Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's stand against embryonic stem cell research not only changes the long-range picture for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. It augments a shift in tactics by social conservatives. They are trying to change the focus from research for fighting disease to an uncontrolled scientific community's quest to clone human beings....

The historic decision is not, as cloning proponents claim, whether to spend public funds on research to combat a wide variety of illnesses. The broader decision whether to grant science unlimited power is symbolized by the bill pending in Massachusetts to legalize the creation of human embryos. Romney has declared he will veto the bill, bringing upon himself the full wrath of the liberal establishment from Harvard to Sen. Edward M. Kennedy....

But science, represented by the Harvard dons, has no intention of accepting such a solution. They, too, feel located at the hinge of history to determine whether science will be freed of traditional ethical considerations. It is an overpowering issue that dwarfs Social Security reform and even democratizing Iraq, in determining how George W. Bush can guide this country's course.

"If God does not exist, everything is permitted." In the 19th century, both the Christian Dostoevsky and the anti-Christian Nietzsche affirmed this statement. In the weeks leading up to Sunday night's Oscar Awards, a battle has simmered over Clint Eastwood's Million Dollar Baby, which nearly swept the major awards, receiving Oscars for supporting actor (Morgan Freeman), actress (Hilary Swank), director (Eastwood), and picture. Eastwood has responded to allegations that the film promotes a right-to-die agenda, by distinguishing between propaganda and fiction, the latter of which involves a "What if?," the imaginative playing out of certain possibilities of character and plot. Beneath its surface, Million Dollar Baby, like Eastwood's previous film, Mystic River, entertains the question, "What if God does not exist?"...

Million Dollar Baby is an offensive film, not so much because of any subversive political agenda, but because of the way it wallows in the physical and spiritual degradation of its main characters, especially in its final, prolix segments. Whereas the emotionally chilling ending of Mystic River is integral to the resolution of the plot, Baby's final scenes are gratuitous. (Absent the sexual perversion, the ending here induces the same sort of stomach-churning repulsion as does the finale of Requiem for a Dream.) Far from entering a debate over controversial moral issues, Eastwood has nothing to say in the end. Instead, he drags us through one humiliating scene after another, taking us ever more deeply and explicitly into a nihilistic hell, in this case, the imaginative world that results from the film's unstated, "What if?"

A judge on Friday extended for three weeks a court order keeping Terri Schiavo's feeding tube in place, the latest development in a long-running family feud over the fate of the brain-damaged woman.

Pinellas Circuit Court Judge George Greer made his decision after pleadings from the woman's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, that they need more time to pursue additional medical tests which might prove their daughter has more mental capabilities than previously thought.

Maine State Rep. Brian Duprey introduced an unusual piece of legislation this month. It's a pro-life bill designed to tighten protections for the unborn. That's not the unusual part. That happens all the time. The interesting part is that Duprey's bill is designed to protect gay fetuses....There is little chance that a law like Duprey's would be nationalized, much less enforced ruthlessly. But what if it were? How could supporters deny that gays weren't being granted "special rights" since non-homosexual children would not have the same right to life? Faced with this massive contradiction between banning the termination of gay children but permitting women to abort all other children for any motive under the sun -- gender selection, disease, etc. -- would pro-choicers split apart? Would some on the right commit the horrid heresy of endorsing abortion only for "undesirables" but not for others?...

We have a tendency to assume that existing ideological categories are permanent. History is the study of the repeated debunking of such assumptions. The saddle, the stirrup, the moat, the locomotive, the telephone, the atomic bomb, the car, the computer, the birth control pill: All of these caused tectonic changes in ideological arrangements, and all of them, save the last, were primarily innovations in transportation, communication or war. The new earthquakes to come from biotechnology -- "cures" for homosexuality, unimaginable longevity, real "happy pills" -- could level all of the landmarks of our ideological landscape, even redefining the first ideology, conservatism.

The majority of American teens believe in God and worship in conventional congregations, but their religious knowledge is remarkably shallow and they have a tough time expressing the difference that faith makes in their lives, a new survey says.

Still, the notably comprehensive National of Study of Youth and Religion concluded that "religion really does matter" to teens....Future reports from the researchers will provide more detail on teens from specific religious denominations.

Though the phone survey depicted broad affinity with religion, the face-to-face interviews found that many teens' religious knowledge was "meager, nebulous and often fallacious" and engagement with the substance of their traditions remarkably shallow. Most seemed hard put to express coherently their beliefs and what difference they make.

