What we are seeing, of course, is the logical consequences of the desire for personal autonomy in an era of moral relativism. People can say with a perfectly straight face and without a twinge of conscience, "Yeah, it is wrong. It is murder. But nobody is going to tell me I can't do it."

If this is really the position that the pro-abortion movement is taking, then we're in a heap of trouble. If my neighbor thinks to himself, "I know stealing is wrong, but I don't want anybody to tell me I can't do it," I'm going to start putting extra padlocks on my house and bars on my windows. If somebody says, "I know pedophilia is a bad thing, but I have the right to do what I want with my own body," I am going to start keeping my grandkids locked in the house when they come to visit.

The "don't tell me what to do" mentality will unravel the very fabric of our society. If people actually believe that their autonomy is so important that it gives them the right to kill the innocent, then none of us is safe. I wonder how many of those folks getting bused to Washington ever thought of that.

Here's where Newdow really is right: While faith is sometimes mocked, at this moment in this country it is non-believers who are the truly oppressed minority. (And when we complain about the shocking excesses of popular secular culture, I'm sorry, we have only ourselves to blame.) So much of all that's gone wrong with the radical, counter-cultural, and yes, wildly irrational way of life that is Christianity goes back to the sad day it became Rome's state religion. We were supposed to be in this world but not of it -- and certainly not bullying people who don't want to be "under God" into saying words they don't mean.

What is an abandoned world like? How do we recreate ourselves once we are back (at least materially) to the state of nature? Glorious Appearing handles these issues with biblical literalism. There are no allegories, no metaphors, no parables. There is nothing figurative or conceptual at all. Armageddon literally comprises lakes of fire, rivers of blood, men that melt in the face of Jesus, and other excruciating deaths that are part of the Divine Justice. The state of nature is the playground for the war between Jesus and Satan. Forget how you've lived your life; forget your questions, thoughts, opinions; forget reality. Accept Christ or die. I mean, really die....

There are only two ontological possibilities in this Evangelicalism. The simplicity of this book is impossible to exaggerate. Page after page of the novel (it is really just a lurid sermon) is cribbed from the Bible to instruct the people to praise Jesus, for he is the one and true God; for otherwise they must face his wrath; for to love Christ is to reap eternal reward; for, again, he is the one and true God -- and on and on and on, until what feels like the end of time.

Now that 40 million unborn children have died and abortion has become one of the most common surgical procedures in the United States, a growing voice is emerging. This is the voice of the woman who's had an abortion, who regrets it, and who feels she was never empowered with adequate information to make a real choice. Some of these women and their supporters countered the march with a silent, peaceful protest.

And the silence worked in at least a few cases. Janet Morana, co-founder of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign stood at Constitution and Seventh Streets with a group of about a hundred post-abortion women and their supporters. In the midst of their silence, a woman from D.C. named Shirley came up to two of them. She was holding a Planned Parenthood 'Stand Up For Choice' sign and she said, 'I can't hold this sign and march with them anymore.' She explained that she had lost a child to crib death and then she broke down sobbing. She saw the reality of the 'choice' for which she had been marching....

Susan Pine also saw the quiet effects of silent protest. "Some women," she said, "would see our signs, start to cry, drop everything, and leave."

Consider what's required to wear the label: "Pro-Palestinian."


To start, you have to appear non-judgmental about innocent Palestinian children being raised to become human bombs.

You must refer to those who send such children on suicide/mass murder missions as "political leaders" or, even better, as "spiritual leaders." Call them militants if you must, but never terrorists.

To be thought of as pro-Palestinian, you must cite the plight of the Palestinian refugees as a key motivation for violence, ignoring the fact that there would have been no refugees had Israel's Arab neighbors not launched a war to destroy the tiny Jewish state immediately upon its birth.

Indeed, Arabs who chose to stay in Israel are today Israeli citizens, as are their children, enjoying more freedoms than do the citizens of neighboring Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia or even Jordan. Disregard all this if you want to be seen as someone who cares about Palestinians.

Like the evangelical movement, the president's born-again faith was not as striking to outsiders in 1987, when he moved to Washington to work on his father's presidential campaign. At the time reporters mostly saw him as the Bush family bouncer, someone who kept an eye on disloyal staff members.

