Dear Relda,

I quoted Solzenitsyn for his insight on dualism not for his critique of the American anti-war movement.

I protested the Vietnamese War not because I was in favour of communism but because I thought my country was wrong in being there and was causing great suffering. I think the US had the capability to stay there by continuing to napalm peasants, killing all within free fire zones and keeping on with the havoc of war. Staying there would have continued the killing, also.

When I heard a fellow American say, “The Vietnamese don’t have the same respect for life that we do.” I thought of untermenschen.

In war it is common to accuse those who want peace as being in sympathy with the enemy. I recently visited a Catholic pacifist friend in Waterbury, CT and joined with him and other Catholics along with Quakers in Hartford, CT in a protest against the Iraqi War. We were a small number, and I felt good to be with them.

Commitment to freedom and a ‘noble’ cause can sometime be indistinguishable from self-righteousness.

I am not so sure that the preservation of a Jewish state is a just idea. I see no reasonable alternative at this time. If Australia where I live became a Christian state I would become a second-class citizen. Therefore I question a state where non-Jews are second-class citizens.

I hope that eventually the Jewish state will be part of a larger entity that will not discriminate among its citizens on the basis of ethnicity or religion.

I am a dual citizen of Australia and the US and will vote for Obama by absentee ballot. I see the commitment of Obama and McCain to Israel as an attempt to get the Jewish vote. I hope most American Jews will vote for president considering what is best for their country, the United States.

As to “prophets of freedom” I think it was Alex Comfort who asked, “When they talk of freedom who do they want you to kill?”

david f,
I wanted to know your opinion about Lustiger, now I know it. We indeed differ on this: I indeed prefer Jews and Christians who are not interested in keeping alive past animosities between the two faiths.

I also trust Lustiger's book (Choosing God - Chosen by God, Ignatius Press 1991) where he speaks about himself, his cultural background and what influenced his beliefs more than I trust what Hitler wrote about his.

Of course, I respect your definition of Jewish ethnicity (if you do not like the word race; there is no ambiguity about what is Judaism, the Jewish religion) which, if I understood it properly, you do not loose if you reject the God of Abraham and become an atheist, but you do loose it if you just change your understanding of Him and become a Christian.

On the other hand there are others things - e.g. your political preferences - where I do not think we would differ that much.

david f,
The reality, as you say, is there exists within Israel a second class citizen. The leom or “peoplehood” of Israel has not the inclusivity we might imagine. As nobody in Israel doubts, when any new housing developments are completed, only people with “Jewish nationality” need apply. There are privileges reserved for Jews as they are defined by Orthodox rabbinic courts. The degree of unrest by non-Jewish citizens is not simplistically and merely political. The “light unto the nations” is sometimes a little hidden.

Language as the principal bearer of culture strengthens the Jewish cultural identity of the state - 70 percent say that the thing that makes you Israeli is the Hebrew language. Polls, however, suggest nearly half of Israel's young people “do not feel connected” to the state, and a quarter of them do not see their future there – it is America which beckons. As someone outside of the Jewish culture I would have to agree, and ponder at an exclusive sounding justice a ‘promised land’ might herald for a select number. The secular and the religious have long been at war over what defines a good Jew – this does not however, obliterate an identity a culture or faith.

It is not only a dangerous polarization of our so called "war of civilizations" feeding a global frenzy, but, as Professor Aviezer Ravtizky has said, “both the good of the State of Israel and the future of the Jewish faith prohibit us from tying our fate and our image to fundamentalist leaders and Evangelical preachers who want to hasten the Jewish return to Zion as a salient means of bringing about the return of Jesus.” The more moderate may argue the imposition on every people the idea of the "will of the people," including those who have had no preparation for it, and without their choosing it. This was also the Iraq naiveté.

AJ,
Thanks for pointing out that I misunderstood Sancho’s point about selective breeding. It must have been a decent point too, as both you and Shadow Minister have brought it back to my attention. The point being, if I have it right, that the practice of selective breeding has been with us for a long time. And if the Nazis want to take things to extremes with their evil practices, including extermination of undesirables and forced sterilisation, then we shouldn’t blame poor old Charles. Perhaps we could even conclude that the impact of Darwin’s books on the 20th Century, including the Descent of Man, 1874 (which included his cousin Francis’ ideas about eugenics), were only minimal.

Relda,
Sells might be a nice guy but we can only work out what he thinks going by what he says. I wouldn’t want to guess what he’s thinking. While I wouldn’t agree with everything he says, I don’t see my views as ‘diametrically opposed’ to his. I think we’d agree much about the contributions of science in its proper context.

Science has been great at explaining how many things work, developing new technologies, giving us ease of travel, medical benefits, and comforts unimaginable in other centuries. However science is limited in its philosophy, in telling us who we are, how we got here, and what is our purpose.

To Sancho's earlier question, the definition of a human being, the current Pope of science, Richard Dawkins, tells us we’re corporal conduits for genetic material.

I offered that humans are creatures in God’s image. That is a totally non-scientific answer. Yet it is uplifting and useful in affirming each person’s worth and dignity. Likewise, in search of life’s other essential questions, putting science at the helm may leave the ship floundering without a compass.

This is not to be interpreted as me saying that atheists are immoral. However, I am yet to be convinced of their basis for moral conduct. I don’t think the principles derived from Darwin, Galton, and Dawkins are adequate to nourish the human soul.

Dan,
Whilst I don't pretend to give an estimate of Sell's faith or second guess his thought, I do know what he has said, and that is to leave science to the scientists - he has no problem with Darwinism or evolution per se. In this regard he does not take your view. What he objects to is the 'scientism' which relates only to the empirical, inter alia, as earlier mentioned - but I'm sure he's quite sympathetic to the similar aspect of a faith which he, you, I and others might share.

I found this in Pearson, "An Exposition of the Creed" published in 1659.

“There is no science taught without original belief, there are no letters learnt without preceding faith. There is no judgment executed, no commerce maintained, no business prosecuted without this; all secular affairs are transacted, all great achievements are attempted, all hopes, desires, and inclinations are preserved by this Human Faith grounded upon the testimony of man.”

There is very little new under the sun.

Peter Sellick