In Iraq, those who go to vote, especially in areas where the insurgents are active, are true democratic heroes. One observer said that it would be reasonable to anticipate 60 acts of terrorism on Sunday. Terrorists thrive on unpredictability. That is what gives them the great leverage they have. If we knew exactly where a terrorist would strike, the jeopardized could prepare for him, and vitiate or even abort his mission.

The other problem in Iraq reflects tribal divisions. If the Sunnis were to succeed in boycotting the election, that would be different from the failure to vote for fear of retaliation by the insurgents.

Whatever happens, it is a day of haunting significance. President Bush's statement on Thursday that of course the United States military would withdraw if the new government requested it to do so is the perfect frame for a genuinely democratic exercise.

You can't get, in Iraq, sophisticated demographics of a kind that will tell us how many failed to vote for fear of the insurgents, how many were motivated by tribal resentments. But one might hope that the European community would greet the events of Sunday with at least a measure of gratitude for what the United States has made possible.

While 45 million unborn children have been aborted since Roe v. Wade in 1973, there has been no talk from the left of compromise on common-sense restrictions such as parental notification, waiting periods, or a ban on grisly partial-birth abortions -- only endless assertions about a woman's right over her "own" body

On so-called gay marriage, where was the spirit of civility last year when the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts dictated to legislators that they had to legalize something that over 4,000 years of recorded human history had declined to do? Where is the restraint when gay-rights supporters threaten to overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act (signed into law by none other than Bill Clinton)?

On the teaching of evolution, a school board in Cobb County, Georgia, agreed to paste a sticker into some science textbooks that would meet the concerns of some religiously motivated parents while allowing the Darwin's theory of origins to continue to be taught. The sticker says, "Evolution is a theory, not a fact....This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." While this was a perfectly reasonable attempt at compromise, a federal district court judge ruled that the sticker is unconstitutional.

Sounds like these folks are just as "deeply religious" as are evangelicals and weekly churchgoers -- only they have a different religion.

It is something that draws an easy laugh, especially from journalists: a campaign condemning America's most beloved cartoon sponge.

But James Dobson's high-profile jabs against Nickelodeon's monster hit SpongeBob SquarePants are no laughing matter. They are, instead, a textbook example of how powerful evangelical conservatives send galvanizing messages to their faithful that sail over the heads of those who aren't supposed to get it....

Mainstream news outlets cracking jokes only help Dobson's cause, allowing conservative complaints about how the liberal media twist their words around....But Dobson's message can be amazingly effective in generating fear, convincing conservative parents they can't even place their children in front of kiddie channel Nickelodeon without exposing them to radical ideas. No one should forget how effectively fear sold the American public on war with Iraq and a president with a seriously low job approval rating.

These are seeds, once planted, that will pay off in future campaigns against media indecency and gay rights. And when Dobson's faithful turn out again to press their issues at the ballot box, mainstream media outlets will cluck their tongues and wonder how they once more missed the message.

The religious fundamentalists deriding a federal court ruling barring anti-evolution stickers on Georgia textbooks have it all wrong. Judge Clarence Cooper's decision neither denies God nor defends the theory of evolution. It's about one thing: living up to the U.S. Constitution.

That document's view on church and state is as clear now as the day the ink hit the paper. Church and state must be separate, as much today as ever, given the myriad ways issues of so-called morality are creeping into government affairs....

Public school classrooms were never intended to put forth the agendas of any religion, or even atheism. These are matters still best left to parents, who, under the same Constitution, are free to teach whatever they think their children should believe about God and evolution.

The "changing hearts" portion of the abortion debate is over. ATTENTION, PASSENGERS: We're now entering the "minds" portion of the "hearts and minds" journey on abortion. We've been talking about abortion for 32 years. All the hearts that can be changed have been changed. By some estimates, 35 million human hearts (and counting) have been "changed" by abortion....

Until Roe is overturned, telling pro-lifers they need to be "changing hearts" is like telling the New England Patriots they need to practice more -- while never, ever letting them play in the Super Bowl. We've been changing hearts for 32 years -– I think we're ready for the big match now. I think Americans would support massive restrictions on abortion. And NARAL agrees with me! How about it, liberals? Prove me wrong! Let Americans vote.

