What can one say about the article by John Derbyshire except that it is all disdain with no argument?

Given Derbyshire’s professed belief that Intelligent Design is so silly as not to deserve a response, this is fine. What is the basis for this belief? He shows no evidence of reading ID books.

His argument seems to depend on a “conservative” view of knowledge. On this view, ideas held by most people that are professionals are likely true. In fact, by the time he is done they are so likely to true that it is hard to imagine a reasonable person arguing with them.

The problem Derbyshire faces is knowing if the establishment is right. I am willing to accept that it usually is. However, it is also part of being a conservative to be skeptical about Power. Just when all the smart people decide something is true, a conservative gets uncomfortable. Reagan Republicans know that the experts lie or are blinded by bias.

Derbyshire’s own article gives me reason to wonder if the establishment in this case has built in blinders. He limits science to methodological naturalism. Of course, the history of science shows cases where this limit was not observed to good effect. Where does this limit come from? Why must we observe it? Derbyshire does not say. He simply defines science and in doing so defines any personal agent out, if that agent cannot be reduced to a “natural” cause. Of course, he is not just getting rid of God as a cause in science, but also the human soul. Since it really seems to me that the soul is a needed thing in explaining human action and that it cannot be reduced (in any way) to matter or energy, I am skeptical about his limitation.

It was just this sort of piece, by Isaac Asimov, that made me a young earth creationist.

At what point should New Orleans be placed under tighter control?

People must be a priority, of course. However, isn’t it short sighted to allow looting? The newly armed looters will (in the end) also threaten people. Law and order are what civil government is there to do.Failure to maintain this in America will have a profound impact on what people do “the next time.”

Isn’t this vital role being ignored? What needs to be done to get the manpower needed to restore order?

I should have pointed out that I have an article in the latest Touchstone. I will do so to give space to my favorite critic.

Of this article, Bill Dembski says:

Uncommon Descent: The Intelligent Design Weblog of William A. Dembski: “My friend and colleague John Mark Reynolds at Biola University has just published a piece in Touchstone titled “Séances & Science: The Lessons of the Spiritualist Challenge to Darwinism” (go here). The piece is meant as a warning to the ID movement not to repeat mistakes of the past. (more…)”

Go read the rest of it.

I respond as follows (Comment number 2):

Bill,

I am sorry you feel this way. I don’t agree (obviously).

I don’t understand how I could become “an outsider” to the ID movement since I have read the works you cite (the published ones), read ID discusson groups where new ideas are mentioned, read ID web sites, go to ID events (speak at some), read ID critical works and web sites, and teach hundreds of students sympathetic to ID every year.

Maybe it is because I teach those students, and hear their reactions over time, that I wrote the piece. Much of what I have to say comes from friendly students every year. These are students who are “up” on the latest stuff so far as it goes.

I stand by my desire to see you publish, not on a web site but publish, advances in your ideas. This is important, not just to our critics, but to the movement as a whole. While (as I state in my article) your public work must continue, it seems to me to be vital that this get done. Will it?

I am sure it will which is why I am (on the whole) optimistic and not disheartened. I fail to see how a warning of how things COULD go wrong equals a claim that they have gone wrong. Nothing you argue refutes the (obvious) fact that you have not yet published a work with the scope or on the level of the “Design Inference.” I am sure you will, look forward to it, and view it as vital.

The two books you mention are edited collections. I do not see how the articles in them (many of which are written at a level appropriate to a college course)advance the arguments in the way I was suggesting needed to done.

Your web articles are fine, do begin to advance the argument and address some critics, but mentioning them in this context is unusual. Is this publication? Maybe I am old fashioned, but it does not seem to be the kind of publication I meant.

As for internal critique, there is some. However, I was looking for alternative notions to design more than just negative attacks on your own work. Too often these alternatives are not well enough explored because (as in any small counter-cultural) movement there is a great temptation to rally around one idea. In fact, I personally find your own ideas the most compelling yet offered, but wanted to warn against stagnation that can take place in alternative intellectual programs.

I stand by those worries and a general call for more (and more robust) thought on the relationship between religion and science.

Comment by JMNR — August 30, 2005 @ 2:28 pm

Bill Dembski is a great guy, is doing wonderful work, and should receive more funding to do even more work.

I just don’t think my article was wrong or critical of him in any harmful way.

Where is God?