Nor were his born-again evangelical beliefs much more than a biographical footnote in Mr. Bush's gubernatorial campaigns. Even in his 2000 presidential race most journalists placed Mr. Bush's religious beliefs behind his family lineage, career and political ideology. His faith was mostly examined in the context of a midlife crisis: a black sheep's self-styled 12-step program that helped him stop drinking and focus on a political career in Texas.

Once the younger Mr. Bush's faith took hold, it spread to his political ambitions. "I believe that God wants me to be president," is what Richard Land, a leader of the Southern Baptist Convention, recalls hearing Mr. Bush say in a meeting with close associates on the day of his second inaugural as governor of Texas. Once elected president, Mr. Bush went to work. "We need common-sense judges who understand our rights were derived from God," he says in a 2002 clip. "And those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench."

The documentary revisits a 1993 interview Mr. Bush had with a reporter for The Houston Post, Ken Herman, on the day he announced his intention to run for governor. Mr. Herman recalls that Mr. Bush said he believed that a person had to accept Christ to go to heaven, a view that Mr. Herman published.

After September 11, the American people are valuing life more and I think those are the kind of policies the American people can support, particularly at a time when we're facing an enemy, and really, the fundamental difference between us and the terror network we fight is that we value every life. It's the founding conviction of our country, that we're endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, the right to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately our enemies in the terror network...don't value any life, not even the innocent and not even their own.

After September 11 officials stepped up their scrutiny of people seeking to enter the United States bearing passports from Middle Eastern and Central Asian countries. While civil libertarians and Muslim-American groups protested, al Qaeda adapted.

As Robert Leiken of the Nixon Center wrote in the New Republic, Osama bin Laden is replacing Muslim immigrants in his operations with Western converts to Islam. It's easy to see why: European nationals with European passports and faces" are less likely to arouse suspicions among American officials. What's more, most Western Europeans aren't required to obtain visas before traveling to the United States....Europe has seen the rise of what are called "protest converts" to Islam. As the French scholar Olivier Roy put it, these young people convert for the same reason that American kids get multiple tattoos and body piercings: "to stick it to their parents [or] to their principal." Just as Europeans in the 1970s "went to Bolivia or Vietnam," these kids convert. It's a way "of identifying with a Third World cause."

A flier being distributed in the Iraqi city of Fallujah puts a hefty price on the heads of top U.S military officials, according to a Local 6 News report.

The flier offers $15 million for the death of each American pictured, Local 6 News reported.

Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld are pictured on the paper.

The August 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Briefing is becoming part of that story. The memo notes Osama bin Laden's continual threats against the United States, operations here and abroad and, most chilling of all, plans to hijack airliners. Many people reading the memo or listening to the commission's hearings might ask, "Wasn't it obvious what was coming a month later? How could Bush have missed the September 11 attacks?" Knowing what we know now, it's hard not to conclude Bush made a foolish mistake.

But that's unfair and misleading. On August 6, 2001, the president did not know that September 11 would happen. What he did know presumably can be found in the PDB for that day. As Condoleezza Rice said, the memo is mostly historical; what she did not say was that bin Laden's history of threats had not led to attacks in the United States. Why should Bush have concluded that there would be any deviation from that track record? (Stating simply that "9/11 happened" is not an answer.)...

We live life forward, not backwards -- in ignorance, not perfect knowledge -- which means we must address threats with nets, not scalpels. By ignoring these truths, the 9/11 Commission is pushing the United States toward entirely predictable and preventable future disasters.

The new seriousness at the Federal Communications Commission toward basic, unmissable profanity on broadcast television and radio is beginning to draw great protest from the proponents of profanity and indecency. They have unfurled the banner of the First Amendment and utter the usual buzzwords and mantras: free speech, censorship, chilling effect. Then there's a new one: "creative integrity."

This last one comes from NBC president Robert Wright, who wrote a passionate editorial in the Wall Street Journal claiming the TV elite are the titans of "creative integrity," and must not be protested. "Ultimately, we have much less to fear from obscene, indecent or profane content than we do from an overzealous government willing to limit First Amendment protections and censor creative free expression. That would be indecent," Wright insisted.

It's an argument Howard Stern would love: it's not smut that is indecent, it's protesting smut that's indecent! It's like saying cigarettes don't kill people, the anti-tobacco lobby does.

