Randall Terry, past president of Operation Rescue - censored by his church for being "inappropriate" with female congregants, sued for not paying child support to his first family, observed on television brandishing a dead fetus during a rally at an abortion clinic - sang and shouted prayers before televisions cameras outside of Terry Schiavo's hospice. These actions fall far from the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus preached, when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites! They love to stand up and pray in the houses of worship and on the street corners, so that everyone will see them. Jesus said that, when you pray, go to your room, close the door, and pray to your father who is unseen (Matthew 6:5-6).

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who was thrice censored by the House Ethics Committee and who is currently the subject of investigation for violation of campaign finance laws, has incited the citizens of this nation to defy judicial decisions by threatening the careers, reputations and safety of judges who do not rule in accordance with his personal interpretation of Christian values. That runs afoul of Romans 13:1-2 teachings that everyone must obey state authorities, because no authority exists without God's permission, and the existing authorities have been put there by God.

The Legislature continues to pass laws eviscerating contingent fee cases under the guise of "tort reform," which have the desired effect of preventing the poor and disenfranchised who cannot afford an attorney access to the court system. Based on my study of the Bible, this is in contradiction to Amos 5:10-15, which states, "Hate what is evil, love what is right, and see that justice prevails in the courts." ...

I do not claim to know all the answers to solve the problems of this nation and its people. And I certainly do not believe myself to be a theological scholar. Religion is an incredibly personal matter open to many interpretations.

It is of great danger to our community if we allow our leaders with obvious agendas to use our faith to achieve their often less-than-Christian goals. There will never be agreement among Christians, much less those of other faiths, on which scriptural teaching should prevail. And it is for this very reason that we must strive to permit our government to work objectively and fairly for all persons regardless of their faith.

In my research, I arrived upon Thessalonians 4:11: Make it your aim to live a quiet life, to mind your own business. ... It is in this way that you will win the respect of those who are not believers.

Yes, the Bible actually teaches us all to MYOB.

Jean Power is a Plano attorney and a Voices of Collin County volunteer columnist. Her e-mail address is jp@iadvocate.com.

...

Both Congressman Davis and Brummett say Social Security will be solvent until around 2041. That is simply false. The system will start spending more in 2018 than it takes in, that is it will go in the red.

What Davis and Brummett are not telling is that during the time between 2018 and 2041 the funds are in the form of bonds (or IOUs), not cash or assets in the bank. These IOUs will have to be paid somehow. Thus, either taxes go up, benefits are cut, or both. It's simple arithmetic, not calculus, differential equations, group theory or other high-powered mathematics. The year 2041 is the year the Social Security Trust Fund no longer contains any obligation bonds and Social Security and Medicare will require 66 percent of all federal income tax dollars to pay benefits.

Congressman Davis says "Social Security has worked, as envisioned by President Roosevelt, for the last 70 years." Let's look at what FDR said.

"In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps 30 years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities that in time will establish a self-supporting sytem for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."

It seems that FDR envisioned private accounts, which Congressman Davis opposes, as part of a longterm Social Security system. ...

Our Social Security system is based on the system started in Germany in 1880 by Chancellor Bismarck. Bismarck set the retirement age at 65 years when the life expectancy in Germany was 49.5 years. In the USA, the retirement age was set at 65 when the life expectancy was 59.5 years. Today the average life expecancy is near 80. The system was never designed for the situration when we have today. ...

When Bismarck (The Iron Chancellor) set up their system, he boasted "Whoever has a pension for his old age is far easier to handle and will become a servant in the chancellery or at court."

In the present debate on private accounts, the democrats oppose private accounts because they want to keep us on Uncle Sam's Plantation -- they do not want us to have ownership. They embrace Bismarck's thoughts on dependency and control. ...

Wallace Embry, Columbia

The two most vestigial locales in our otherwise great nation at the moment are Kansas and Washington, D.C.

Kansas, because the stacked Board of Education there is staging the greatest public-relations coup for organized religion since Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 313 A.D.

And Washington, D.C., because Christian evangelism is winning its power grab to dominate government locally and nationally as payback for evangelical leaders' part in George W. Bush's victory last November. ...

Instead of "hitting bottom" and admitting their frailties as the path to enlightenment, they went into a huddle and divined an equally ludicrous theory. This time, however, they have put ribbons around the same old garbage can, but coined a new term: "intelligent design." ...

Personally, I have no problem with intelligent design being taught in a comparative-religion class. That, as long as the course also includes sections on new developments in all major religions. But these intelligent-design rubes (degreed though they may be) want to teach it as if it were science.

I suppose these advocates also believe the United States hasn't fallen far enough behind in science, or that poor old Asia and Europe need a leg up in overtaking us. The only real difference between intelligent design and creationism is there's less emphasis on the Judeo-Christian version of Genesis and more "politically correct" openness to all religions' versions of God. But the effects on U.S. global competitiveness are just as potentially devastating. ...

