It's heck being a Christian in America these days. Insults and ostracism confront us daily.

An "orthodox Christian" teacher at a public California elementary school has accused his principal of barring him from using historical documents naming God.

Target Corp. has stopped letting Salvation Army bell-ringers put a guilt trip on harried shoppers so they'll drop spare change into the familiar red kettles....

So many slights, so little time.

But I wonder: Why are we so easily offended?

Protests and chest-beating and indignant news releases might feel empowering as political tools.

But if religion's influence comes from spreading peace, justice, mercy and love, don't we wield more power by devoting our time, money and hearts to directly serving others in ways that can make a difference in individual lives?

Of the two, the Newsweek article is more problematic by far. TIME's article, "Secrets of the Nativity," is written by reporter David Van Biema, a skilled writer who often covers religious stories for the magazine. Even as the article opens with questions about the identity of the wise men, the nature of the star, and whether or not Jesus was born in Nazareth, rather than Bethleham. Van Biema goes on to report: "In the debates over the literal truth of the Gospels, just about everyone acknowledges that major conclusions about Jesus' life are not based on forensic clues. There is no specific physical evidence for the key points of the story."...

But, if TIME's article raises questions about the historical truthfulness of the New Testament, Newsweek goes on to deny many essential biblical truth claims out of hand. In "The Birth of Jesus," writer Jon Meacham goes right to the heart of the matter, arguing that the infancy and birth narratives were simply invented by the early church in order to answer awkward questions and develop a fully-orbed theology and understanding of Jesus. He argues that "the Nativity narratives are the subject of ongoing scholarly debate over their historical accuracy" and that "almost nothing in Luke's stories stands up to close historical scrutiny."

The first thing that opponents of the research should learn from the proponents is that there have to be solid reasons to prohibit something: an aesthetic dislike for it -- the "ick factor" -- isn't enough. The second thing is that research is, in general, desirable, unless there are good reasons for blocking it.

It is also important for opponents to remember the reasons that they think some kinds of research should be prohibited. The first is that the human embryo is a human being with a right not to be killed. One of the premises behind that reason is that the human embryo is a living human organism, a member of the human species. It is not simply that the human embryo is alive and has human DNA -- that much is true of a living human skin cell, which nobody regards as a human being. It is also necessary that the entity in question be distinct, not a part of some other organism, and capable of directing its own integral functioning and development. The second is that it is wrong and dangerous to reduce in principle a living human being, as defined above, to the status of a product of manufacture.

A dilemma is defined as a choice between alternatives that are equally undesirable. Adding more undesirable choices doesn't solve a dilemma; it deepens it. One gets the sense that the conservatives on this commission wouldn't be proposing these ideas if the "political impasse" hadn't stimulated such straining. Why, first of all, does the council treat a traditional scruple -- science should not treat embryos as material for manipulation -- as one horn of the dilemma? Once bioethicists treat adherence to traditional morality as just one more undesirable choice among many the debate is over. And why do they assume these novel proposals would arrest a scientific culture that regards human embryos as expendable? The first proposal would expand, not eliminate, the IVF limbo of hundreds of thousands of frozen embryos, since it completely depends on it....

Forming reengineered entities is playing God without the wisdom of God, a certain way to lose a sense of one's own dignity. The commission seemed to say, no embryo, no indignity. The commission never considered the question of its own dignity. Science can not only degrade the dignity of its subjects. It can also degrade the dignity of scientists and the culture supporting them. If modern man must commit freakish acts to achieve a "normal" life, what dignity is left by the end of it?

Canada's top court says Ottawa has the authority to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, but religious officials cannot be forced to perform unions against their beliefs.

The Supreme Court of Canada refused to say whether the traditional definition of marriage -- between one man and one woman -- violates equality rights.

It noted the federal government has already accepted lower-court judgments that excluding gays from marrying is discriminatory....

The court says times have changed and the legal definition of marriage should change with them.

"Several centuries ago, it would have been understood that marriage be available only to opposite-sex couples.

"The recognition of same-sex marriage in several Canadian jurisdictions as well as two European countries belies the assertion that the same is true today."

In reality, many Muslims contest such a definition of jihad and say that a Muslim can fight and be rewarded by Allah only when defending Islamic lands. But that should be the beginning rather than the end of discussion: It's vital to find out which lands a Muslim sees as Islam's. Is Israel a Muslim land? What about Spain and the Balkans, which Islam ruled for centuries?

Similarly, when a Muslim says he opposes the murder of civilians, it's vital to ask: What do you mean by civilian? Is a non-soldier Israeli who has military training and could be called into active service a civilian? A worker at the Pentagon? How about those at the World Trade Center who advanced the capitalism that undergirds U.S. military efforts?

