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.