Much of the U.S. loss of leadership in the biological sciences can be attributed to President Bush's ban on most stem-cell research, which he issued as a sop to the same folks who are bringing you intelligent design. In reaction, states are rushing to outspend each other to attract the world's best biologists (to wit, California's Prop. 71, which approved $3 billion for true stem-cell research there) and competing against each other instead of uniting as a nation in the process.

As we move closer and closer to religious sovereignty over government and public education, other nations are moving further away.

They're pummeling us economically in the process. Isn't it time somebody noticed?

Bonnie Erbe is a TV host and writes this column for Scripps Howard News Service. E-mail bonnieerbe(at)CompuServe.com.

...

The president book-ended an uncomfortable visit to Moscow for Russia's celebration of the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe with stirring appearances in two new democracies -- both of which traded Nazi tyranny for Soviet enslavement before becoming free. The result was a strong reiteration of Bush's faith in the power of freedom's spread. ...

He went to the new Baltic republics before traveling to Russia and declared Soviet domination of Eastern Europe after World War II one of the "greatest wrongs in history." Then he went to the former Soviet republic of Georgia and thrilled tens of thousands by urging the spread of democracy.

To be sure, the nurturing of Russia's democracy is difficult. Yet freedom is lapping up all around Russia. Bush critics may scoff because they don't think talking about freedom is sophisticated enough, but fanning democracy's flame probably is the American president's best tool as he tries to nudge Putin along.

Judging from the throngs in Georgia, Latvia and elsewhere, Bush's rhetoric is effective.

President George W. Bush has embraced a Social Security plan that would be kinder to low-income people than middle-income people.

He has done this in the course of responding to a certain criticism. He had been rightly lambasted for putting up a Social Security proposal -- private accounts -- that did not address the system's long-term financial problem (the "shortfall"), then asking the Democrats "Where's your plan?" on the shortfall.

His new proposal cuts projected spending. The Democrats are now obliged to either agree or come up with a plan. Doing the latter is harder for them, because they don't have one clear leader. But they should not settle for taking potshots at the president. ...

For the average worker, Social Security now replaces about 36 percent of earnings. By 2075, that would drop to 26 percent under the president's plan. And that figure would be lower for more affluent people.

About 70-percent of people would see some drop. The people at the bottom wouldn't be hurt (or helped).

There are other ways to address the shortfall. Social Security taxes used to apply to 90 percent of all wages and salaries. Now that number is 85 percent. If it is raised back to 90 percent -- by raising the level at which the best paid workers stop paying -- that would provide a third of the projected shortfall over the next 75 years. ...

Social Security should be progressive. It should ensure that retired people don't live in poverty. But it is progressive now. Low income people receive more compared to what they put in than do high-income people. (Of course, that assumes that the low-income people live as long, which, as an actuarial fact, they tend not to.)

To make the system too much more progressive runs the risk that it will start to be seen as welfare. And everybody knows what happens to welfare in this country.

When the Ohio House of Representatives recently passed its proposed two-year state budget, lawmakers also added an amendment that prohibits using tax money for embryonic stem-cell research. The move was driven purely by politics.

Hard-line conservatives have a big say in the House, and many abortion opponents are opposed to this research, believing embryos will be destroyed in the process or created simply for research and then destroyed. ...

Letting the give-and-take play out in Washington would be so much smarter than having state lawmakers hand down an edict that frames a complicated, scientifically important challenge in the most black-and-white and uninformed terms. ...

Deliberate and thoughtful people are trying to come up with rules that would advance science, while also protect against practices that are morally dubious or even grotesque. They're being helped by the National Academy of Sciences, which has been especially sensitive to the need for regulation.

What's ironic is this: If Washington and the states simply ban the use of their public money on this research, that encourages private researchers to plow ahead with few controls on them. At least when government is making big grants, it can set rules. ...

Science, and especially medical science, is a growth industry. That's why many states are investing heavily in their universities and research facilities. They know that their findings and inventions can attract companies eager to build on and commercialize discoveries.

If, as other states are embracing scientists, Ohio sends the message that it wants to reflexively control them, that's economic suicide.

Scared of Bush plan

To the editor:

I'm in my 40s and am terrified of President Bush's Social Security plan. Under the influence of anti-government radicals who want to eradicate Social Security entirely, Bush wants to pull money out of the Social Security pool to invest in speculative stock-based "personal accounts."

We own stock funds, and know their risks as we watch their value rise and fall along with the stock market. But working people without extra resources that they can afford to lose - those who will rely entirely on Social Security in their retirement - would see their income decline with volatile stock prices. The dubious "Social Security crisis" is the Republicans' smokescreen to cover up the effects of unwise upper-income tax cuts in the middle of the expensive Iraq war. Congress could roll back the multi-millionaires' cuts and prioritize Social Security funding, but only if the public tells them to.

Midwestern Republicans like Gerald Ford and Bob Dole used to be known for balanced budgets and fiscal prudence. Today the party runs up huge deficits while claiming "conservatism." Congressman Dave Camp pushed Bush's Enron-style accounting at Saginaw Valley State University a few weeks ago, but most students saw through the message. Working Americans and small businesses can only hope that Republicans of integrity emerge (maybe led by a converted Dave Camp?) in a bipartisan fight against Bush's plan to weaken and privatize America's highly efficient Social Security system.