As is usual at such a time, philosophers get asked, “Where is God?” during the hurricane.

Of course most people asking these questions are hurting. Seemingly random and terrible things have happened to them and they want to know why. They are not usually looking for philosophy. My comments are not to convince an atheist looking to score cheap points at the wrong time.

I would not persuade, but speak hope. God is present even in the hurricane.

When I am hurting, two things help me. First, I want someone to understand that things are hard for me at the moment. If you are now in the storm, you do not need an argument, but knowledge that the God who became incarnate understands pain. Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, does not know pain from the outside. As a result, we have a God who does not act for our good in a cold and calculating way. God minimizes pain at every turn, because He knows the painfulness of pain! He allows nothing that is not for our best and is with us in every circumstance.

If God does not “intervene,” it must be better so.

Second, I want to hear from fellow Christians that they know a bad situation is really bad. Some terrible things are happening that are a result of the broken state of the world. In God’s perfect, good creation, destruction did not fall on humanity in this manner. Suffering and death were unknown before human sin. Just as a doctor may have to allow some suffering in order to cure a person, so God in our present state must allow suffering in order to bring the cosmos to full healing.

This life is a painful operation by God to heal mankind and the world. God does not rejoice in our suffering except that it brings us closer to the day when suffering will cease. God is ever in control and sovereign. Nothing takes Him by surprise. The cure of the world will be total and pain will end.  

New Orleans orders mandatory evacuation - Hurricane Katrina - MSNBC.com: ““God bless us,” a grim Nagin said.”

Lord Jesus have mercy.

No Person is a Word

A problem with talking is that sometimes you say things you should not or people hear meanings you did not intend. This is especially true with labels for people. We need them and they are useful, but they are easy to misunderstand. Let me try a simple example.

In my last post, I said Senator Clinton was a leftist. By American political standards, I think this generally true. It is not even an insult! I am not sorry I said it, but would be sorry if someone took it to mean that I thought such a quick comment exhausted Senator Clinton’s character.

Clinton is a person created in the image of God. Persons are complicated and no word can sum them up. Clinton is also a wife, mother, and church member. Even if we listed everything she did, we would not have captured her essence. People are more than what they do. What we do impacts the person we are for good and bad, but it does not give the full measure of our soul. The soul of a person cannot be captured by a single word or even a series of single words.

The same thing is true about a single action. Most of us have done things we regret. I certainly have. God forbid that the full measure of any person’s life becomes reduced to a single thing they have done for good or bad. O.J. Simpson was overly praised for one aspect of his life, football, but this did not give us a full picture of the man. Some people are overly blamed for a wrong done, but that too does not sum them up. Such a final judgment waits for God who sees and knows all things.

So when I say that Clinton is a leftist I think it useful short-hand, but only that. It helps readers place her quickly, blog posts cannot be books,  and it makes a point. It does not argue for an end to a thought or examination, but calls for a start.

Labeling is not wrong. Our Lord called Herod and the religious leaders of his day by tough labels. It is only wrong when the speaker fully captures a person or the listener thinks this is true. It might capture one aspect, some of the Pharisees were in some ways white washed tombs, but not every facet of any individual. Those same Pharisees were right about some important things like the immortality of the soul. This too was part of what it meant to be a Pharisee.  

Almost all labels used properly are qualified in some way. How sorry I am for the times when I label and then cease to think about that person as a person!

When a child does a bad thing, he was bad in that thing, but may still be redeemed! So I am a Christian, Orthodox, a husband, father, Republican, creationist, monarchist, and many other things. I can be truthfully given many labels some good and some bad.  Thank God I am not just those things. I am also a soul in need of mercy who hopes to receive it when he stands before God.

Lord Jesus Christ, son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.

Counting on Unhappiness

Gas prices are up. Iraq is complicated. Summer is over and school is starting soon. The Yankees are playing well enough to make the play offs. Football has not started yet. People feel irritated and that is hurting the President’s poll ratings.

What does that mean?

Not much. George W. Bush shows no ability to part the Persian Gulf, turn water into oil, or make the terrorists lie down with the Democrats. Bush has made some mistakes. Wars, even successful ones, are full of mistakes. Look at all the generals that Abraham Lincoln hired, only to fire, in the Civil War. Could George W. survive a choice as bad as General Burnsides was for Lincoln? Bush, like many of us, thought the war would be harder than it was and the reconstruction easier. He is paying the political price for that mistake.

