Biblical festivals like the Feast of Tabernacles may seem exotic and mysterious to gentiles (and to non-religious Jews), but those who choose to participate in the yearly celebrations can draw pleasure, joy, and even mystical lessons from the proceedings.

“Tabernacle” is a grand word that seems inappropriate when describing the makeshift huts in which we eat all our meals during the seven day holiday period, which began last Friday night at sunset. This harvest festival (known as “Sukkcot” – “huts” or “booths” in Hebrew) features these temporary structures in every observant Jewish home, topped by tree-branches that provide you with shade during the day but otherwise leave you exposed to the elements. That’s the whole point of the holiday, actually, which recalls our temporary residence in the desert after the exodus from Egypt, when God sheltered the Jewish people intimately and directly. In any event, the description of the holiday in the liturgy is “Z’man Simchasaynu” or “Season of Our Rejoicing,” because dependence on the Almighty is seen as reason for celebration.

With this emphasis on joy and gratitude, there’s a surprise in some of the prophetic readings selected for the synagogue services during the Sukkot holiday. On the first day we read aloud from the book of Zechariah and the intermediate Sabbath features the book of Ezekiel (38:18-39:16) ---and both passages make reference to the devastating, terrifying, prophesied war between Gog and Magog. The obvious question is why the one holiday of the year identified as “a season of rejoicing” would make reference to a war between two cruel and brutal powers with Israel caught haplessly in between.

The most obvious answer is that this world-destroying battle immediately precedes the ultimate cause for celebration—the coming of the Messiah (or, in Christian terms, the return of Messiah). In fact, many elements of the Feast of Tabernacles involve Messianic overtones and associations.

But beyond the connection that ties the climactic war to the world-unifying, Messianic arrival that follows (according to prophecy), there’s a hint of deeper meaning in the names of Gog and Magog themselves. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, the great German 19^th Century sage who’s identified as the founder of Modern Orthodoxy, points out that the name “Gog” is nearly identical to the common Hebrew word “gahg” – or roof. The very idea of a roof – a man-made ceiling designed to protect inhabitants from nature and the elements – runs counter to the theme of Sukkot and its emphasis on vulnerability. In Hebrew, when you add the prefix “M’” or “Ma” to any word (as in MaGog) it expresses the idea of projection of that concept into the wider world. Therefore “MaGog” signifies the promulgation of the idea of “roof” or “ceiling” – of human dependence on our own strength and cunning to shelter us and make us safe. Wisdom suggests, however, that even the most sturdy roofs can’t reliably defend against hurricanes, earthquakes, floods or bombs (North Korean and otherwise). In any event, Rabbi Hirsch argues that each year at the Sukkot holiday we see the shattering war of Gog and MaGog – both representing the reliance on materialism and human power – in conflict with the principal idea of Succot – the flimsy booths we use for seven days with tree-branch ceilings, pointedly exposed to change and rain and wind. The materialists try to protect themselves from God (like the generation of the Tower of Babel who wanted to triumph over the Almighty with its own building program). The faithful, on the other hand, accept our vulnerability and our exposure, trusting in God as the basis for all confidence, rejoicing and merriment.

This year, with cooperative, brisk, clear weather in the Great Northwest, we’ve been sitting in our own Sukkah with friends and family, grateful for our many blessings, cherishing the fact that our two college- student daughters are both home for the week, and trying our best to incorporate and affirm the messages of the holiday.

“The gallows doth wonderfully concentrate the mind,” declared Dr. Samuel Johnson in the 1700's, remarking on the human instinct to prioritize more effectively when facing the prospect of death. In view of recent developments, that quotation (a long standing personal favorite of mine) sounds especially appropriate.

The North Korean nuclear test should serve to refocus the American people on the one issue that matters most: the safety of our people from deadly threats by crazed terrorists and demented dictators.

More than three years ago, President Bush directed the world’s attention on an “Axis of Evil” --- naming the profoundly dangerous nations of Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Given recent developments from Iran and North Korea, could any reasonable observer challenge his categorization? And should anyone doubt that it constitutes a profound blessing for humanity that we’ve already removed one of these three nations from the list of aggressive, hostile powers, potentially armed with weapons of mass destruction,

In the midst of a bitter election campaign, some Democratic partisans will probably scoff at any response from President Bush to the intensifying threat from North Korea, especially when he orders the naval blockade that appears most likely. We will almost certainly hear charges that the President is over-reacting to the challenge from Kim Jong Il to try to scare the public into returning Republicans to Congressional control. It’s all but certain that John Kerry, Howard Dean, Ned Lamont, Joe Biden and other worthies will insist that no reaction is possible without the unanimous support of the United Nations, and that we should allow the new Secretary General (a Korean, ironically) to negotiate his way out of the problem. Special commission, anyone? How about a world peace conference? Maybe Munich might be a good location -- just in time for Oktoberfest.