Many were so detached from the traditions of their faith, says the report, that they're virtually following a different creed in which an undemanding God exists mostly to solve problems and make people feel good. Truth in any absolute, theological sense, takes a back seat.

I happen to teach abstinence in our local school systems through the local health department. If we help one student in a class, or encourage them to prolong the decision to have sex, it is a plus. We quote accurate information on STDs and pregnancy using the state and federal figures and statistics. We also talk about the whole person -- how making the decision to have sex affects the whole person physically, mentally, emotionally and socially. We talk about how to have positive relationships. With a high unemployment rate and and high rate of low income jobs here, I see kids who are disillusioned by life and seek out unhealthy behaviors such as sex in a casual way....

I truly believe the media has a major influence in how teens today see sex and see this behavior acted out in hallways and classrooms and in public. We can hope to plant a seed and have others water it and hope that it will choke out the weeds of negativity and hopelessness. Our children deserve to be protected, not just physically, but their hearts, also. Too many are hurting out here. Let's pray for those teaching this program and for the students receiving it.

Before lawmakers in Florida allow Terri Schiavo, a mentally disabled woman who is fed through a tube, to be starved and dehydrated to death, they ought to take a careful look at the 2000 Census.

It explains why the Constitution compels them to keep fighting for Terri's life....The Florida Supreme Court overturned Terri's Law, saying the governor and legislature did not have the authority to reverse a final judicial determination made under existing state laws. Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Bush's appeal of the decision.

But the truth is Terri's Law did not go far enough. This time, Gov. Bush and the Florida legislature should protect not only Schiavo from starvation and dehydration, but also every other person in the state....Under the 14th Amendment, Terri Schiavo and other disabled people are indisputably "persons."

From a scientific perspective, one of the most frustrating things about intelligent design is that (unlike Darwinism) it is virtually impossible to test. Old-fashioned biblical creationism at least risked making some hard factual claims -- that the earth was created before the sun, for example. Intelligent design, by contrast, leaves the purposes of the designer wholly mysterious. Presumably any pattern of data in the natural world is consistent with his/her/its existence.

But if we can't infer anything about the design from the designer, maybe we can go the other way. What can we tell about the designer from the design? While there is much that is marvelous in nature, there is also much that is flawed, sloppy and downright bizarre. Some nonfunctional oddities, like the peacock's tail or the human male's nipples, might be attributed to a sense of whimsy on the part of the designer. Others just seem grossly inefficient. In mammals, for instance, the recurrent laryngeal nerve does not go directly from the cranium to the larynx, the way any competent engineer would have arranged it. Instead, it extends down the neck to the chest, loops around a lung ligament and then runs back up the neck to the larynx. In a giraffe, that means a 20-foot length of nerve where 1 foot would have done. If this is evidence of design, it would seem to be of the unintelligent variety.

A lawyer for Terri Schiavo's husband said Monday the feeding tube that has kept the brain-damaged woman alive for 15 years will be removed at 1 p.m. today - unless a court stops him.

But after a chaotic round of legal jousting Monday, the only certainty by day's end was uncertainty, and no one knows if a court will step in to prevent an act that could end Schiavo's life within two weeks.

This is, quite simply, a God-fearing and Bible-reading (or at least Bible-respecting) nation. And it has been that way from the beginning. For decades, the GOP piled up easy points by simply invoking our own history.

But that tactic may have reached the limits of its usefulness. For one, we've all been reminded -- by the horror of 9/11 if nothing else -- that we have a heritage of faith and a never-ending need for spiritual sustenance. That message is no longer the exclusive province of "faith-based" Republicans in politics. For another, the GOP has raised sectarian expectations that no secular -- that is, constitutional -- administration can satisfy and still pass muster in the courts....

As for the Democrats, there's no reason they can't make the Ten Commandments, and the Bible, their own. These days everyone wants to talk about values. But there is plenty in the Old and New Testaments -- and in the commandments themselves -- for them to cite....And of course there is a whole party platform in the social ministry of Jesus -- if the Democrats would only get over their reluctance to talk about it.

Mr. Romney told me he thinks the Harvard scientists have "pulled a bait-and-switch." At first, he says, they agreed enough stem cells could be obtained from discarded embryos at fertilization clinics, which did not present an ethical problem to him because these embryos would be destroyed anyway. The scientists now lobby for creating and cloning embryos simply for experimentation, which he opposes.

The radically "pro-choice" New York Times, which rarely credits any pro-lifer with standing on principle, suggests Mr. Romney may be taking this position to curry favor with social conservatives to facilitate a pursuit of higher office.