Wright and other activists are now condemning the FCC for defining NBC's airing of the F-word during the Golden Globe Awards as obscene. Apparently, the F-word is the very height of "creative integrity." I wonder if Robert Wright taught his own children that profanity is creative, and laced with integrity.

The Associated Press snapped a photo of Ashley, honored guest of the "March for Women's Lives," which has been widely disseminated on the Internet. Pro-abortion leaders must be ecstatic. In a sea of angry (Hillary Rodham Clinton), haggard (Cybill Shepherd) and ghoulish (Whoopi Goldberg) women shaking their fists and waving coat hangers, Ashley's pretty smile helped put a softer, gentler and more glamorous spin on the morbid march for "reproductive rights."

Ashley's message to millions of young American women and girls: Opposing the partial-birth abortion ban is fun! Morning-after pills are cool! Sex without consequences rules!

One wonders what Ashley's mom, beloved country singer Naomi Judd, must have thought of her daughter traipsing around with abortion rights' militants. Naomi has spoken eloquently for years about how she firmly rejected abortion as an unwed teen and repeatedly witnessed the miracle of life as a labor and delivery nurse. "I've seen ultrasounds...you know that those babies are real," she told TV talk-show host Sally Jesse Raphael in 1998.

John Kerry made a familiar statement about abortion last week. Bill Clinton said it before him. Many Democrats who wish to remain in the good graces as well as the political clutches of the abortion-rights lobby say it. Kerry said he wants to keep abortion "safe, legal and rare."

I understand "safe" (though it's never safe for the baby and often not the woman). I understand "legal" (though contemporary jurisprudence is shifting sand). I don't understand "rare." Unless the pre-born child is human and worthy of the law's protection, why care if abortion is rare or common? Is Kerry attempting to satisfy the tug of conscience deep within this professed Roman Catholic that the teachings of his church are true and that he needs a kind of moral cover -- genuflecting in the direction of truth but making no effort to slow or stop abortions should he gain the power to do so?...

When Kerry and other Catholic politicians say they accept church teaching but selectively deny it when it comes to abortion, they place the state above the church and man above God. They mortgage their consciences to convenience and principle to pragmatism. Should such a person lead this nation?

Despite the booming popularity of evangelical artists and authors, evangelicals themselves remain an enigma to many outside the tradition--a people often stereotyped, whose agendas and motives are viewed with suspicion. They are a people, too, who often seem ill at ease with their own success and insider status in an America that they often regard as hostile to their values.

Yet a new poll by U.S. News and PBS's Religion & Ethics Newsweekly reveals that evangelicals--their distinctive faith aside--are acting more and more like the rest of us. They are both influencing and being influenced by the society around them. While they harbor deep concerns about the moral health of the nation, they are more tolerant than they're often given credit for, pay far more attention to family matters than to politics, and worry about jobs and the economy just about as much as everyone else. And while it comes as no surprise that white evangelicals are overwhelmingly Republican and back President Bush by a wide margin, nearly a quarter say they might vote for Democrat John Kerry. (The small portion of African-American evangelicals mostly support Kerry, but their views often diverge strongly from the white majority.) "This is a group that is integrated into the mainstream," says Anna Greenberg, vice president of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, which conducted the survey in late March. "Evangelicals are just not that much different from the rest of America."

American culture is an enormously powerful force. It will change religion, just as religion will change culture. [Evangelicals] are far more shaped by the culture than they are capable of shaping it to their own needs. The priority is to get them in [to church], but to do that you downplay the Christian symbolism: You take the crosses off the church; you put a McDonald's franchise in the lobby. The faithful now are remarkably like everyone else.

The "pro-choice" movement is based on the lie that an unborn human being is not a human being. If pro-aborts had nothing to hide, would they use such misleadingly innocuous words as "choice," "reproductive rights" and "family planning" when they mean the act of terminating life?

If "choice" were so popular with the public, would the pro-aborts' presidential candidate of "choice," Senator Kerry, feel compelled to dissemble, saying he is personally against abortion but opposed to the government regulating it? That's like saying he's personally opposed to shoplifting but against the government interfering with the thief's choice. Actually, it's much worse than that.

As scientific and technological advances continue to shed light on the darkness of their position, pro-aborts will become increasingly desperate. The marchers treated us to just a little bitter foretaste of that Sunday.