Many American Muslims are peaceful and define jihad primarily as an internal struggle to improve. Some talk more of military jihad and say it's allowable to regain lands that once were Islamic. Muslim terrorists peel away all the layers and go down deep enough to blast away small children who could eventually become soldiers occupying land that properly belongs to Islam.

Many of the state's largest employers are dropping health benefits for unmarried gay couples, seven months after Massachusetts became the only state to legalize same-sex marriage.

Massachusetts companies, some of which pioneered so-called domestic-partner benefits for unmarried, same-sex partners, said they are now withdrawing them for reasons of fairness: If gays and lesbians can now marry, they should no longer receive special treatment in the form of health benefits that were not made available to unmarried, opposite-sex couples....

"We're saying if you're a same-sex domestic partner, you now have the same option heterosexuals have, so we have to apply the same rules to you," said Larry Emerson, Baystate's vice president of human resources.

A week in the United States, such as I have just spent, is enough to make anybody feel a trifle fed up with God, or rather with the relentless invocation of the deity by American politicians, led by their president. No public occasion would be complete without the blessing of the Almighty being besought for whatever endeavour tops the agenda, most prominently the war in Iraq. The appeal to faith, seldom mere ritual, is usually founded upon conviction.

There is an attractive rationalist case for insisting that candidates for election anywhere in the world are required to sign a declaration forswearing religious affiliation....I am not in the least anti-religious. If pressed I would describe myself as a social Anglican. Yet I find myself increasingly eager to be governed by politicians who profess no pretensions to a hot line to a higher power.

The west may find that the struggle against militant Islam is an inescapable challenge of the 21st century, extending far more widely than the present engagement with a few thousand fanatics. Most of us wish to explore every avenue of accommodation before reconciling ourselves to armed conflict. Yet we now face another four years at the mercy of a US president who perceives his own God as foremost among White House advisers and regards the contest with Islam as already begun.

Justice Teresi ruled that state laws barring same-sex marriage do not discriminate on the basis of gender because men and women are treated alike under the marriage laws; they both are permitted to marry someone of the opposite gender.

The court also found that same-sex couples do not have a fundamental right to marry under the New York or United States Constitutions. And the court rejected the couples' claims that barring same-sex marriage violates their right to free expression.

But what's all this about light and candles? What about the heroes who are remembered during Chanukah -- Judah Maccabee and his father Mattathias? Are not their deeds the thread that runs through all of Chanukah?

Yes, but not exactly. Their exploits are referred to in prayers and rituals only by indirection. Heroic feats are transmuted in the glow of the candles; they become acts of divine intervention.

The blessing over the candles recited each night of the holiday goes: "Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who wrought miracles for our fathers in days of old." Miracles, not victories. As in the Exodus from Egypt, it is He who delivered us. Freedom is a gift from God, not men.

By mostly removing the issue from the democratic process, Roe created the current polarization over abortion, in which both parties are officially committed to extreme positions. The Republican platform calls for a Human Life Amendment, which would presumably ban all or most abortions, while the Democratic platform backs "a woman's right to choose...regardless of her ability to pay"--meaning abortion on demand, at taxpayer expense.

Opinion polls consistently show that only a small proportion of Americans favor either of these extremes. But because Roe v. Wade and subsequent decisions take off the table any restriction that imposes an "undue burden" on a woman seeking to abort her pregnancy, Republicans are an extreme antiabortion party only in theory. When it comes to actual legislation, the GOP favors only modest--and popular--regulations. The Democrats, on the other hand, must defend such unpopular practices as partial-birth abortion, taxpayer-subsidized abortion, and abortions for 13-year-olds without their parents' knowledge.

If the Supreme Court overturned Roe, legislators would have to consider the legality of abortion itself. Antiabortion absolutists would demand action from Republicans--but the GOP would be unable to comply without putting off moderate voters, who are much more numerous. Thus the battle would shift to terrain far more favorable to the Democrats.

A Christmas campaign for an "immaculate contraception" morning-after birth control pill has been scrapped by a drug company in Britain after causing offence on religious grounds.

The poster, which appeared on London Underground trains, asked: "Immaculate contraception? If only."

"It might be Christmas time," it read, "but condoms still split and pills still get forgotten. So if your contraception lets you down, ask your pharmacist...."

Imagine a driver's education course in which teachers show students grisly photos of traffic accidents but never tell them to stop at red lights or buckle their seat belts, and you've a pretty good idea of what abstinence-only sex education is like. Abstinence-only programs try to scare and shame teens, teaching only the negative consequences of sexuality without telling young people what they can do to stay safe and healthy.