It is difficult to take such cynicism seriously when one considers Mr. Romney's wife, Ann, has multiple sclerosis, a disease that backers of stem cell research claim might be cured if they are permitted to do what they wish to embryos. That the Romneys would put principles ahead of self-interest is rare in politics.

Mr. Romney says medical and scientific authorities have told him that enough stem cells exist or can be obtained from fertility clinics and other sources to avoid therapeutic cloning and the destruction of embryos created specifically for this type of research. "Creating human life for research and human experimentation is ethically wrong," he told me.

With arguments ranging from the highly personal to the highly technical, witnesses testified before state lawmakers yesterday about the pros and cons of human embryonic stem cell research, forcing legislators to weigh deep moral and scientific questions surrounding a bill intended to stimulate the state's biotechnology sector.

Paralyzed from the waist down by a spinal cord injury, Glenn Mangurian of Hingham rolled his wheelchair before the Legislature's Joint Economic Development Committee to argue in favor of a bill that encourages embryonic stem cell research, research that could lead to a cure for his condition. Mangurian's message was simple: Kill the bill, and his hope dies with it.

"Hope's the foundation of our society," Mangurian said. "Medical research offers hope to many and fear to a few. It's always been that way. Hope, however, always wins over fear."

You see, for all the carnage in President Bush's budget, one program is being showered with additional cash - almost three times as much as it got in 2001. It's "abstinence only" sex education, and the best research suggests that it will cost far more lives than the Clinton administration's much more notorious sex scandal.

Mr. Bush means well. But "abstinence only" is a misnomer that in practice is an assault on sex education itself. There's a good deal of evidence that the result will not be more young rosy-cheeked virgins -- it will be more pregnancies, abortions, gonorrhea and deaths from AIDS.

Despite the fact that the majority of American parents believe that abstinence until marriage is best for children, Mr. Kristof thinks he knows better. Citing Europe as a shining example of sexual health and activity, Mr. Kristof wrote of America's need to "loosen up."

"Perhaps Mr. Kristof is so busy writing for the Times that he doesn't have time to stay current on European news," said Leslee J. Unruh, president of the Abstinence Clearinghouse. "Health officials in Europe have declared STD rates are at epidemic proportions among their young people. European nations are now reevaluating the condom-based programs that have been taught there for decades and are looking to American abstinence programs for ideas."

[LOU DOBBS:] Congressman Weldon, I have to tell you, the idea of abstinence on a host of levels seems to me to be a proper course for education. But to deny further education in terms of contraception and broader sex education just seems wrong headed.

Why is that the policy?

REP. DAVE WELDON (R), FLORIDA: Well, it's not the policy, Lou. The amount of money going to so-called comprehensive sex education vs. abstinence education is about 12 times the abstinence education level. So, you're just totally inaccurate on that. The truth is, abstinence education is a fraction of the other kind of education and the truth is, the schools and the parents want the abstinence education. And if you actually read the studies, it shows that the abstinence education is working very nicely. And you really misquoted some of those studies that you had in the lead-in to this discussion here. That study in Texas, they had no control group in that study. And if you actually try to reconstruct it with a control group, it actually suggests the abstinence education is working very nicely.

DOBBS: Congressman Waxman, your thoughts?

REP. HENRY WAXMAN (D), CALIFORNIA: I see no problem with emphasizing abstinence, but not to talk about other options seems to me, as you said, short-sided....for them not to have the information about how to stop sexually transmitted diseases and avoid pregnancy, it leads to more abortions and it's just something that could be prevented. We need to do what's necessary to prevent it.

Since its defeats in the November elections, nothing has put the fractured soul of the Democratic Party on display more vividly than abortion. Party leaders, including Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and the new chairman, Howard Dean, have repeatedly signaled an effort to recalibrate the party's thinking about new restrictions on abortion.

Adding to that, Congressional Democrats named a professed opponent of abortion rights, Harry Reid of Nevada, as the leader in the Senate. Some Democrats supported another abortion opponent, Timothy J. Roemer, for the party's chairmanship.

Another large abortion rights group, Naral Pro-Choice, is reversing course, saying it will drop its opposition to the proposed Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, a bill that would require doctors to offer anesthetic for the fetuses of women seeking abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice, said the organization was saving its ammunition to fight judicial nominees who might overturn Roe v. Wade. "We are standing strong in the next Supreme Court battle," Ms. Keenan said.

When liberals were cockier about their political fortunes, they were quick to demean certain Christians as "largely poor, uneducated and easy to command" or the "American Taliban."