The Bush administration is scrapping plans to sponsor a major global health and reproductive rights conference that features liberal advocacy groups, including several pro-choice organizations and MoveOn.org, which is spending millions of dollars on negative ads to defeat President Bush....

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which said it never formally agreed to help fund "Youth and Health: Generation on the Edge," denounced the conference organizers late Friday for including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) -- both divisions of HHS -- in a recent promotional brochure.

New evidence out of Iraq suggests the U.S. effort to track down Saddam Hussein's missing weapons of mass destruction is having better success than is being reported.

Key assertions by the intelligence community widely judged in the media and by critics of President George W. Bush as having been false are turning out to have been true after all.

But this stunning news has received little attention from the major media, and the president's critics continue to insist that "no weapons" have been found.

One could call the Sunday march a festival of paganism, but that's probably not fair to ancient pagans. Worshippers of Baal would have regarded it as a little too depraved for their taste. If C-SPAN covered the event, it must have had to black and beep out much of it. It sounded like a sustained FCC violation and many of the placards were too baldly obscene (usually twisting the president and vice presidents' names in various vulgar concoctions) for any newspaper to report....

Upset at the growing perception that they are godless degenerates, marchers tried to wrap themselves in religion as much as possible. Planned Parenthood now has a chaplain. And march organizers cobbled together other phony religious fronts for abortion, such as "Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice." "You don't own religion," one speaker said to the "religious reich." A female rabbi appeared on the podium to say that she was "pro-God, pro-choice." The marchers know that God blesses the abortion of unborn children because God is a woman. "I asked God. She's pro-choice," was a popular sign. And they are now theological enough to place Satan on the same ticket as George Bush -- the "Bush/Satan" administration.

Standing before thousands of women, Sen. John Kerry warned Friday that "the rights of women are under assault in this country" and promised that as president he will reverse the course set by the Bush administration -- including abortion policy.

"We will not turn the clock back in this country," the Democratic presidential hopeful told a cheering crowd at the City Museum South Plaza. "George Bush who ran as a passionate conservative, has been willing to play politics with the lives of women....And every step of the way, when he has been given a choice, he has made the lives of women less, not more, secure."

The distinctive wickedness of those "evangelical Christians" is that, increasingly, they find themselves at odds with the welfare state in its modern, Liberal, soft-pacifist, sexually libertine form. In many respects, as an atheistic, pro-choice 19th-century liberal, I disagree with them; I do find it curious, though, that someone who wishes to forbid abortions is deemed to be "imposing his beliefs" on the rest of us, but that someone who taxes us to pay for somebody else's abortions is never accused of it. As a matter of simple fact, we are much indebted to these nasty evangelicals, whose forebears "interfered" in politics repeatedly -- and, in so interfering, helped create the British Constitution, extricated the Western world from the African slave trade, and made universal literacy an ideal of modern societies. Has the Liberal Party of Canada done as much for justice and human happiness? And if not, does it have any business picking a fight with evangelical Protestantism?

It's a crucial moment for the abortion rights movement. Don't blow it.

Marches attract passionate advocates and concentrate them in one place. They foster the illusion that you and your sisters who have filled the National Mall represent a cross-section of America. You don't. Most Americans hate abortion and don't consider themselves feminists. You need the votes of these people. Praise abortion, shout about patriarchy, and you'll alienate them for another decade....

Pro-choicers have complained for years that the abortion debate is too spatially confined: Pictures and diagrams tend to focus on the fetus, not the woman in whose body it's growing. But the debate is also too temporally confined: All the arguments focus on whether the woman will get the abortion, not on what she does afterward. The abortion is the end of the story. Either she becomes a mom, or she becomes one of those women who have abortions. It sounds like two different kinds of women, and that impression drives much of the opposition to abortion rights: If you like kids, you can't accept abortion....

This is the most plausible way to persuade the public that teenagers, poor women, and women with late-term complications should have access to abortion. The woman who gets the abortion and the woman who gives birth are the same woman at different stages of life. Not always, but often. Help one, and you help the other. You don't have to like abortion, reproductive rights, or sexual freedom. You just have to like healthy families.

Although several hundred thousand abortion rights supporters are expected to march in Washington D.C. this coming Sunday, a spokesman for a major special interest group said its members would not attend the rally.

The American Association of Aborted People (AAAP), a political inaction committee, said none of its 38 million members would participate in the protest march.