Meanwhile, the United States and Western Civilization face the very real possibility that the North Korean dictator will attempt to smuggle one of his estimated eight to eleven nuclear weapons out of the country and will make it available to our Islamist enemies.

In this situation, would Nancy Pelosi taking power as Speaker of the House reassure the North Koreans about our determination and toughness or, rather, encourage more adventurism? Of course, some Americans like the idea of the Lady Leftist from San Francisco helping to speak for our nation in the looming showdown with a nuclear-armed, psychotic Communist dwarf. Those who rightly distrust the Democratic approach to military and foreign affairs (relying on international organizations, trying to understand why our enemies hate us, concentrating on past mistakes rather than future strategies) will, however, begin to put aside the sleazy obsession with Mark Foley (who resigned from the House ten days ago), and to focus on the significant issues we face as a nation.

In this case, North Korea doth wonderfully concentrate the mind.

On September 22nd, the movie “Jesus Camp” opened up in theatres across the country--- a mean-spirited documentary film explicitly comparing a Christian youth camp in North Dakota to a terrorist training ground. Given the anti-religious biases of most media commentators, the film drew intensive publicity and overwhelmingly positive reviews. The “Rotten Tomatoes” website that monitors film critics showed 39 reviews, with 32 of them clearly positive.

October 6^th saw the release of a very different sort of movie: “Facing the Giants,” an emotional, inspirational story of a beleaguered football coach at a Christian high school who turns his team around through a more intense, explicit injection of faith. This unpretentious, heart-felt, church-produced offering, unapologetically religious in its outlook and content, naturally drew far less press attention than “Jesus Camp” and far more negative reviews – with only two registered as positive, and 10 negative.

Meanwhile, the box office returns for the two movies – one of them faith promoting, and the other Christian-bashing – told a very different story. In three weeks in theatres, “Jesus Camp” has earned less than $200,000 at the box office. “Facing the Giants,” meanwhile, has earned just under $2,000,000 in just one week. Considering the stunningly low production budget (a paltry $100,000!) for this little-movie-that-could, “Giants” is already giganitcally profitable.

Doesn’t this contrast suggest that you can make more money with entertainment that affirms faith than with offerings that assault it? I’ve been making this case, by the way, for more than twenty years (particularly in my 1992 book HOLLYWOOD VS. AMERICA), but major media companies continue to dawdle in getting the message.

There’s another lesson in the very different commercial outcomes for “Jesus Camp” and “Facing the Giants.” Critics and entertainment journalists may believe that we can control or at least profoundly influence the public reception for movie releases, but we’re wrong: the people of this great country know what they like and they cheerfully ignore “authorities” who tell them they’re wrong.

Meanwhile, if you’re not observing a Jewish holiday (The Feast of Tabernacles) over this weekend, you might have a good time with the appropriately PG-rated and family friendly “Facing the Giants.” The film itself could help you feel better about life, just as its reception can make you feel better about the American people and their discernment regarding pop culture.

Yes, Mark Foley is a reprehensible creep, a disgusting pervert, and a disgrace to the House (and humanity) and sure, it feels great to castigate the Florida Freak as much as we possibly can. But doesn’t it count as just a bit over the top to compare the former Congressman to child-molesting, suicidal, mass murderers?

You know that the Democratic/Liberal obsession with the Big Scandal of the Moment has finally entered its inevitable silly season when the New York Times, America’s vaunted “Journal of Record,” mentions Foley in the same paragraph with the recent killers who stormed into school buildings in Colorado and Pennsylvania and assaulted and shot innocent young girls.

In Thursday’s lead editorial, the Times opined:

“What Mr. Foley did was not about his sexual orientation. Anyone who imagines that gay men pose a particular threat to American children need only contemplate the grisly crimes recently perpetrated on young girls in schoolhouse assaults by psychotic heterosexuals. The last time Congress went through a page-sex scandal, two House members were censured – one gay and one straight.”

Yeah, but the treatment of those two members by their parties and by the public turned out very differently. Daniel Crane (the straight, Republican malefactor) was voted out of office in (appropriate) disgrace. Gerry Studds (the gay, Democratic page-molester) admitted he had actual (as opposed to internet) sex with a seventeen-year-old boy yet refused to resign and won re-election five more times from the unconcerned liberals in his Massachusetts district.

Moreover, the Times’ argument lacks even the most rudimentary logic or force: how do the two recent school shootings in any way disprove the statistically demonstrable fact that gay males are vastly more likely to abuse underage victims than their heterosexual counterparts? Consider the shockingly stupid attempt to cite past Congressional page abuse (“one gay and one straight”) as evidence of balance: given the fact that straight male Congressmen outnumber gay male Congressmen by at least 10 to 1, doesn’t that indicate that gay politicos are hugely overrepresented among abusers? And that doesn’t even count the revolting Mr. Foley in the equation: if two out of the three most recent page-abusers happened to be gay, doesn’t that indicate a special problem with these rare, homosexual members of the House?