Don't get me wrong. The Left is still making fun of Christians, but they've gotten a little cagier. Now they're claiming a slice of the pie for themselves, saying they are the true Christians and decrying Republicans for trying to assert a monopoly on Christianity. Well, I guess we're making some progress.

Ever since the mostly bizarre presidential exit polls signaled the importance of "values" among voters, Democrats have been scrambling to devise a way to work themselves seamlessly into that "demographic." So far, it doesn't appear they've even convinced themselves, but they're still working on it...

Far be it from me to assert, on behalf of political conservatives, a monopoly on Christianity. But I would humbly suggest that if Democrats want to avoid digging themselves into a deeper values quagmire, they would be well advised to pursue a different approach, one that doesn't involve recasting Christian values and rewriting scripture.

What is most important for us to decipher as contemporary readers of an ancient book is the intent with which the scriptures were written. In order to understand Scripture we, as Christians, must put effort into thinking like a 6th century BC Israelite citizen, not expect the Scripture to speak as a 21st century myth anthology.

In "A Survey of the Old Testament," Hill and Walton write, "God's revelation did not come in the English language or through Western culture. As a result we may have to work harder to receive the message clearly. The more familiar students can become with ancient Near Eastern culture, particularly that of Israel, during the Old Testament period, the more barriers they can eliminate" (p. 3, 1991).

Our current tendency is to assume that since something is difficult, it is insurmountable for many people. So, instead of giving people the opportunity to grow through learning, we eliminate the struggle. What we get sometimes is a God that we walk down the street to instead of climb the mountain in order to sit at His feet.

The counterpoint to this is the idea of putting sciptural metaphor into the cultural understanding of the people to whom the translation is addressed. I think of Bruce Olson's translation of the salvation experience to Amazonian natives as "tying into to God" as a reference to putting up a hammock in God's cott (as read in Bruchko). This may be an effective way of bringing the gospel to people, but still, the richness of the Word is to be found in the original metaphor and expression to a greater extent than in a culturally translated format.

In short, the "paraphrases" have their place, but should not be regarded as equal to accurate translations of God's Inspired Word.

But that emotional framing of the debate is disingenuous for a few reasons, the first being that the governor has presented a compromise position: In a non-ideal (from the pro-life vantage point) but pragmatic compromise move, Romney has decided to support experimentation on surplus frozen embryos from in-vitro fertilization procedures. But proponents of embryonic-stem-cell research refuse to meet him there. They want it all....

Romney himself, however, is in a unique position for a politician facing this issue -- and for that reason perhaps one of the best spokesmen for his side in the state. His wife, Ann, who he is not shy to say is one of his key advisers on these ethical issues, has M.S. So the hope of stem-cell research is one that hits close to home for the governor -- and, tactically, takes some of the sting away from the usual "heartless Republican" accusation hurled by proponents of the all-or-nothing approach.

[T]he programs often rely on role-playing games that are plainly designed to reinforce immoral behavior and break down the natural modesty that might otherwise keep many teens from engaging in pre-marital sex. In "Becoming a Responsible Teen" – another eye-rolling misnomer -- students are given the following scenario: "My partner and I are alone. We've been leading up to sex for a couple of weeks. The only thing we haven't discussed is protection. My partner needs to persuade me to use a latex condom."

Well, this parent has a different suggestion: Things shouldn't even get this far, but if they do, one of the kids needs to say a firm no. When will that be taught?

The underlying message is unmistakable: Teen sex is normal, so let's just tell the kids how to avoid pregnancy and disease. There's a token nod or two to abstinence, but as Heritage's Robert Rector notes, it often amounts to a sentence or two amid pages and pages of explicit, pro-condom propaganda. Teens get the impression that abstinence is some unattainable ideal -- not the only option that's failsafe (not to mention moral).

The pro-life movement -- energized by being on the losing end of Roe -- has deftly tugged at American heartstrings by parading photos of bloody fetuses before the Senate and in front of clinics and by claiming the vocabulary of life and loss as its own.

Now many in the pro-choice community are looking to reclaim that language, to warm up what has come to be regarded as an absolutist, clinical, chilly movement with language that is emotional, conciliatory, moralistic and even religious. In short, what the wildly different pro-choice projects launched in recent months have in common is a risky mission to put the heart back into the fight for abortion rights....

But if the discussion is loud, and if it does change a framework, Smeal will be right to take the press to task for painting this moment as riven by internecine discord. In fact, what all the ideological jousting might suggest is not a movement coming apart at the seams but a community benefiting from the engaged, fresh, multigenerational vigor of internal debate that could propel it into a new era. For the first time in decades, there seems to be a lot of life in the pro-choice movement.