Mike Mosher, Bay City

The simple fact is that the United Nations is desperately in need of a guy like John Bolton to help usher it into a new and more relevant role on the world stage, to protect the interests of the United States and the more than $2 billion in annual contributions this nation makes to the U.N.

     President Bush has certainly made no secret of his reasoning in wanting Bolton in the job. He has called the current undersecretary of state for arms control ``a blunt guy'' who ``can get the job done at the United Nations'' and ``who isn't afraid to speak his mind.'
'
     Isn't that exactly what's needed to help clean up that scandal-ridden organization? ...

     In the often arcane debate over Bolton's nomination a few far more easily understood facts have gotten lost.

     This ``bully'' is the same man who, as assistant secretary of state in 1991, succeeded in getting the U.N. General Assembly to finally reverse its resolution that equated Zionism with racism.

     This is the ``arrogant'' undersecretary of state for arms control who somehow put together a 60-country coalition in favor of the president's initiative to halt the spread of nuclear weapons technology. The world is already a safer place because of the efforts of John Bolton.

     Amid all the flotsam and jetsam that passed for debate yesterday in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, that seems to have gotten lost.

     This nation needs the services of John Bolton at the United Nations.

Filibusters are hardly a noble tool, but at least they tend to promot limited government. ...

Although not a part of the Constitution, the filibuster is firmly in the tradition of limited government that protects minority rights from being trampled by a majority, which the Constitution tried to do in numerous ways. The Bill of Rights, for example, amounts to a lengthy statement that there are certain things a majority simply can't do, no matter how popular they may be at the moment.

In the Senate today, Democrats are using filibuster threats to prevent up-or-down votes on judicial nominees. This is unusual, but is it unprecedented? It depends on how you define it.

Republicans prefer a narrow definition, to apply only to cases where the nominee would have had a majority if the filibuster had been ended by cloture. Thus they say it doesn't apply to the case of Abe Fortas, nominated as chief justice by President Lyndon Johnson in 1968. Southern Democrats and Republicans started a filibuster and beat back a first attempt at cloture, whereupon Fortas withdrew himself. Republicans say there was probably a majority to defeat him if he had come before the full Senate for a vote, however, so that isn't a precedent. ...

Both parties can be charged with hypocrisy. When they were a minority, Republicans cherished the right to filibuster. In 1995, a group of Senate Democrats introduced a proposal to end all filibusters, which garnered 19 Democratic votes.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., doesn't propose anything so drastic. His version of the "nuclear option" would change the rules so a filibuster wouldn't be allowed to prevent an up-or-down vote on judicial nominations. The Republicans have the right to do this under Senate rules, and almost certainly have the votes. The Democrats have threatened to tie the Senate in knots for the rest of the year if they do.

As charming as that prospect might be, we hope Senate Republicans don't change the rules. That would invite future majorities to change the rules more often to make it easier to pass pet legislation. Most of the time this would work to the disadvantage of limited government and make it easier to extend government power.

There's no unchanging principle here. On balance, however, although the results may sometimes be perverse, the easier it is to slow down government action, the better.

WHAT a lot of Americans suspected all along turns out to be true. The color-coded alert system for terrorist attacks was a fraud.

Even former Homeland Security director Tom Ridge often argued against raising it, he now says.

USA Today reports that even when Mr. Ridge disagreed with White House officials who wanted to raise it, he was overruled. The alert was sometimes raised despite flimsy evidence of a threat.

"More often than not we were the least inclined to raise it," Mr. Ridge said of his department.

But his caution was not shared by some of the zealots on the Bush homeland security team, such as former Attorney General John Ashcroft. A year ago, Mr. Ashcroft said al-Quaida was "90 percent" ready to attack the United States. On the same day, Mr. Ridge played down the risk.

No wonder the public basically decided to ignore the alerts.

But periodically changing the threat level from yellow to orange may have served its purpose, if it distracted the public from bad news about the Bush administration.

And we know this White House is expert at hyping intelligence when it suits its purposes. Remember the threat from all those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

...

If the foundation of the United States is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, then the United States most certainly is founded on the Bible.

John Adams said about the Bill of Rights that it was "derived from the great legislator of the universe." He also said in 1775, "We recognize no sovereign but God and no king but Jesus."

The Bill of Rights is mostly derived from the Magna Carta (1215), which in the second paragraph speaks to the "honor of God." The rights also come from the English Bill of Rights (1689), which mentions "the year of our Lord" and pleasing "God all Mighty." In George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights, drafted in 1776, he said, "It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love and charity toward each other."

Ben Franklin, the oldest signer of the Constitution, said in 1787, "God governs in the affairs of man." In his 1749 plan for education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."

I've done my homework on this. Here is yours: Read the excerpts inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C., taken from his "Notes on the State of Virginia (1781).

In closing, I would have to say this country's foundation was and is the Bible.

Marvin Peters