Hillary Clinton's idea of an overture to pro-life groups is to blame those who oppose abortion for its spread. This line of reasoning is comically convoluted, but Hillary Clinton has been trying it out anyway, saying President Bush is responsible for the rise in abortion in some states because he won't fund her favorite prophylactic programs.

But even in extending a thorn branch to pro-life groups, Hillary Clinton draws gasps, head shaking, and troubled silence from pro-abortion activists. So reported the press after she said earlier in the week that "We can all recognize that abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic, choice to many, many women." Notice that she didn't say it is a tragic choice for the aborted babies, only for the women who get abortions....

The "I Had An Abortion" T-shirts Planned Parenthood sold online last year were an attempt to "demystify and destigmatize it," said a spokesman for the group. The strategy here is to normalize abortion, make it so commonplace that no one will think to question it. If you can talk happily and casually about your abortions -- as Barbara Ehrenreich did in the New York Times last year in a piece titled "Owning Up to Abortion" -- then how bad can the practice be?

Understanding this psychology, Alexander Sanger, the grandson of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, has been emphasizing that abortion advocates should go beyond "choice" -- an insipid, evasive rhetoric, he thinks -- and celebrate abortion unapologetically. After all, he says, the unborn child is an interloper who deserves death. "The unborn child is not just an innocent life," he writes, but a "liability, a threat, and a danger to the mother and to the other members of the family."

The conservative mood, exemplified so vocally and vociferously by the religious right, has no such difficulty, validated by their perception of Biblical support and buoyed by a message that plays to a deep-seated sense of pious entitlement. By co-opting religion into the political sphere, they have, for all intents and purposes, assumed a self-imagined moral higher ground, from which all manner of social, environmental and ethical damage can be justified.

A wholly secular opposition to this way of thinking, long advocated on separation of church and state grounds by those on the left, including believers, has been predictably ineffective, while more half-truths, misinformation and ignorance gain the solidity of dogma. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the too often complacent religious left to serve notice that the fight has been joined. Religion in general, and Christianity in particular, are not the sole province of a conservative, jingoistic electorate.

Biblical authority seems a good place to join the debate, since religious conservatives are quick to use scripture to validate their position, perhaps rightfully so. But arguments of a literal versus allegorical interpretation aside (another debate), even a casual reading of the New Testament Gospels, which narratively describe the ministry and message of Jesus, paint a clear picture of a radical teacher who intentionally turned the religious and social thinking of his day upside down, a teacher whose primary advocacy was for the poor, the marginalized and the cast aside, and, as a result, was executed by religious conservatives. His disciples and followers were told to give away their possessions; their community was, by definition, socialistic.

Ending days of speculation about whether they had agreed to a cease-fire with Israel, Hamas and Islamic Jihad on Tuesday denied that they would halt terrorist attacks "without making Israel pay a price."

Hamas leader, Khaled Mashaal, the Syria-based head of the movement's political bureau, said there would be no discussion of a truce before the Palestinians test Israel's intentions and receive assurances from the international community that Israel would halt its attacks on the Palestinians.

He described the recent talks between Hamas officials in the Gaza Strip and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas as "positive."

"We agreed that the message that we should send to the international community is that the Palestinian resistance is not the problem, but it is Israel's aggression," he said. "We also agreed that our message to the Zionist enemy is that there would be no solution unless the occupation ends."

A PBS spokesman said late Tuesday that the nonprofit network has decided not to distribute the episode, called "Sugartime!," to its 349 stations. She said the Education Department's objections were not a factor in that decision.

"Ultimately, our decision was based on the fact that we recognize this is a sensitive issue, and we wanted to make sure that parents had an opportunity to introduce this subject to their children in their own time," said Lea Sloan, vice president of media relations at PBS.

However, the Boston public television station that produces the show, WGBH, does plan to make the "Sugartime!" episode available to other stations. WGBH also plans to air the episode on March 23, Sloan said.

If anything, Roe succeeded only in forming a coalition of otherwise politically disinterested voters that has significantly strengthened the Republican Party. For Democrats, Roe has become a political liability: If they aren't sufficiently pro-Roe, their base will ignore them; yet if they are, they cannot hope to make inroads into red states. This has led to the untenable and absurd position held by many Democrats (and a few blue-state Republicans), who say that they are personally against abortion, but in favor of Roe....

