industry’s bottom line was immediate and pronounced. Stocks in online gambling websites plummeted almost overnight. Some sites shut down altogether. Last year, others still in operation offshore suffered yet another blow. In an April 15, 2011, raid that has been dubbed “Black Friday,” the government indicted the three biggest online poker profiteers—PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker and Absolute Poker—for bank fraud, money laundering and illegal gambling, freezing more than 75 bank accounts in 14 countries.

The pro-gambling lobby, however, remains undeterred. As one example, the Poker Players Alliance spent $1.4 million last year lobbying Washington power brokers in support of Internet gambling initiatives such as Rep. Barton’s bill, the Roll Call newspaper reported. This alliance, along with multiplied other gambling special interest groups, shows no intention of stepping away from the table this year either.

No doubt there is money to be made in legalized online poker gambling. The gambling purveyors would rake in additional billions each year. The government, seemingly always eager to reach into the public’s pockets, would collect “substantial revenue,” the Barton bill promises. And a relative few players among millions would survive in the black, at least for a time.

But is there a greater price to be paid? The losers would far outnumber the winners. The most visible victims would include the countless people ensnared by the game one click at a time, unsatisfied with versions that offer no prospect of profit. Their addiction to the high stakes game in hopes of quick riches could then devastate savings and divide marriages. Then society would be left to help pick up the pieces.

“God has given Christians principles for living in a proper relationship with Him and with each other,” says Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission President Richard Land. “They require us to worship God alone, remind us that He owns everything, warn us against greed, prompt us to love our neighbor, command us to work, admonish us to exercise our freedom in light of our witness, and instruct us in the proper role of civil government.”

“Gambling and its promotion violate these principles,” he adds. “It is my prayer that Christians will run from gambling in every form, for there is scarcely no greater act of disobedience and faithlessness than to cast your lot at the feet of some false idol, in this case, the gambling industry.”

To be sure, destroyed lives, broken families and financial ruin are all too often the unmasked face of Internet gambling. That’s why uncaging this shackled beast, even if restrained by government leash, is a losing wager for America. Too bad the media haven’t picked up on this scandal.

If you share these concerns, please contact your representative and senators and urge them to oppose H.R. 2366 and any other effort to legalize certain forms of Internet gambling. You may also want to register your concerns with H.R. 2366 sponsor Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX).

This week, the Senate is taking up a measure to reauthorize a nearly two-decades-old program designed with the express purpose of reducing levels of violence against women. As such, it also originally aimed to ensure that justice is served for victims’ abusers, namely men. The present version of the Violence Against Women Act (S. 1925), however, is a significant departure from that original stated objective.

Under the reauthorization, VAWA, as the bill is known, would spend vast sums of taxpayer money—more than $400 million each year—on programs that lack sufficient oversight and fail to address the core issue of protecting vulnerable women from abuse. Many of the programs duplicate efforts already underway. Among other problems, it would expand special protections to include same-sex couples. Men who are victimized by their male sexual partners would receive benefits under the law not afforded to heterosexuals. And with broadened definitions of who qualifies for services, the women who are most in need of the bill’s protections would have diminished access to it.

First enacted in 1994 and reauthorized in 2000 and 2005, VAWA was noncontroversial among lawmakers in its first rendition—it sailed through the Senate in 1994 without objection. But that sentiment has since changed.

“If we had just a straight reauthorization, it would pass 100 percent,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, speculated last month. A report by Sen. Grassley, who is among a number of senators who have registered their complaints on the bill, also noted that a Department of Justice Inspector General review of 22 randomly audited VAWA grantees from 1998-2010 found 21 of them “to have some form of violation of grant requirements ranging from unauthorized and unallowable expenditures, to sloppy recordkeeping and failure to report in a timely manner.” This lack of accountability, which includes one grantee found to have “questionable costs for 93% of the nearly $900,000 they received from the Department of Justice” in 2010, is hardly encouraging.

Pro-family groups, too, have been leveling attacks on the bill for months for its anti-family policies. Many of them expressed those concerns to the Judiciary Committee in February in hopes of derailing the bill. “We, the undersigned, representing millions of Americans nationwide, are writing to oppose the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA),” Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission President Richard Land, along with nearly two dozen other religious and conservative leaders, wrote in a Feb. 1 letter to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “This nice-sounding bill is deceitful because it destroys the family by obscuring real violence in order to promote the feminist agenda.”

“There is no denying the very real problem of violence against women and children. However, the programs promoted in VAWA are harmful for families. VAWA often encourages the demise of the family as a means to eliminate violence,” they added.

Regrettably, a slim majority of committee members rejected that counsel, ultimately approving the bill in February on a narrow 10-8 vote. Now the battle lies in the full Senate, where those opposed to the new VAWA are facing significant pressure to support it. Allies of the bill are tagging its opponents as waging a “war on women.”

But no matter how noble its title suggests, the Violence Against Women Act is the wrong answer to addressing ongoing domestic abuse. With a shortage of evidence to date of VAWA’s success in reducing levels of violence against women, the war to decrease such violence and to ultimately strengthen the family shouldn’t include reauthorizing a flawed policy that promises an expansion of the same.

If you agree, please urge your senators to oppose the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011 (S. 1925).