Israel is determined to keep Yasser Arafat out of Jerusalem even in death, with one Cabinet minister saying Friday that the holy city is reserved for the burial of Jewish kings, "not Arab terrorists."

Palestinian officials said publicly that it is inappropriate to talk about funeral arrangements as long as their 75-year-old leader clings to life at a Paris hospital. A hospital spokesman said Friday that Arafat was in a coma and "has not gotten worse."

The election results reflect the decision of the right wing to cultivate and exploit ignorance in the citizenry. I suppose the good news is that 55 million Americans have evaded the ignorance-inducing machine. But 58 million have not....Here is how ignorance works: First, they put the fear of God into you--if you don't believe in the literal word of the Bible, you will burn in hell. Of course, the literal word of the Bible is tremendously contradictory, and so you must abdicate all critical thinking, and accept a simple but logical system of belief that is dangerous to question. A corollary to this point is that they make sure you understand that Satan resides in the toils and snares of complex thought and so it is best not try it.

Let's be clear: Bush ran on a moral agenda--God, guns, gays, and true grit in fighting the evils of Saddam Hussein and terrorism. Kerry ran on a policy agenda--affordable health care, deficit reduction, and combating terrorism through stronger international alliances and a smarter strategy. Bush spoke about right and wrong in moral terms--as matters of righteousness and faith. Kerry spoke of right and wrong in pragmatic terms--for example, saying he had the right way to get the economy moving again or to fight al-Qaida, and George Bush was going the wrong way....My recommendation to Democrats is not to become more religious. Religion is a personal matter. Nor should Dems move toward Republican positions on matters of personal morality, such as gay marriage or abortion. (One caveat: I do think Democrats should be clear that they want fewer abortions in America--not by prohibiting them, but by making sure young people have access to contraceptives and family-planning counseling, and other social services.) My recommendation is that Democrats offer somewhat fewer plans and policies and have more moral conviction.

As for domestic "moral issues:" They seem to leave Democrats in a quandary. The salient "moral" issues--abortion, gay rights, school prayer--aren't issues on which substantial compromise is thinkable. If you imagine a Democratic Party that caves on these, you're imagining a party that has lost both philosophical integrity and vital constituencies.

But compromise on these issues may not be a prerequisite for attracting some voters who care about them. Though these issues are symptoms of moral anxiety in Middle America, I think the anxiety's ultimate source is more diffuse, and includes concerns that even many liberals share.

But what troubled me yesterday was my feeling that this election was tipped because of an outpouring of support for George Bush by people who don't just favor different policies than I do -- they favor a whole different kind of America. We don't just disagree on what America should be doing; we disagree on what America is.

Is it a country that does not intrude into people's sexual preferences and the marriage unions they want to make? Is it a country that allows a woman to have control over her body? Is it a country where the line between church and state bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers should be inviolate? Is it a country where religion doesn't trump science? And, most important, is it a country whose president mobilizes its deep moral energies to unite us -- instead of dividing us from one another and from the world?

President Bush won because "moral issues" were more important than any others for one-fifth of the voters, and the president won that fifth by at least a 4-to-1 majority. To put it another way, Sen. Kerry probably received about 56 percent of the vote from people most concerned with foreign policy or economic issues, the traditional subjects for presidential campaigns.

Chief among the moral issues is the matter of life and death called abortion. Although that horror did not by name play a large part in the campaign, when it did come up it seems to have worked once again to the advantage of pro-life candidates and the detriment of those who are ready to exclude the weakest among us, unborn children, from being part of "we the people."

To understand why America skewed red on Election Day, you might talk to Gary Bauer, the conservative activist, former Republican candidate for president and creator of an organization called Americans United to Preserve Marriage.

The group spent a million dollars in Ohio, Michigan and across the country. It warned voters that a nation led by John Kerry might be one in which homosexuals could get married -- and not just two at a time.

"Most Americans don't want to sit down and explain to their children why they live in a country where men can marry men, why there's polygamy -- because that would naturally follow, we would argue," Bauer said yesterday.