Americans, all of us, wish things were better. Who likes paying more for gas at the pump? We blame the President, because there is nobody else to blame. I see no signs that anyone thinks that any other politician could do any better.

The problem with the Democrat strategy is it relies on discontent turning into hatred. Democrats hate the President and they hate the War. They have no plans for winning it and most of the sensible ones admit that they would do just about what the President is doing. A few say they would not have gone in the first place, but what good does that do America now?

As for going to Iraq in the first place, what were the options? Does anyone doubt that by now Sadaam would have found a way to give terrorists support? If we were not fighting these folk in Iraq, we would be fighting them someplace else. At least in Iraq, the United States has a large swath of turf, Kurdistan, which is very friendly to our interests and is prospering. Where else would that be true?

The radical edge of the Democrat Party, increasingly dominate, would take America in the direction of Western Europe. How is Western Europe doing? Gas is more expensive there. It is at least double what it costs in the US. Standards of living are lower. Health care is free, but anyone who can afford it comes to the United States for cutting edge care. The Western European population is aging and radical Islam is growing in the borders of those nations. The American economy is doing better than that of Western Europe combined and is doing so while actually fighting a War.

Americans may be unhappy, but we are glad, thank you very much, not to be in the Euro-zone.

A few of the Western European nations also recognize the need to fight. Tony Blair, far left of center by American standards, leads Britain in helping us battle terrorism. Italy and a few other countries have helped as they could, but most can do little. Western Europe has relied for so long on the US to defend it that with the exception of Britain it has no real military to use. If the United States pulled back from its global commitments, who would defend the West?

Of course, this is so obvious that even a leftist such as Mrs. Clinton recognizes it. The good news is that the far left cannot win or govern. The worst we have to fear is a Clinton presidency.

A Clinton presidency would not bring large scale policy changes on the War nor would gas prices magically go down. Clinton has no new ideas to win the War, because the President is already winning it. It is just hard work.

President Bush is doing what is sensible and all he can do to end conflict in the Middle East. The few sane Democrats who would actually be trusted with governing know this. Policy changes would be on the edges.

In fact, the problem with a Clinton presidency when it comes to the War and the economy would be the risk posed to both by her increasingly radical party. Clinton would have to manage a surging Left that would not be content with anything less than a radical withdrawal from Iraq. Since such a withdrawal would spell disaster to the US, she would have to oppose them. Could she? The titanic struggle would distract the nation at a time it cannot afford to be fighting itself.

What is certain to happen in a Clinton presidency would be the speeding up of the attempt to make American culture like that of Western Europe. Leftist social experimentation with the lives of children and with marriage would thrive. A culture of death would be extended. The far-left in Congress would be taken more seriously. Bill Clinton’s personal life would be front page news again. In short, a Clinton presidency would change almost nothing in the areas we are unhappy and change a great deal where the President has majority support.

The American people are sensible. They know these things to be true. Nobody may be happy with the way things are going now, but most know that there are few options. Wars are messy and things get tough. It took us four years to win World War II and decades to win the Cold War. Reconstruction of the Middle East will take time. Given a chance between a mild critic of the process used in winning the War with insane friends and the party that is winning it, the American people will choose the Republicans. We voted for Lincoln and not McClellan after all.

Of course next year there is a mid-term election. If the election becomes national, then the Democrats must count on continuing bad news. There is good reason to think that we have reached a turning point. There will be a new Iraq Constitution. There will be elections. The south and north of Iraq will continue to prosper. Reporters who think Baghdad is Iraq will continue to report bad news from the Sunni city, but Americans are smart. They know that just as bad news in New York City gets overblown by the media centered there so bad news in Baghdad is also over done.

Everyone wishes the news was better from the War and from the economy. In the end, just as they did less than one year ago, the majority of the American people will stick to the party that has the will to win the War. Why? Few of us want the insanity of the social left unloosed without restraint on the nation. Almost none of us want to lose the War by empowering Moveon.org, even indirectly. Only a minority wants to burden the economy with higher taxes and even more spending which is the sure result of Democrat success.

We know the Democrats are the party that loves bad news. We may not like bad news, but like the people who like it even less.

If Tom Hanks stars in the Da Vinci Code film, what will the Greek Orthodox clergy do?