Everyone knows now how early a fetus becomes a baby. Women who have been pregnant have seen their babies on ultrasounds. They know that there is a terrible truth to those horrific pictures the anti-choice fanatics hold up in front of abortion clinics. When I was wheeled into the operating room, I begged my doctor to make sure my baby felt no pain before he was torn out of my womb. I knew the grim truth of a D&E (dilation and evacuation) -- I knew he would be dismembered -- and I wanted him dead before this happened. My doctor told me that he would make sure my baby felt no pain. You see, all this is horrible, and grim, and terrible to think about. But contemporary women know the truth about abortion, and those of us who remain firmly committed to a woman's right to choose need to accept and acknowledge that truth, or we risk losing our right completely....

Listen to the pregnant woman. Value her. She values the life growing inside her. Listen to the pregnant woman, and you cannot help but defend her right to abortion.

We Democrats are long overdue for an open discussion of this vitally important issue. While many Democrats may not want to have this discussion right now, some of our leaders are stepping forward. Just two weeks ago Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York said that when it comes to abortion, "people of good faith should try to find more common ground." Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts urged DNC members not to apply a "litmus test" to me as a pro-life candidate for the DNC post.

Despite differing views on abortion within our party, we need to focus our attention on where we agree. We can agree that abortion is a difficult and heart-wrenching decision for any woman and that every woman respects life. We can agree that abortions should be extremely rare, and we should work hard to reduce their number by supporting family planning programs, funding for the Women, Infants and Children program, and adoption tax credits. During the Clinton administration, we reduced abortions by 11 percent by focusing on such efforts. And I would hope we could eventually find agreement on wider Democratic support for banning late-term abortions and supporting parental notification for young teenagers.

When you get to the public arena, you take a moral turn and basically engage in a moral discourse about politics. Some of us come there because of our Christian faith. Some are evangelicals, some Catholics, some Methodists, some Presbyterians, some Jewish. Then we have a moral conversation. Religion has to be disciplined by democracy, meaning, you don't win because you're religious. You don't win by saying, "I'm religious, so my position should prevail." Or, "God spoke to me and gave me the fix for Social Security."

No, you say, "I'm motivated by my faith; here's why." You don't have to be apologetic about that. Then you have to persuade your fellow citizens that this is the best thing for the common good, for all of us—not just for religious people, but for all of us. Then you have a debate about the ethics of a war in Iraq or the best way to reform Social security, or what the values of a budget ought to be. That kind of moral discourse about politics is open to Christians, to people from other faith traditions, and to people of no faith at all who come to it also with a concern about moral values. It's a democratic discourse about moral values, because all of us have an interest in the moral compass that our elected officials have, because that compass will shape their policies, direction, and leadership.

The truce agreement at the Sharm al-Shayk summit is particularly interesting. It does not mean that terror attacks inside Israel will end. The opponents of peace will have to mount a spectacular attack as soon as possible to try to destabilize the situation. As well, PA national-security adviser Jibril al-Rujub stated that the ceasefire did not cancel the "right of resistance in the occupied territories." Nevertheless, the truce signifies that enough interests had changed for the mainstream Palestinians to seek a shift from armed struggle to negotiation....

Mind you, no ceasefire lasts very long in this region, and a truce is by its nature temporary. It is an expedient for purposes of negotiation, and contentious issues remain. External powers such as Iran and Syria who support the more violent terrorist factions will do their best to continue the bloodshed. And both Prime Minister Sharon and President Abbas will face domestic political pressures that will complicate the process. However, recognizing these caveats, there is nothing wrong with indulging a little optimism.

As everyone applauds the "valiant efforts" of Mahmoud Abbas to secure a "cease-fire" from a bunch of terrorist gangs that have sworn they will never have a permanent peace with Israel, it is time to review the sacred Muslim concept of "hudna."

It began with Islam's most revered founder, Muhammad. He declared a 10-year "hudna" with the Quraysh tribe that controlled Mecca. Two years into the hudna, Muhammad had acquired enough troops and arms to abrogate the hudna and conquer Mecca -- decimating the Quraysh in the process.

This became known as the "Quraysh Model," which defines the meaning of a hudna. When you are militarily at a disadvantage, declare a "hudna" until you are militarily strong enough to discard it and win the war. This is a Muslim tactic that has been used over and over again throughout history with devastating success.

Virginia lawmakers are proceeding with proposals to rewrite the state Constitution so that same-sex marriages are banned and prayer in school is allowed, but the efforts require several rounds of legislative approval and a public vote.