If two men could marry, so could three, four, or more, Bauer said. Moreover, he said, "textbooks could not talk about 'mothers' and 'fathers.' They could only talk about 'parents.' "

Not long ago, this might have been considered a somewhat fringe viewpoint, a trifle alarmist -- "polygamy" just isn't something you hear people talking about in Washington political circles -- but gay marriage now seems essential to any conversation about the 2004 election. The exit polls pointed to a huge boost for Republicans from voters who said their biggest concern was "moral values."

They say that in life you get what you deserve. Well, today America has deservedly got a lawless cowboy to lead them further into carnage and isolation and the unreserved contempt of most of the rest of the world.

This once-great country has pulled up its drawbridge for another four years and stuck a finger up to the billions of us forced to share the same air. And in doing so, it has shown itself to be a fearful, backward-looking and very small nation...A radical Christian fanatic who decided the world was made up of the forces of good and evil, who invented a war on terror, and thus as author of it, believed he had the right to set the rules of engagement.

Evidence that the White House is prepared to lean on Ariel Sharon -- while Europe tries to influence the Palestinians - would be a welcome signal that a second term will be different. So would any sign that the US understands that defeating terrorists needs a deeper understanding of its root causes -- in poverty, underdevelopment and injustice. That might, just, persuade France and Germany to help salvage something from the mayhem of Iraq -- painful proof of the limits of power and the fact that even a hegemony needs friends. That is also underlined by the looming crisis over Iran's nuclear ambitions -- a matter of truly global importance. It is foolish to pretend that the world salutes Mr Bush's triumph. But different policies could work wonders for Washington, and the world.

Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat was Thursday "brain dead" and breathing only thanks to artificial life support systems, a French medical source said after conflicting reports as to whether he was alive or dead.

In strictly clinical terms, Arafat was "not dead," the source told AFP on condition of confidentiality, adding that the 75-year-old leader had slipped into an irreversible coma and could only be maintained in his vegetative state through ventiliation machines.

This is gloomy stuff for the traditional churchgoer. Only 7.9 per cent of the population now attends church, down from 11 per cent 20 years ago. Although holistic practices are still comparatively small (less than 2 per cent of the population nationally participate) it is the phenomenal rate of growth not just among the young but also the middle-aged and much older that is threatening to overshadow traditional churchgoing....

So what does meditation have that conventional worship does not? Neutrality, suggests Elizabeth Forder, who runs the centre. "We are not affiliated to any religion and there is no belief system imposed on anybody here," she says. "I was brought up a Christian, but it held no real meaning for me. I would class myself as a universalist, believing that all religions offer the same end. At its simplest, meditation is giving the body and mind a very deep level of rest, freeing us to be ourselves." She mentions an 87-year-old man who used to belong to the congregation and now meditates regularly.

By late last night, the Associated Press projected that initiatives banning same-sex marriage had passed in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Utah.

"We knew that putting this up for a popular vote we would lose," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, which opposed the referendums. "Fundamental human rights should never be put up for a popular vote, and that is why we have a Bill of Rights, and ultimately the Bill of Rights will win for gay Americans the freedom to marry just as the Massachusetts court did for gay people in that state. We have all known forever this would all be resolved by the US Supreme Court." Gay marriages are legal in Massachusetts as a result of a court decision.

We must fight back against Bush's regressive policies on every issue. Now is not the time to be timid -- we must not give in to an agenda that endangers our rights, our freedoms, our liberty, and our lives.

With President Bush re-elected, the next big fight is coming up fast: the battle to protect the Supreme Court.

The concerning news about Chief Justice Rehnquist's health reminds us that we MUST be ready to face a Supreme Court vacancy on a moment’s notice.

Here's the first thing you can do: Put Bush on notice that you and all pro-choice Americans will not give up. Sign our petition to tell him that you'll firmly oppose any Supreme Court nominee who doesn't support Roe v. Wade, then spread the word to your pro-choice friends and family.

Though Prop 71 authors didn't use the word "cloning" in the initiative, the measure does fund the cloning -- and destruction -- of human embryos. Christian Medical Association president David Stevens noted that its passage marks the first time in medical history that doctors have been publicly authorized and funded to destroy human beings in the name of scientific research. "Prop 71 had turned human beings into commodities, valuable scientific material, and that's a very dangerous step," Dr. Stevens said. "Science has always gotten into trouble when it's adopted a utilitarian ethic -- that a little bit of 'bad' is okay as long as it's for the 'greater good.'"