Someone should ask the Greek bishop of Los Angeles what he will think if a person who frequently attends his church takes money for a film based on a book that argues that Jesus got married and that worship of a goat god is a good thing. Is it o.k. for Orthodox Christians to make money on a film based on a book that says traditional Christianity is evil?

Does Hanks receive communion while making a movie that argues that communion is foisted on us to hide the truth?

It is a free country. Hanks can make any film he wants to make. However, the Church need not extend fellowship to someone making an openly blasphemous film.

Will the Church take a stand? We can trust that the fact that Hanks is a “star” and has a great deal of money will have no impact on the decision. We know that pastoral ministry should be private. Nobody wants Hanks private conversations with clergy made public, but a public film is about to come out with a person who has identified himself in interviews as “Orthodox.” What are the faithful to think?

My family likes to play “the versus game.” We like to match two characters in a WWF all holds allowed contest. Who would win a race Dash or the Flash? (Flash) Some Historic Fights: Donald versus Daffy Duck (Daffy), Micky versus Reepicheep (Reep unless it is the Micky of the Steam Boat Willie era), Batman versus Captain Kirk (no weapons) (Batman), Dracula versus the Loch Ness Monster (Nessie), C.S. Lewis versus Derrida (Lewis), Lewis versus King Kong (King Kong), Barth versus Chrysostom (Chrysostom unless each person got to use their own books as missiles), Barth versus Limbaugh (Barth), Hugh Hewitt versus Bill Clinton (Hewitt), Hugh Hewitt versus Nessie (Nessie).

Superman is not allowed in fights as he is too powerful. Godzilla also is banned under this rule.

Who would win a Hewitt versus Pastore fight? My children all say Pastore on the grounds that he is an Alpha male. What does this make Hewitt? (My children have met Pastore, but not Hewitt.)

In fact, Pastore versus Nessie drew some support (from our baseball fanatic daughter) for Pastore. This is remarkable.

I have other speculations on this game here.

Talk on television enough and you will say something stupid. Imagine blogging with a world wide audience and no ability to edit!

Robertson said something that cannot be justified. No traditional Christian can condone his call to kill a leader in any but the most extreme circumstance. It was bad and his “apology” confused.

However, why the interest in the story which is number one on Technorati? Robertson reached the peak of his power in 1988. That is a good long time ago. The left has at least as many crazy tv folk.

Why does Robertson fascinate us? He is an interesting person, of course. There are not many Senator’s sons, Yale grads, who turn t.v. preacher. Not many Americans get 1.9 million votes for President. (Amazing fact: Robertson, against the sitting Vice President of Ronald Reagan got more votes than Howard Dean who, if I am reading the data right, got fewer than one million votes. Tell your liberal friend: Robertson got twice as many votes as Howard Dean.) Not many folk start billion dollar networks or grad schools with a decent law school.

On the other hand, not many people write books quite as mad as “New World Order.”

Or say as many odd-ball things that fit stereotypes of Christians.

So Robertson serves the left by confirming (often) their stereotypes. He confounds the right by doing so much that is good and then under cutting it by things nobody can defend. (And I am not defending him.) That makes for a big conversation as right wingers distance themselves quickly and the left wing chortles.

Why diet?

I suppose there is nothing more self-indulgent than writing about a diet. I decided to do so anyway, because many people are on diets.

Being heavy is an odd thing in America. When you are over weight, fat if you dare, you are part of a majority of the culture. However, you are part of a majority that is despised and mocked. It was not always that way. My great-aunt used “stout” and “fat” as compliments in grown men.

Perhaps one should just accept that weight comes with age and forget about dieting. Dieting is hard. Diets take a great deal of time and attention. Why do it?

Social pressure is a bad reason. Our culture “likes” thin people and judges them more attractive. This tempts the vain to “lose weight” in order to “look better” and perhaps it would work. However, at my age there will always be something to criticize! Where would this end?

Instead, I must begin my diet by being content what God has made me to be in my early forties. Finding this acceptance is important at any age and in any condition. My grounding must be in God’s love for me.

I also must lose a focus on self. Any action that causes me to be consumed by self every day (”What am I eating?” “How do I look?”) is bad. My life should be about service. Christ is teaching me to control my words and my temper. So today should not be about “my diet” but how I can use the extra time not spent eating to find God and seek the beauty in other people.