One justice retirement is always a big political event, but with a potential of four during Mr. Bush's second term, the pro-life marchers had an extra reason to be excited yesterday. Far from ever being "settled," they know, as do the pro-choicers, that Roe was never more in doubt.

The traditional family -- with marriage, work, and children -- has always provided an effective framework to deal with the challenges our policy wonks are now trying to solve with social engineering. Parents raising children and then children helping their elderly parents is a model that has always worked well. It's a program that doesn't need computers. It just requires caring.

Demographics reflect symptoms -- they don't explain causes. Our crises in Social Security and Medicare are the result of the socially engineered "do your own thing" society.

Of course, we need a free society and we need an "ownership" society. But families provide the social basis of these arrangements.

Families are built on caring, love, and respect for the sanctity of life. If we give it some thought, I think we'll conclude that these values provide a far better basis on which to build our future than "the right to privacy."

Mrs. Clinton, in a speech to about 1,000 abortion rights supporters at the state Capitol, firmly restated her support for the Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion nationwide, Roe v. Wade. But then she quickly shifted gears, offering warm words to opponents of abortion -- particularly members of religious groups -- asserting that there was "common ground" to be found after three decades of emotional and political warfare over abortion.

Mrs. Clinton is widely seen as a possible candidate for the party's presidential nomination in 2008, and her remarks signaled that she could be recalibrating her strong identification with the abortion-rights movement as the Democratic Party engages in its own re-examination of its handling of the issue in the wake of Senator John Kerry's loss in the 2004 presidential race.

Ms. Clinton has been a visible and very public defender of abortion rights, appearing at a huge rally in Washington last spring and denouncing what she called Republican efforts to demonize the abortion rights movement.

While she acknowledged in her address today that Americans have "deeply held differences" over abortion rights, Mrs. Clinton told the annual conference of the Family Planning Advocates of New York State, "I for one respect those who believe with all their heart and conscience that there are no circumstances under which abortion should be available."

Allard unsuccessfully sought an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman in 2004. Since then, 11 states passed their own versions of a same-sex marriage ban.

"We think we have more support this time than we had last time around," Allard told the Rocky Mountain News.

On matters such as Social Security, taxes and tort reform, compromise is quite possible -- perhaps inevitable. We may even achieve a degree of unity on the anguishing question of Iraq, since, absent the development of a serious get-out-of-Iraq-now campaign, nobody seems to have a particularly attractive alternative to the administration's approach.

What, in my view, threatens to test the American tradition of working things out are issues closely tied to religious faith: abortion, homosexual marriage, the teaching of evolution....we may all agree that "working things out" is the right thing to do when it comes to secular disagreements. But as many deeply religious Americans see it, compromise between righteousness and sin is: sin.

That's fine when it comes to personal behavior. But it could spell serious discord when extended to legislation or government policy.

The Supreme Court wants us to believe that they have settled a matter they have no power nor right to settle, that they have created precedents, and generated behaviors and commitments which compromise millions and many will therefore want in self-interest to defend, and that slowly their decision of 1973 will pacify the public thoroughly.

But they have overstepped their powers. They have practiced government without the consent of the governed. They have usurped the role of the legislature.

We have no procedure for making our consciences effective within the law, short of marches and protests and a constant series of elections -- defeating those who would kill the unborn by choice, and bringing in new champions of the inalienable right to life and to defend the otherwise defenseless.

The moral position of the other side is more and more visibly untenable.

The case was one of two right-to-die appeals pending at the high court. Justices are expected to decide in the next month whether to consider a Bush administration request to block the nation's only law allowing doctors to help terminally ill patients die more quickly. Oregon voters passed that law in 1998.

At issue Monday was "Terri's Law," which the Florida Supreme Court ruled unanimously was an unconstitutional effort to override court rulings.

The 41-year-old Schiavo suffered brain damage in 1990 when her heart temporarily stopped beating because of an eating disorder. In 2001, her parents lost an emergency Supreme Court appeal seeking to keep her feeding tube in place, but more appeals followed.

Florida judges will now decide, after the Supreme Court's action, what happens next in the case.