Having restored decency to the White House, President Bush now has a mandate to affect policy that will promote a more decent society, through both politics and law. His supporters want that, and have given him a mandate in their popular and electoral votes to see to it. Now is the time to begin our long, national cultural renewal ("The Great Relearning," as novelist Tom Wolfe calls it) -- no less in legislation than in federal court appointments. It is, after all, the main reason George W. Bush was reelected.

Clearly, issues as basic as the sanctity of human life and the integrity of marriage are at stake in today's election. With one presidential candidate [Senator John Kerry] bragging of being the most pro-homosexual candidate in the nation's history, and the other candidate [President George W. Bush] pledging to support a Federal Marriage Amendment, the choice is clear. Similarly, Senator Kerry has made his advocacy of embryonic stem-cell research a centerpiece of his campaign, pledging to put American tax dollars into the business of creating and destroying human embryos in the name of medical research. President George W. Bush, on the other hand, stands by the policy he established in August of 2001, which prevents any further destruction of human embryos through taxpayer-supported research. Once again, the choice is clear. Taking into account also the war in Iraq, the war on terror, and fundamental questions about the nation's foreign policy, it seems safe to conclude that the stakes could hardly be higher.

Yet at the same time, Christians must be careful to maintain biblical sanity in the midst of political confusion. Guided by a biblical perspective, we may well be the last people on earth who know that the political process is genuinely important, but not ultimate.

The second, and more important, reason that we can't just "leave it up to the states" is that it is not up to any of us to define marriage. There are many issues that should be left to the states to decide; marriage is not one of them, however -- just as slavery was not one of them. To allow marriage to mean different things in different states makes no more sense than the situation in the 1800s where African-Americans were considered persons in some states and not in others.

This isn't an issue of federalism and states' rights, as some have tried to frame it. The union of one man and one woman is an institution established by our Creator, not merely a tradition that we're free to experiment with. A constitutional amendment would ensure that the definition of marriage is protected throughout this country. That's why we need leaders who understand what's at stake and are willing to do something about it -- not just give it a mention during the campaign season in the hope that everyone will soon forget what they said -- and not those who say they are against same-sex "marriage" and then refuse to vote for the only thing that will stop it.

Senator Kerry's self-contradictions respecting faith and politics are not the product of sloppiness or ill-formed opinion. They are calculated to sow confusion and deceive people. When convenient, he wears his faith on his sleeve, seeking to conjure up amongst Catholics of faith the comforting imagery of piety and submission to God's will. But when pandering to the chattering class and cultural elite is called for, he steps back from his faith, sending the signal that he's different from the mass of mindless peasants who populate the pews and hang on every word of Mother Church.

Senator Kerry has in fact damaged the Church in serious ways. The Catholic Church has worked hard to avoid partisanship, and yet, every step of the way, Kerry has baited and tempted the faithful by making outrageous statements about who Catholics are and what they believe. He has also undercut the work of Pope John Paul II, who has worked doggedly to foster an appreciation for how faith and reason are inextricably intertwined. The senator's recent condescending rhetoric about respectfully disagreeing with the bishops on opposition to abortion laws -- as if to say that he is one of those thinking Catholics -- plays right into the age-old prejudices about Catholics that Pope John Paul II has worked hard to eliminate through his elegant connecting of faith with reason.

How would the current Supreme Court handle the issue of same-sex marriage? It's hard to predict. In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Court struck down a Texas statute forbidding homosexual sodomy, while saying that it was not opining on the issue of same-sex marriage. But, as dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia noted, other language in the Court's opinion seemed to dismantle the structure of constitutional law that would allow states to continue defining marriage as a male-female union.

In any event, we must look beyond the current Supreme Court. If John Kerry is elected president, his judicial nominees -- "litmus tested" for fidelity to liberal jurisprudence -- will make same-sex marriage a national reality. They will either force every state to recognize same-sex marriages contracted in other states (e.g., Massachusetts, or states whose judiciaries follow the example of the Massachusetts supreme judicial court), or proclaim a new right to marry someone of either sex. Judges who pride themselves on having discovered a constitutional "right to abortion" that the framers of the Constitution never dreamed of, will have no trouble persuading themselves that the Constitution includes a right to same-sex marriage. And a vote for Kerry is, in effect, a vote for more such judges.