Palestinians and Israelis have agreed in principle to proposals which could serve as the basis of a comprehensive settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Egypt's official news agency MENA said on Tuesday.

Quoting unidentified high-level sources, it said the steps, including an Israeli-Palestinian ceasefire, had the support of both the United States and the European Union.

There was no immediate official comment from Israel or from Egypt, which has tried to play the role of mediator in previous efforts to ease Israeli-Palestinian violence.

Palestinian sources said reports of an Israeli-PA truce agreement were inexact, but gave no further details, Israel Radio said late Tuesday

With Arafat's death, there has been an unprecedented amount of optimism in the West regarding the establishment of a Palestinian state and the possibility of peace. Yet amongst Palestinian officials there is little talk of such a peace, the continuation of Yasser Arafat's "jihad" against the Jewish state instead being endorsed....

The Palestinian leadership is not alone in stating in public that terrorist attacks against Israel must continue. The Arabic and Iranian press have been particularly vocal. In response to an interviewer's question as to whether the Intifada will continue and grow stronger, Lebanese MP Zaher Al-Khatib said on November 13: "It will escalate and develop technologically. The martyrdom operations are no longer the only kind of operations in Palestine. The martyrdom operations have become a strategy. A strategy doesn't mean that we carry out these operations whenever possible; it means [real] military operations.... There is an infrastructure of resistance that wages battles, enters Ashdod, crosses borders, penetrates military zones, conducts operations as in Ashdod, and so on."

American officials intimately involved in the Oslo Accords now publicly state that more attention should have been paid to the issue of Palestinian incitement, and what the Arabs were saying amongst themselves about peace in Arabic. With Yasser Arafat gone, the U.S. should be paying close attention to his heirs to understand their true intentions.

The vast majority of scientists agree that evolution is a proven major unifying concept in science and should be not only included in science education in kindergarten through 12th grade but also better imbedded in school standards. Many scientists grow infuriated at evolution challenges by people they believe are trying to infuse religion into a strictly scientific process.

At the classroom level, many scientists say, evolution is too often taught as its own unit when it should be the guiding foundation for everything that happens in biology. "We could describe orchid shapes, but it's much more accurate and much more interesting to recognize that orchids and insects that pollinate them co-evolved," said William McComas, director of the Program to Advance Science Education at the University of Southern California.

Teachers don't teach that way for several reasons, he and other educators and scientists agreed.

Many don't fully understand the complicated process of evolution because of deficiencies in their own education. And some feel intimidated by their communities, which may not support evolution, according to the National Science Teachers Association. A national Gallup poll taken last month showed that 35 percent of the respondents believe that evolution is well-supported by the evidence, 35 percent said it is not and 29 percent said they didn't know enough to reply; 1 percent did not reply.

We approve of government addressing poverty, providing desperately needed retirement security, education, health care and housing, protecting the environment, keeping the peace and avoiding unnecessary wars. Surely, the strength of this long list of enacted positive values, and all of our other progressive collaborative efforts, should be a sufficiently cohesive force to prevent us from being seriously divided by the few prohibitions pointed to by the analysts.

That will be especially true if we take the opportunity to have the "conversation" about values President Bush has talked about more than once. The president now has the opportunity, for example, to lead the nation in a discussion concerning abortion and embryonic stem cells, beginning with the answers to some of the critical underlying questions.

The president says he is opposed to abortion and the taking of stem cells from embryos because human life begins at conception. But John Marburger, the president's authority on bioethics, tells us that the president sees this as a "sacred" issue, and not a scientific one. So Marburger has no science-based answer to offer.

Aren't the people of this nation who do not share the president's religious views on what is "sacred" entitled to reasons for denying the benefits of stem cells that are based on science and not just his personal religious commitments? Why not inquire as to what the biologists, embryologists and other scientists say?

It's that time of year again, the time when much of the grown-up world conspires in a fun game of "let's pretend," a time when normally serious people think, act, and behave as if something fantastic, something wonderful, something make-believe is actually true. I'm not talking of the "jolly old elf" you might be expecting. I am referring to that much more mythical of things, the "Holiday Season," as proclaimed in "Happy Holidays" and "Season's Greetings."...

Each December, America's Christians are persuaded, subtly, indirectly, and, more and more, directly, to deny and hide their belief. They must celebrate, not the joyous birth of a Redeemer, but rather the multicultural confusion of approved holidays representing different sentiments promoting a vague human kindliness. They are instructed and encouraged to pretend to believe in things an honest eight year-old would laugh at with derision.

Against the stupendous Incarnation and the accompanying two thousand years of tradition and devotion what do we have arrayed? One genuine and two ginned-up alternative holidays.