The House and Senate voted this week to approve separate marriage resolutions, each of which would add a section to the state's bill of rights. In both versions, marriage is defined exclusively as a "union between one man and one woman."

House lawmakers also passed a resolution that would alter the Constitution's declaration on religious freedoms to allow prayer in public buildings. It would add a section that says "the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, and traditions on public property, including public schools, shall not be infringed."

Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline has offered to defend placing stickers in school textbooks saying evolution is a theory, not a fact, the chairman of the State Board of Education said Wednesday....Steve Abrams, the chairman of the state board, said Kline brought up the subject during meetings with small groups of board members. Kline told The Associated Press he believes such stickers are reasonable, even though a federal judge in Georgia ruled last month that similar stickers are an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

Abrams said he is not aware of any board members interested in placing such stickers in textbooks.

I agree with you in principle about being careful to preserve the truth of God in sound Biblical translations, but I am wary of those who proclaim one translation as the inspired Word of God and all the others as heretical. When I went to a Christian university in Ohio, there were several well meaning Baptist who seemed to have the idea that KJV was the only accurate translation--rivaling the original Hebrew and Greek almost. I think we have to be careful with sactioning one translation over all the others, just as we have to be careful about santioning one denomination over all the others. I have a KJV, NIV, Living Bible Translation, and American Standard. And they all have strengths and weaknesses, because they are all translations.

I'm not for dumbing down the Word of God or making it "less offensive", but I think there is something to be said for appreciating the different approaches to the original Scriptures to reach as many people as possible with its truth--undiluted and unabridged.

Henke stressed any student who serves on the committee must first have parental permission.

Responded Fisher: "It is that parent's prerogative, and if the school has the rules and regulations that permit it, and the parent wants that child to [serve on the committee], there's nothing we can say against that. It's just that some of us are concerned about the young age at which these students are exposed to extremely adult themes in sex education."

According to the report, Each student that participates in the more controversial parts of the sex-ed curriculum, which is presented in the eighth and 10th grades, must have parental permission.

Zondervan's prime target: about 35 to 40 million "spiritually intrigued" young adults from their late teens to mid-30s. Polls show they believe the Bible is relevant but are the least active Scripture-readers of any age group -- and millions of them are itching to leave the church.

"There are so many who passionately believe the Bible has something to say to them," says Ben Irwin, Zondervan's product development manager for the 18- to 34-year old Bible team. "The flip side is there's not much out there that's meeting that opportunity. We're hoping to reverse that."...

For the conservative forces engaged in the struggle for America's soul, the true battleground is public education, the laboratory of the next generation, and an opportunity for the religious right to effect lasting change on popular culture. Officially, the teaching of creationism has been outlawed since 1987 when the supreme court ruled that the inclusion of religious material in science classes in public teaching was unconstitutional. In recent years, however, opponents of evolution have regrouped, challenging science education with the doctrine of "intelligent design" which has been carefully stripped of all references to God and religion. Unlike traditional creationism, which posits that God created the earth in six days, proponents of intelligent design assert that the workings of this planet are too complex to be ascribed to evolution. There must have been a designer working to a plan -- that is, a creator....

Science teachers believe that the genteel questioning of the intelligent design movements masks a larger project to discredit an entire body of rational thought. If the Kansas state school board allows science teachers to question evolution, where will it stop? Will religious teachers bring their beliefs into the classroom?

"They are trying to create a climate where anything an individual teacher wants to include in science class can be considered science," said Harry McDonald, a retired biology teacher and president of Kansas Citizens for Science Education. "They want to redefine science."

Legal experts say the case, which is drawing nationwide attention, could affect the debate over embryonic stem cell research, which involves the killing of human embryos to obtain their stem cells.

Cook County Judge Jeffrey Lawrence said in his decision that "a pre-embryo is a 'human being' ... whether or not it is implanted in its mother's womb."

Lawrence said the parents have the same right to seek compensation as any other parents whose child has been killed...Lawrence based his decision on Illinois’ Wrongful Death Act, which permits lawsuits if unborn children are killed in an accident or assault. The law states that "The state of gestation or development of a human being" does not preclude taking legal action.

Most people who accept the label "conservative Christian," or its synonyms, spend too much time throwing stones at the cultural citadels and too little acquiring and developing the skills and knowledge to allow them to compete in the ideological and cultural arena....

Culture is starving because too many with a worldview that differs from the prevailing one have withdrawn their nurturing influence. It doesn't help when such people are persuaded it is better to criticize institutions and their products, rather than going them one better.