John Kerry reaches the finish line tomorrow having had to speak more words about religion this year than ever before in his long political career. The point has been to reveal his deepest values, say his aides, and it has been a telling revelation.

Kerry, who is Catholic, has repeatedly emphasized that he would not "legislate" any "article of [his] faith." Kerry thus might seem to be recognizing merely that the First Amendment forbids establishing religion, including any article of specifically Catholic faith.

Kerry has not explained why he regards the pro-life view as an article of Catholic faith. He has made much of the fact that it is a church teaching. But should you think that, for Kerry, any church teaching is an "article of faith" and therefore something that he, as a senator, may not legislate, then think again, for his church has other teachings that he is only too happy to legislate. Indeed, he has invoked church teachings to explain his work in behalf of justice, the environment and the alleviation of poverty. Only an overriding commitment to abortion rights--he vows to appoint only "pro-choice" justices--can explain why for Kerry the pro-life view is an "article of faith" but other church teachings are not.

The three words that were on everyone's mind did not escape John Kerry's lips when the soaring notes of the gospel choir faded away and he rose before the congregation.

With just 48 hours to go before his fate is decided, and 40 hours after Osama bin Laden made his dramatic entrance into the American election campaign, the Democratic candidate was determined to return to the closing message of his campaign -- his promise of better jobs, healthcare and education.

And at Shiloh baptist church, where people fluttered fan-sized Kerry-Edwards signs in the pews, that was what people mostly wanted to hear from Mr Kerry: a commitment to the concerns of African-American voters.

I'm interested in cures and in eradicating diseases. This touches my own family. It was brought to my attention that this proposition is deceptive. It's a deliberate attempt to mislead the public.

They use scientific terms to obfuscate their true intent. They don't want to talk about human embryos or the cloning of human embryos so they use arcane scientific terms that mean the same thing, like "pluripotent stem cells" and "somatic-cell nuclear transfer."

Truthfully, I would find it difficult to look at myself in the mirror if I didn't take a stand against this disingenuous proposition, particularly in light of the fact that in 23 years of research with embryonic-stem-cells not one single cure has been obtained.

Not so with adult and umbilical-cord stem cells, which have resulted in more than 300,000 effective cures including spinal-cord injuries, Parkinson's disease, stroke, and multiple sclerosis. That's not what Prop 71 is about.

The big news in Osama bin Laden's message to American voters was not his intercession in our election; that clumsy ploy was not as successful as his pre-election panicking of Spain's voters.

Nor was the news his delight in the "pet goat" sequence in Michael Moore's Bush-bashing film, and his admonition that "Bush is still deceiving you and hiding the truth from you," echoing the central Kerry theme. Nor was it the frustrating fact that our Global Enemy No. 1 is alive and well and still at large.

The unremarked news is that this mass murderer evidently seeks a kind of truce. Although some coverage of his pre-election message noted an unexpected "conciliatory tone," we have not fixed on the reason for this change in his attitude.

At bottom, Mr. Kerry's objection to the war in Iraq and the anti-Bush animus he has tapped into have nothing to do with protecting our troops, conserving resources to go after terrorists elsewhere, or even making nice with Germany and France. The objection is over whether there are fundamental moral values worth fighting for in the world. In his 1971 Senate testimony Mr. Kerry said that such values are not universal: "We found most people [in Vietnam] didn't know the difference between communism and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without helicopters strafing them." And he articulated a remarkably consistent view this year when he indicated democracy was optional in Iraq and perhaps imposing a strongman there was preferable.

This has not been George W. Bush's position. First in Afghanistan and then in Iraq, he has fought two wars of liberation. To fight these wars Mr. Bush first had to believe in the greatness of this nation; before he could export it to places that have known little more than tyranny, he had to believe the fundamental American value of liberty for all was also a universal value. With that belief comes the understanding that liberty abroad can serve as a bulwark against terrorism. But in fighting these wars, the president had to know that America would also look anew at the principles of liberty at home. From a terrorist's right to free speech and free association, to pressing the international community to confront terrorism and to the values we wish to impart to the next generation to ensure they remain resolute in defending this nation, this war is forcing a great re-examination in America.