"Since the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision in 1973, our ranks have swelled by about 1.4 million per year," said the unnamed AAAP spokesman. "So, we should be at the center of any debate about abortion. Unfortunately, none of our members could tear themselves away to attend the rally. But we'll be there in spirit, if not in body."

And lest we forget, Hamas' stated goal is to eliminate the Jewish state. So if its members need the killing of their leaders to stick to their original goal, that can only mean they were slacking off before. Which we all know, sadly, was not the case.

With its leaders marked for death, Hamas might not succeed in getting what it wants. But at least Rantisi did.

Shortly after his predecessor Sheikh Yassin died, Rantisi said, "We will all die one day. Nothing will change. If by Apache or by cardiac arrest, I prefer Apache." Thankfully, his wish came true.

This weekend, liberal activists will converge on Washington, D.C., for an event they dub the "March for Women's Lives." Although abortion is its centerpiece, the march is also intended to send the message that the "women's movement" is vast and powerful in general. Organizers are promising hundreds of thousands of demonstrators, a horde bearing fearful tidings to politicians: "Oppose the feminist agenda at your peril."

It's a pivotal event for leftist-feminist outfits like the National Organization for Women (NOW). These groups have failed to keep touch with the concerns of most American women and are thus growing increasingly irrelevant to mainstream politics.

Hold on a second there, Ralph [Nader]. One with a messianic complex would regard himself as a savior or liberator, according to dictionaries I've consulted. In the statements Nader is referring to, President Bush is doing just the opposite. He is asking God to give him the strength to do God's will. Nothing could be more humble; nothing could be less egotistical. Nothing could be less "messianic."

That's one of the ironic things about Bush's secular critics. They see him as a man literally eaten up with macho-pride and cowboy swagger, yet at his core, he is a man of extraordinary humility, a person who understands this historic moment is not about him, but about the causes, people, and most of all, God he serves....

There you have it. Christians are unstable, science-averse simpletons so weak they have to rely on a fictitious savior, so unsophisticated they believe in the forces of good and evil, and so reckless that they will fight wars to protect their national security even if many of America's traditional allies don't have the courage or rectitude to join them.

Vienna, Va.: In regards to your comment about being offended by the whole "spin" of the "march for women's lives" and that "No one has produced any evidence whatsoever that women's lives are at stake" -- It's NOT a spin. It's a march for women's lives that need to be saved because they are restricted from having reproductive rights like access to birth control, sex education....

Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D.: Come on -- some of the feminists are advocating for female genital mutilation and to throw that in here is not playing fair! Some of these arguments that are being used are turning into demagogery and make the whole feminist movement sound desperate.

Maryland: My husband and I do not want children....However, even the best family planning can fail. In that case - abortion, albeit with a heavy heart. I do not want to subject my body to a nine month pregnancy.

So, why do you feel you can make this critical decision for us? Believe me -- my decision is an educated one! I have read up on the subject both pro and con. Since you are so opposed to abortion, simply don't have one yourself. There -- now you have made your decision and I have made mine.

As for it being an "act of God" that I should conceive despite the best planning....Please remember that this is a secular nation and theology should not drive our public policy.

Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D.: I take it you haven't conceived yet -- I'm guessing you are a very educated person -- certainly very intelligent and seems to me like you are taking every precaution. I would hate to see you have an abortion, but that is your decision to make as long as the law is as it is.

Logan Circle, DC: Wouldn't it be more productive to try to convince people of your views as opposed to choosing judges based solely on their abortion views or other such tactics?

Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D.: Actually, we have convinced people of our views. Truth is one the pro-life side and science is proving our case. As soon as science began giving people access to information, the tide began to turn and now polls consistently show the American public and increasing more pro-life. I am convinced that this trend will continue because solid information is available on the internet and young people are deciding for themselves. Also I think the era of people being wishy-washy and unwilling to take a stand is coming to an end as well.

We're at war. And I'm not talking about the war against terrorism, with its dreadful daily reminders.
I'm talking about the civil -- and increasingly uncivil -- culture war now raging across America, from Boston Common to San Francisco Bay.

There is no neutrality in this war, no Switzerland here, no conscientious objectors; you are either for traditional morality, or you stand with those who want to change the moral guidelines and spiritual markers that have guided civilized behavior since the time of Moses. It's that simple.