How are academia, law, filmmaking or journalism improved when not enough believers in God become professors, lawyers, filmmakers or journalists? "Hollywood" does not suddenly begin making better movies when it is criticized for making bad ones.

He applied in September to Britain's fertility authority for a human cloning license to study how nerve cells go awry to cause motor neuron disease.

The first license was granted in August to a team at Newcastle University (search) that hopes to use cloning to create insulin-producing cells that could be transplanted into diabetics.

Such work, called therapeutic cloning because it does not result in a baby, is opposed by abortion foes and other biological conservatives because researchers must destroy human embryos to harvest the cells.

The deal will be agreed when Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon meets Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas for talks in Egypt on Tuesday, sources say.

Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said a mutual truce would follow the summit, the highest-level talks between the two sides since the intifada began in 2000.

An unnamed Israeli official confirmed the statement.

"The most important thing at the summit will be a mutual declaration of cessation of violence against each other," Mr Erekat told the Reuters news agency.

He was nice. He was competent. I liked him.

But how could I trust my baby's life to a man who thought babies were disposable? How could I trust him to catch my child, knowing he had dropped other children into medical refuse bins?

"Do you mind if I ask what you think of abortion?" I said politely, as if I were asking what he thought about a particular restaurant, or a brand of shoe.

He looked surprised and a bit wary. "Not at all," he said. "My job is to bring babies safely into the world. I don't do abortions. Never have, never will."

"But you're the [local] president of Planned Parenthood?"

"That's right. And there has never been a single abortion here on my watch."

"Shadrach" and "Spitfire Grill" and of course, "Passion of the Christ" is not really a film, but an experience.

Film, therefore, poses a special challenge for the artist who would dramatize the life of Christ. Traditionally, movies about Jesus have respected his divinity by keeping him at a distance; he has typically been portrayed in objective terms that keep him mystical and otherworldly. But in recent years filmmakers eager to explore the humanity of Jesus have tended to portray him in more subjective terms, through the use of voice-overs, dreams, and other techniques that draw us into the minds of a film's characters; however, in doing so, they have often demystified Jesus so thoroughly that he seems to lose his divine authority.

A Manhattan judge declared Friday that the section of state law that forbids same-sex marriage is unconstitutional -- the first ruling of its kind in New York and one that if upheld on appeal would allow gay couples to wed.

State Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan ruled that the words "husband," "wife," "groom" and "bride" in relevant sections of the Domestic Relations Law "shall be construed to mean 'spouse,"' and "all personal pronouns ... shall be construed to apply equally to either men or women." Ling-Cohan ruled on the side of five same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses. She said the New York City clerk could not deny a license to any couple solely on the ground that the two are of the same sex.

The majority of secondary school teachers believe pupils should be told where to obtain an abortion, according to a survey published today.

More than two thirds (69%) of staff who teach 11 to 18-year-olds said pupils should be taught how to arrange termination of an unplanned pregnancy. Some 59% of all the 700 teachers polled by the Times Education Supplement supported practical advice on abortion being included in sex education lessons....According to government guidance on sex education, teaching on abortion is optional and should be sensitive to the religious leanings of pupils and parents. It stresses the need for teaching on contraception and abstinence to reduce pregnancies.

The survey also showed that most teachers (74%) would be happy to tell children it was acceptable to be gay. And more than three-quarters thought parents had a right to be told if their underage daughter became pregnant and opted for an abortion.

The fights in scattered school districts over whether to teach creationism or its rival, called intelligent design, as alternatives to Darwin's theory of evolution may be obscuring a deeper problem: the tendency of many districts to duck controversy by avoiding or soft-pedaling any teaching of evolution at all. Nobody knows the extent of the problem, but an article by Cornelia Dean in Science Times on Tuesday cites ample evidence that even when evolution is theoretically part of the curriculum, it is often ignored or played down in the classroom.

Some teachers duck the subject, lest they get into trouble with school administrators or fundamentalist parents. Others assign a chapter on evolution for reading but avoid any discussion in the classroom. Still others discuss evolutionary concepts without ever mentioning "the E word" to avoid arousing controversy....Several surveys have shown that many teachers give at least some instructional time to creationism or intelligent design out of a sense of fairness.

That serves the students and the nation poorly as they enter an age likely to be dominated by biology.