The best reason to diet is to learn moderation. In my case, overweight is due to eating too much. Learning to eat proper amounts, not just starving to lose weight, is a physical discipline with spiritual implications. My diet should be more of a fast than a personal vanity project.

When I am immoderate in my eating, the sin of gluttony, my soul is negatively impacted (even when nobody can see as in the case of folk who purge). We live in a culture that advertises junk food and sells eating and then condemns in harsh terms those who fall for the advertisements! We sell junk food and then sell quack diets based on our self-loathing.

I must repent and seek Christ daily. Christ must become my food and drink. Food should be enjoyed, but in moderation. In fact, I should seek beauty in natural foods. So much of the bad stuff I eat is not even “good.” How little pleasure is gained from my immoderation!

So without self-loathing (except that appropriate to the general human condition) and leaving vanity behind (hopefully!), I press toward moderation. Why? I hope to be a better servant, to learn moderation in my speech, to learn to love my wife, family, and community better. I am dieting for Paradise lest I be a glutton and so unfit for the feasts of heaven!

Opie and Evil

I have written a post on Ron Howard here.

I also am a sometime contributor to this fine blog.

Mark|10:46  And they came to Jericho: and as he went out of Jericho
with his disciples and a great number of people, blind Bartimaeus, the
son of Timaeus, sat by the highway side begging.
  Mark|10:47  And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began
to cry out, and say, Jesus, [thou] son of David, have mercy on me.
  Mark|10:48  And many charged him that he should hold his peace: but he
cried the more a great deal, [Thou] son of David, have mercy on me.
  Mark|10:49 And Jesus stood still, and commanded him to be called. And
they call the blind man, saying unto him, Be of good comfort, rise; he
calleth thee.
  Mark|10:50  And he, casting away his garment, rose, and came to Jesus.
  Mark|10:51 And Jesus answered and said unto him, What wilt thou that
I should do unto thee? The blind man said unto him, Lord, that I might
receive my sight.
  Mark|10:52  And Jesus said unto him, Go thy way; thy faith hath made
thee whole. And immediately he received his sight, and followed Jesus in
the way.

Jesus is going up to Jerusalem to die for the sins of the world. Up to this point in Mark His divine ministry has been a secret. Few are allowed to tell the truth they discover: Jesus is the Christ the son of the Living God. Now this secret will be revealed on the Cross for all to see.

Oddly, the message will now be proclaimed openly, but the work will be hidden. The cross itself will proclaim the truth that Jesus is King of the Jews. However, the works of healing will cease. This is the last one recorded in the gospel of Mark. Jesus will now do a work that will appear to be defeat. He will suffer and will die. His divine words will proclaim the reality, but it will be hard for men to see. We are blind to the truth when it does not fit our immediate experience.

Only a few could hear the truth prior to Jerusalem, but everyone could see it. Despite the open miracles of his ministry few could understand what they meant. Now everyone will hear the truth, but few will be able to see it. Humanity, all of us, is deaf and blind to the truth.

Why? First, we do not recognize that we are blind. Unlike blind Bartimaeus we do not know our condition. We think we see and we do not. This is especially true of those followers of that other Timaeus, the self-proclaimed philosophers! Often we will not allow ourselves to be healed of our blindness because religious and philosophical systems keep us from knowing our true condition. We are blind, but will not admit it.

Worst of all in our post-modern age, some of us recognize our blindness, but are proud of it. We proclaim our blindness as a great truth. We doubt our knowledge and delight in our doubts. If it is hard for some to admit that they are blind in order to receive healing for some philosophers it is harder to admit that their much cherished blindness is a disease that should be healed. They love the journey so much that they never want to reach the vacation destination!  

Our second problem is that we are too easily deterred from the Way. We sit beside the Way. We long in our hearts to follow the Truth where it leads, but our blindness keeps us from moving. This was true of poor Bartimaeus, but he did not fall into despair as I too often do. He called out in hope to Jesus. He had heard of His mighty works, though he had not seen them. Hearing Bartimaeus believed. When some disciple or a crowd tried to keep Jesus away, this blind man did not give up. He did not care that the crowd was indifferent to his plight. He did not mind mocking.

Today I have the chance to talk to the King of the Universe. I can bow before Him and worship. I can receive healing and hope. Will I be deterred by the press of business? Will the crowd of media sent by Satan keep me from reading the Word of God? Will the mocking of the cynical keep me from asking for the daily miracle I need?