If we win, we may be able to rebuild the institution of marriage as the sacred bedrock of American society. If they win, we will have moral anarchy.

The scholar said his views of jihad sparked controversy among the participants and presenters.

Al-Ansari declared, "Jihad, in its true sense as defined in the Quran and as implemented by the prophet [Muhammad] and his noble companions, is a means of defending differences, pluralism, and diversity."

He contended it is a means "of defending freedom of choice, citing the Quranic verse, "There is no coercion in Islam."

By the time this article goes to print, there may have been another terror attack. By the time it reaches the homes of the readers, Hamas could have carried out a sensational act of revenge. And in spite of this, in April 2004, we can already say out loud what we have been observing since the beginning of the year: There is a reasonable chance that after 1,300 days of war, a new strategic reality is beginning to take shape around us -- a reality of an Israeli victory.

For many people there is no difference between me aborting my foetus at eight weeks and a woman aborting her foetus at 24 weeks, the legal limit for abortions in Britain. But for me, even after knowing the facts about abortion, there is a difference.

I believe the foetus does have rights, but up to a certain point those rights are not equal or greater than the woman's. I am still not sure at what point the rights become equal.

Until society can allow women to discuss abortion openly without feeling guilty or being condemned we can't make an informed decision about where the upper limit should be set.

The most telling question I have been asked since news of my film hit the headlines has been: "Have we made it too easy for women to have abortions?"

This has come from men and women who consider themselves pro-choice and it shows how uncomfortable society is with the fact that one in three women will have an abortion sometime.

What concerns me more is it also naively implies we should go back in time and make it more difficult to end a pregnancy, make it more of an ordeal and make women pay for their mistakes.

It implies that women like myself should feel guilty and continue to be ashamed.

Black, you see, decided that a woman needs "to be convinced that abortion is a morally legitimate procedure, even after knowing what it involves." So she took viewers on her journey of learning to accept abortion as legitimate. She believed in showing real images and would "engage with the reality" in order to deny that reality and, therefore, dull the consciences of hundreds of thousands of women.

The same technique showed up at a pro-abortion conference this year in the United States, where the conferees watched a partial-birth abortion actually performed. When the operation was over and the baby dead, they applauded. The strategy seems to be to shock our consciences for a moment in order to anesthetize them for a lifetime.

This is it. It's all on the line now. Everyone who thinks she's too old, too tired and has done this too many times before, be there. Everyone who has never been to a women's march, who thought all the rights had been long since secured, who thinks feminism is old hat and has nothing to do with your life, be there. Bring your daughters, mothers, nieces, friends, husbands, sons and significant others. If you can't be there, get in touch with a local women's organization and help raise money for a "scholarship" to send someone else to represent you....

The March for Women's Lives is not just about choice on abortion but literally about life or death for women all over the globe.

Prophecy obsesses over such questions as: When will the end come? Will the saved meet Christ "in the air" (referred to as the Rapture) as promised in the Bible? Does that come before or after Satan is defeated? Are there seven years of tribulation -- slaughter, misery and oppression -- under the yoke of the Antichrist before Judgment Day?

Those who read the Bible literally, such as LaHaye and Baxter, generally agree: The end is imminent. And only those who accept Jesus as their personal savior and the Scripture as the sole source of God's word will know eternal life. Horrors await those who don't, including faithful Catholics and most mainline Protestants, Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Jews.

Until recently, nobody took the fanatical beliefs of al-Muhajiroun too seriously, believing that a British-based group so brazenly "out there" could not be involved in something as "underground" as terrorism. The group is led by the exiled Saudi, Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammad, from his base in north London. Yesterday, in a magazine article, Bakri warned that several radical groups are poised to strike in London.

For all its inflammatory rhetoric, al-Muhajiroun has never been linked to actual violence. Yet, with the discovery last month of half-a-tonne of ammonium nitrate fertiliser -- the same explosive ingredient used in the Bali and Turkey terror attacks -- and with the arrest of eight young British Muslims in London and the South-East, including six in Luton, extremist groups such as al-Muhajiroun are under the spotlight like never before.