The nature of that problem should be obvious: if any male Congressman had ever dared come on to a sixteen year old girl the way Foley approached the now infamous male page from Louisiana (“send me a picture”) the reaction would have been swift and decisive from all concerned—most likely including the young lady herself. A closeted gay male like Foley represented a worse danger precisely because he could approach teenagers as a “friend and mentor,” leaving just enough ambiguity to avoid repercussions. It’s revealing that the same New York Times that compared Foley to murderers ran a front page story in which most Congressional pages said good things about the infamous Floridian: they positively contrasted Foley’s amiable accessibility with the arrogant disregard from most of his colleagues. Yes, the unique ability to conflate friendliness with sickening seductive intent makes gay predators especially dangerous.

The statistics on pedophilia, by the way, have proven remarkably consistent over the years. It’s true that victims of child abuse are almost evenly divided between boys and girls – but since more than 90% of all abusers are male, that means that gay males are obviously overrepresented. Homosexuals represent at most 2 to 4% of all males, so the sad truth is that gay males are at the very least ten times more likely to abuse children than straight males.

Noting this disparity isn’t homophobia – it’s realism, despite the ridiculous editorial of the New York Times. Concerning the Foley affair, the newspaper suggests: “There’s reason to worry that the scandal could tempt Republican politicians and their defenders to try to turn it into an anti-gay witch hunt in the Capitol.”

Of course, that’s absurd: Republicans (like most other Americans) remain morbidly sensitive to charges of “homophobia,” which helps to explain the cautious, kid gloves approach by the House leadership before authorizing a full scale, incriminating investigation of one of the very few gay members in the GOP caucus. If, based on a few ambiguous, chatty, creepily friendly e-mails the House leaders had placed Foley under a cloud, can you imagine the reaction of the Log Cabin Republicans? The Human Rights Campaign? The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation? (GLAAD). If, on the other hand, Hastert and company had asked for a thorough probe of a colleague accused of “overly friendly” e-mails to a sixteen year old girl, which (if any) aggressive interest group would have complained?

The hypocrisy on the Left may have recently reached world-record levels. Nancy Pelosi declared today that the Foley case was “as serious as it gets.” Actually, I might have reserved that designation for 9/11, or potential terrorist attacks in the future. But she demands that we view this e-mail scandal (which still doesn’t involve any apparent illegality, by the way) as the worst-imaginable threat to national security.

Would anyone suggest that her true motivation here is the “protection of our children?”

The political exploitation of this issue (as a distraction to more serious debates which Democrats were losing) counts as uniquely shameful. But even in the currently fevered environment (which, God willing, should change over the weekend) the New York Times juxtaposition of Mark Foley with psychotic killers deserves a special place in the editorial Hall of Shame.

Earlier this evening I attended an advance showing of Hollywood’s latest contribution to Western civilization: “Employee of the Month,” starring Dane Cook and perennial Oscar contender Jessica Simpson (in yet another bravura performance). As usual in these occasions, the screening combined working press and critics (like me) with “civilians” who had been invited to a free movie by one of the local radio stations.

On the way out of the performance, with the audience still glowing from the uplifting, aesthetically challenging and life-enhancing experience they had shared, I overheard a middle-aged woman speaking to her husband and wondering why Jessica Simpson had looked so familiar to her. “I know I’ve seen her before,” she commented. “Was it ‘Sex in the City’ on TV? I used to love that show! She was the star of that one, wasn’t she?”

Her husband seemed perplexed at first, not recalling Ms. Simpson’s contributions to ‘Sex in the City’ but then he figured out the confusion. “Naw, she wasn’t in it,” he clarified. “The star of that show was Sarah Jessica Parker, wasn’t it? Is that who you’re thinking of?”

“I always get ‘em confused,” the lady commented with a shrug. “The names are so similar. Sarah Jessica, Jessica Simpson…. I can’t tell those two apart!”

This overheard conversation (we were jammed together in the crowd heading for the exit, so I couldn’t avoid listening) gave me a troubling new perspective on the perilous position of the Speaker of the House, Denny Hastert. The inability of a typical U.S. citizen to recognize the obvious distinction between Jessica Simpson and Sarah Jessica Parker (who, truth be told, bear no resemblance to one another) makes one despair of the effort to get people to recognize the all-important difference between Congressman Foley’s e-mails and his instant messages. Those of us in the media, who monitor news stories and pop culture for a living, might insist upon the obvious, crucial distinction between the five merely pathetic and embarrassing e-mails (which became known to Denny Hastert and major media sources nearly a year ago) and the totally disgusting, probably illegal, sexually graphic instant messages (which were known to no one in Congress or the press until last Friday).