God forbid! Instead, in faith I cry out to Jesus, “Son of David! Heal me.” Here the blind man is wiser than the leaders of the people, the wise of that age. They could not see that the Son of David could come, but hope had taught Bartimaeus the truth and so he was healed. Healed! Now he could walk in the Way with Jesus!

What greater gift is there than that? We do not receive our sight so that we can be better beggars. We receive our sight so that we can walk with the King! We can follow divine Truth, the Logos of God, to the Heavenly City of the New Jerusalem.

I hope today you will cry out with me the prayer that is always heard. It is the prayer of the blind man with the new knowledge gained on the other side of the Cross.

“Lord Jesus Christ, son of God, have mercy on me a sinner!”

Blogger for Word may change my life.

I don’t know when it became cool in the Academy to hate Israel or hold her to a higher standard than the rest of the world, but it is.

Lately, it has also been hard to be a traditional Christian and love Israel. Somehow the “fact” that Israel has a successful lobbying effort should make us dislike her. (”By golly, those Israelis keep pressing for American politicians, otherwise incorrupt, to vote their way!”) Weirdest of all are the arguments where a mysterious thing called “dispensationalist” (nothing like the theological idea I know from Biola University) is blamed for an irrational support for Israel.

I can think of four good reasons for a patriotic American to support Israel. I should not that my own church is very Arab and I understand very well that some government policies in Israel have been bad. Bad things have been done to Arabs at times by the government of Israel. No person should justify those actions. Still, on the whole, I would rather be an Arab citizen of Israel than an Arab citizen of any country now run by Arabs. If there is a mote in Israel’s eye (and perhaps more), then there is a cedar of Lebanon in both eyes of Syria and Jordan. Nobody talks about boycotting them!

Why do I think Israel is a good friend and ally?

First, Israel allows voting and dissent. Can anyone name many countries that would have removed the settlers from the occupied territories? Blame Israel that they are there, but admire the republican government that got rid of them.

Second, Israel allows a fairly free market to exist within a highly educated culture. Education is good. Freedom is good. Israel supports an economy with limited resources that is the envy of its neighbors.

Third, Israel is a friend in the global war on terror. It does not practice terrorism (on the whole). It hates terrorism and tries to stamp it out. This is not always done perfectly, but the perfect must not be allowed to be the foe of the pretty good in war time.

Four, Jewish persons have historically been the victims of periodic injustice. For Jewish persons to have a secure homeland makes sense given this history. Jewish persons have no reason to trust the West or the East to protect their right to exist. Perhaps Palestine should not have been chosen as the location of this homeland, but it was.

Israel exists and is necessary. Much of the Arab world will still not officially recognize these facts. Why? We all know the answer is widespread anti-Jewish sentiment in that part of the world.

Finally, for a traditional Christian there should be two concerns.

Christians have not historically been friends to the Jewish community. In fact, often we have treated the Jewish community less well than the Islamic community has. We have sinned against our neighbor. Some degree of sensitivity to this fact (without useless chest beating or taking blame for sins not our own) is in order. There is a good reason for Jewish persons to be sensitive to talk of “conspiracies” or Jewish “control of the Senate.” Discussion on any of these topics should always keep in mind that no group in modern times has been more sinned against than Jewish persons.

Of course, this does not mean that Jewish persons or the state of Israel cannot be criticized by non-Jewish persons. To the contrary such criticism is a sign of respect. Still one should be sensitive in the language deployed and particularly sensitive to overly broad generalities that might echo anti-Semite language of the past.

Christians also have more in common ethically and historically with Jewish persons than with any other group of people. This is not just the result of the origins of Christianity in Judaism, though of course that is important. It is also the result of much of Judaism and Christianity developing in shared space. Judaism may be “other” to Christians, but it is often not “totally other.” One thinks of the Christian and Jewish roots to modern science, for example. There are many shared modern values that make the state of Israel a close cousin to the American republic.

On the whole, one must praise Israel for her many virtues, condemn without hesitation her vices, and not press on her a double standard of rectitude not placed on other cultures. Otherwise one begins to suspect an odd obsession with “the Jews” that can be near relative to very bad views indeed.

So as an American and an Orthodox Christian I say here is two cheers for Israel! Long may she be free and prosperous!