But it was the events of 11 September that crystallised Sayful's worldview. "When I watched those planes go into the Twin Towers, I felt elated," he says. "That magnificent action split the world into two camps: you were either with Islam and al Qaeda, or with the enemy. I decided to quit my job and commit myself full-time to al-Muhajiroun." Now he does not consider himself British. "I am a Muslim living in Britain, and I give my allegiance only to Allah."

It appears that President Bush has committed the "ultimate sin" in the opinion of the "liberal elite" in politics and media. They are shouting his "flagrant transgressions" from the rooftops.

Like sharks racing to blood in the water, they seized upon what they feel is the final proof of Bush's incompetence to be president.

So what is this "great moral failure"? President Bush dared to disregard the mythical "wall separating church and state" and prayed for God's guidance regarding the war on Iraq. He has compounded this transgression by continuing to ask for God's wisdom in how to conduct the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Some holidays, such as Veteran's Day and Memorial Day, are a time for reflection. Others, like July 4th and Thanksgiving, are a time for celebration. This year, we ought to add Earth Day to the list of days to celebrate -- but only if we rename it Growth Day.

As in "economic growth." Believe it or not, nothing's better at cleaning up the environment and keeping it clean.

Not only is Christ popping up in movies (The Passion), books (The Left Behind Series, The Da Vinci Code), and magazines (a regular on the cover of newsweeklies such as Time) but he's becoming the hot property on t-shirts. Hipster shops like Urban Outfitters, for example, sell shirts with "Jesus is My Homeboy" and "Jesus surfs without a board." "If Jesus is so reverent that we can't laugh about him, then Jesus isn't in our everyday lives," says Daniel Richards, a priest at St. Michael and All Angels Episcopal Church....

The idea of Jesus as our "friend" is deeply rooted in our particular religious culture. Our lack of reverence expresses itself in everything from our worship to our evangelism. How many times, for instance, have we seen an earnest Christian approach someone (including us) and ask, "Do you know Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior?"

While intended as a means of carrying out the Great Commission, the question is asking something else entirely. In essence, it's asking whether we possess God rather than whether God possess us. By claiming God as our "personal" friend we are putting him in the same category as our "personal trainers" and "personal assistants," people who serve us, rather than someone whom we are expected to serve. When Jesus becomes someone we can befriend he becomes someone we can take lightly.

Jesus, however, is not my homeboy. He is not my friend or my buddy. Christ is my master, my redeemer, my Lord and my God.

Men, your gender just took a hit in the animal kingdom. Scientists report they've created mice by using two genetic moms -- and no dad.

That's a first for any mammal. But don't look for this service at the corner fertility clinic. Experts say the mouse procedure can't be done in people for technical and ethical reasons.

In fact, one of the moms was a mutant newborn, whose DNA had been altered to make it act like a male's contribution to an embryo.

On paper, those promises [from Bush] sounded pretty good for Israel, which will continue to control land, sea and air passages throughout Gaza to prevent a terrorist base from being established. Sharon also took from his meeting with the president a green light to continue building the "security fence" to keep terrorists from entering some of the main population centers in the heart of Israel and to go after terrorists, such as Hamas' new leader, who was killed by Israel on Saturday (April 17). Perhaps most importantly for his country's stability, Sharon got his wish for no "right of return" by Palestinians, an infusion that would overwhelm the Jewish population. In the president's letter of understanding to Sharon, he says that any return should be to an eventual Palestinian state, not Israel.

Predictably, the pro-Palestinian side cried foul. The New York Times editorialized (April 15) that Sharon chose "settlements over peace" in the West Bank, but peace must have a partner, and the terrorists have demonstrated that their objective is not peace with Israel, but its elimination.

As with previous agreements, including the "road map," this "understanding" requires a response from the Palestinian side. Israel and the United States reasonably expect that in exchange for this unilateral action ceding Gaza to the Palestinians, the Palestinians will stop trying to tear down the Jewish state and start building one of their own.

If you love goodness and hate evil, this is a tough time to stay sane.

Israel has killed Abdel Aziz Rantisi, the Hamas terror leader, and almost every nation in the world and the nations' theoretical embodiment, the United Nations, have condemned Israel for doing so.

World leaders and the world organization have said almost nothing about Communist China's ongoing destruction of one of the world's oldest civilizations, Tibet. World leaders have said almost nothing about the Arab enslavement and genocide of non-Arab blacks in Sudan. But they convene world conferences to label Israel, one of the most humane and decent democracies on earth, a pariah.