In an hour-long address, the President devoted but two short paragraphs to what we'd broadly call "life issues" (for lack of a better term). The words were good, but they were too few if he is really serious about building a "culture of life." This brevity in the midst of the nation's unfolding moral confusion is unsettling. Why is he bold and visionary on economic issues that may affect our children and grandchildren, but strangely reticent on the very definitions of human life and community? While "values voters" certainly care about Social Security, they didn't return Bush to office on this basis....

Also, we would like to see President Bush build a culture of life by speaking out more forcefully and frequently on the issue. (He did not even mention the word abortion last night.) He can be eloquent about freedom. We assume he could be equally eloquent about protecting the lives of the most vulnerable in the world: the unborn....Political issues such as reforming Social Security and encouraging democracy overseas are worthy challenges--both of which in broad terms we support. But we dare not neglect the issues that touch upon the foundations of human dignity and the family. What will it profit us if we gain retirement benefits and freedom and lose our national soul?

For Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, there's no mystery about what I.D. proponents believe: "It's another way of saying God did it. It isn't a model of change; it isn't a theory that makes testable claims." A 2002 resolution by the American Association for the Advancement of Science called I.D. "an interesting philosophical or theological concept," but not one that should be taught in science classes. In fact, the Discovery Institute doesn't call for teaching I.D. in school either, only the "controversy" over Darwinism. But most scientists don't believe there is one. The institute's "Scientific Dissent From Darwinism," whose operative sentence reads "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life," has been signed by about 350 scientists. (AAAS has 120,000 members.) Scott's organization has circulated a countermanifesto asserting that "there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is [the] major mechanism ... " As a tongue-in-cheek tribute to the late paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, they signed up only scientists named Steve. At last count they had 528.

The real stakes, though, go beyond what high-school students are taught about Galapagos finches. To accept I.D. is to admit a supernatural process into the realm of science. In fact, that's just what I.D. proponents want to see happen, a revolution--or counterrevolution--against what Johnson calls "methodological naturalism." "Is it the obligation of the scientist to come up with a materialist explanation of phenomena, choosing among an artificially limited set of options," Meyer asks rhetorically, "or just the best explanation?"

Researchers in Boston have isolated a kind of cell from human bone marrow that they say has all the medical potential of human embryonic stem cells -- a claim that, if verified, could shake up the debate over human embryo research that has divided the country for the past six years.

But not all scientists are convinced the cells are as versatile as they appear to be.

Tufts University researchers used specialized cell-sorting machines to pluck the peculiar cells from samples of bone marrow obtained from three different donors. Tests suggested the cells are capable of morphing into many, and perhaps all, of the various kinds of cells that make up the human body. That is a hallmark of embryonic stem cells, which doctors hope to use to cure a wide variety of diseases but which have stirred controversy because human embryos must be destroyed to obtain them.

Why would a leader brave enough to push a divisive Social Security reform plan and bold enough to pledge an end to tyranny around the world appear to be backing down on the very issues that sealed his reelection? After all, the political winds are blowing in his favor: A 2004 poll from Zogby International found that 56 percent of Americans support more restrictions on abortion and believe that abortion should never be legal or legal only in cases of rape, incest, or a direct threat to the life of the mother. A majority of Americans also oppose same-sex marriage, and overwhelming majorities of red- and blue-state voters approved state bans on same-sex marriage last November. Given such strong support for the president's positions -- not to mention his own campaign promises on these issues, which accounted for much of the support he received from traditionally Democratic Catholic, Hispanic, African-American, and union voters -- Bush's sudden apparent loss of nerve is odd and unsettling....

Despite concerns about the Iraq war, job losses, deficits, and Social Security privatization, values voters backed Bush because he stood with them on their non-negotiable moral issues. They expect more from him than commiseration; they want results. Bush and his staff should keep that in mind as they make their final edits to tonight's speech. A president pushing controversial reforms at home and waging a controversial war abroad cannot afford to ignore the moral issues that defined his campaign, galvanized his base, and delivered his mandate.

Places like the Bowie center are a front line in the struggle over abortion, and the clinic reported to the police that on the eve of the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision last month, its windows were smashed and it was spray painted with graffiti saying "Choice."

Such centers, many financed by churches and church groups, try to persuade women through counseling to carry their pregnancies to term, and often provide prenatal care and pregnancy tests and sometimes clothing and supplies.

Supporters of abortion rights say that a large number of the centers lure women by leaving the impression that they do, in fact, perform abortions and subsequently do not give young women a full picture of their choices.

"Generally, their treatment of women who come in is coercive," said Susanne Martinez, vice president of public policy at the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "From the time they walk in to these centers, they are inundated with information that is propaganda and that has one goal in mind. And that is to have women continue with their pregnancies."