In order to retain my sanity, I ask the reader's indulgence as I use this column to express personal thoughts.

I have contempt for "the world." I cherish and admire countless individuals, but I have contempt for "the world" and "world opinion."

Christianity has nothing to fear from a thorough investigation of the evidence. That's why I was fascinated when I happened onto a column by Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. a few weeks ago, wherein Dionne discussed a recent article he'd enjoyed in the New Republic by Leon Wieseltier.

In the article, Wieseltier "praises atheists for taking the question of God's existence so seriously that they force believers to do the same...There is no greater insult to religion than to expel strictness of thought from it."

I certainly agree that a Christian's faith must hold up to intellectual scrutiny. But do atheists actually take the question of God's existence as seriously as Wieseltier and Dionne suggest? I have my doubts.

What is a retrosexual?

For starters, I believe in paying for dinner. I believe in opening the door for my wife -- or other ladies. I believe in giving up my seat on a bus or train for a woman. I believe in smoking cigars -- even if it means sneaking them and puffing outside because wives and daughters frown upon the smell....

Retrosexuals don't have any confusion about who they are or what they are. They know that God made men and women different -- they accept that as fact and appreciate the difference.

Retrosexuals don't think God makes mistakes. So, if women want to pretend they're men or men want to pretend they're women, they are not really fooling anyone but themselves.

Question: If God is so bad for public schools; if God is so intrusive; if the separation of church and state is as clear as some (insert lawyers and socialists) would have us believe -- why did it take an atheist and a lawyer until 1962 to figure it out?

Question: If saying the Lord's Prayer and /or observing moments of silence is so destructive to the psyche of school children and tantamount to sanctioning religion -- why does the U.S. Congress employ a taxpayer-paid chaplain, i.e., preacher, to begin every session of Congress with prayer? (Note: This has continued uninterrupted since 1777.)

A guy goes to see a psychiatrist and the psychiatrist shows him a series of pictures to ascertain his mental health. He holds up a tree and says, "What do you see?" The man replies, "Sex." He shows him a lake and says, "What do you see?" The man replies, "Sex." Several more pictures of assorted items are shown, the patient responding "sex" to every one. The shrink finally says, "Sir, you have a problem; all you see is sex." The patient replies, "You're the one with all the dirty pictures."

The old joke comes to mind as I reflect on the responses of the Kate Michelmans and Kim Gandys and Ellen Goodmans of the world to recent legislative developments. In the fall of 2003, Congress passed a law prohibiting a particularly Taliban-like form of abortion (the Partial Birth Abortion Act). But if you ask Ms. Michelman, "What do you see?" she says it's "the most devastating and appalling attack on a woman's freedom to choose in the history of the House." If you ask NARAL, "What do you see?" the organization says, "an eroding of the protections of Roe vs. Wade."

So why do most men avoid church? Here's the veneer stripped-away answer: going to church for the majority of men is an exercise in unwanted effeminacy. Church, for most men, has not only become irrelevant; it has also become effeminate. Hanging out in church for most extra-Y chromosomes seems unmanly and most men more than anything want to be masculine!

The current lack of strong men within the Church, both in the numeric and leadership sense, has crippled our cathedrals and has helped devastate our nation ethically. The masculine spirit being absent from the pulpit, the pew and subsequently the public square has not only slowed down the forward progress of the Church, it has also weakened our nation's morality, increased our country's secularity, and has assisted [owing to our absence] the lascivious Left's re-definition of life, sex, marriage and law.

In defiance of Lutheran doctrine, active homosexuals have been appointed pastors at three congregations, including one in Minneapolis...

The move defies the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's rule against active homosexuals in ordained ministry.

As the nation's fifth-largest Protestant denomination, with 10,700 churches and five million members, the Evangelical Lutheran Church ordains gays but requires them to be celibate.

Since the days of John F. Kennedy, modern politicians have tried to have it both ways on matters of religion --espousing personal religious beliefs that at times are at odds with their public policy pronouncements.

Democrat John Kerry is the latest candidate to navigate this terrain, offering himself as a practicing and believing Roman Catholic who nonetheless holds positions contrary to the teachings of his church. Kerry supports abortion rights, stem cell research, the death penalty for terrorists and civil unions for gay couples -- all opposed by the church hierarchy.