But most Americans feel impatient, apparently, with any effort to separate the two very different written exchanges. All they know is that Mark Foley behaved in a sickening, perverted manner with sixteen year old boys, and Dennis Hastert knew something about it months before the public did. Therefore, in the minds of some observers, Mr. Hastert should resign for his participation in a cover-up.

The unfairness of this lynch mob mentality troubles me deeply. It’s hard to blame Speaker Hastert for failing to over-react to overly friendly communications to pages that included nothing more compromising or incriminating than a request for a photograph, and the mention that another page looked older than his age and “was in really great shape.” In response to these e-mails, Congressional colleagues indeed spoke to Foley and got him to stop making contact with the page from Louisiana who had expressed discomfort with their exchanges. There’s no evidence (at least so far) that he ever persisted in communicating with that particular boy. The press (including ABC News, the St. Petersburg Times, and the Miami Herald) also had these original e-mails from 2003 since the end of last year, but decided that they hardly constituted a newsworthy scandal and sat on the story. In other words, they treated the matter even less seriously than did the House of Representatives.

But when those first, relatively mild (if unquestionably creepy) e-mails appeared on the ABC website last Friday, at least two other former pages came forward with the vastly more despicable instant messages than no one else except the recipients had, apparently, seen before. Those instant messages were graphic, probably criminal, sick and unquestionably erotic (at least in the warped mind of Representative Foley). It’s those instant messages (replete with references to removing the boxer shorts of one of the young men, and so forth) that have created the national outrage. And if Denny Hastert had seen such instant messages, and failed to demand Foley’s immediate resignation, then the Speaker was indeed blameworthy. But as of this writing (at least) there’s no reason to believe that Hastert or anyone else had read the far more incriminating, disturbing, wildly inappropriate “internet sex” exchanges that have shocked most of the known universe when they appeared five days ago.

In other words, the rage at the Speaker of the House (a decent, dedicated and hugely effective public servant) is based upon the idea that he failed to react with appropriate indignation to evidence he hadn’t seen. The Speaker is a powerful guy, but isn’t it more than a tad unfair to expect him to intuit or presume the existence of instant messages that no one had shown to him (or anyone else)?

In any event, I will continue to maintain my faith in the intelligence and common sense of the American people, and to assume that once they understand the facts of this case (and the huge difference between the e-mails Hastert knew about and the instant messages he didn’t know about) they’ll stop shrieking for the Speaker’s head.

But in a nation where a typical moviegoer can’t even tell the difference between Sarah Jessica Parker (the brainy one who can act) and Jessica Simpson (the one who can smile and fill sweaters), it may be expecting too much to insist that they recognize the contrast between the various chunks of evidence in a thoroughly distasteful case. I still hope (and believe, though with less certainty than before) that the public will eventually get this story straight, but until then there is the horrifying possibility that deadly confusion could spell doom for Speaker Denny.

The much-discussed “Ethicist” column in the New York Times Magazine provides occasional glimpses of the moral confusion and twisted thinking that’s become an essential element in contemporary life for fashionable urban sophisticates.

This week, for instance, a correspondent identified as “Dave, New York” posed the following dilemma:

“Late one night, my partner and a friend came home with a guy they met at a bar. I was asleep, but joined them for a little while before going back to bed. The next morning, my iPod was missing. I had left it in the living room on the docking station. After talking to my partner and his friend, we deduced that he third guy had taken it. Who must replace the iPod?”

The expert “Ethicist,” Randy Cohen, provided the following unequivocal answer:

“Your partner. You shouldn’t have to run background checks on his guests or bolt your possessions to the floor. He is responsible for people he brings into you home. He may in turn seek compensation from the light-fingered pickup, but his ever getting the money (or the guy’s right name) seems unlikely….”

He continues to discuss the moral obligation to replace the missing iPod, but never once addresses the larger, more obvious, more delicate problem of a “partner” who comes home from a bar with two other guys. One can assume that the celebrants didn’t invade Dave’s living room simply for the purpose of discussing phenomenology or plasma physics. The interpersonal situation, not just the missing digital music player, obviously calls out for condemnation from the august ethical authority: what sort of “partnership” is it, after all, if one half of a couple behaves with such spectacular recklessness and lack of consideration?

This small scenario highlights the fact that despite the ardent protestations of activists and advocates, gay male partnerships cannot be compared to male-female relationships. Such a homosexual bond is obviously at the center of this episode (how else could “Dave” in New York have a “partner” who’s a guy, coming home with two other guys?). Imagine, for the sake of argument, that Dave had been involved in a relationship with a female however, either his wife or his lover. Wouldn’t that woman coming home from a bar late at night with two guys (or with another female and a strange male) produce bigger problems than filched iPods? It’s hard to imagine in that situation that the sleeping boyfriend (or husband) would simply wake up “to join them for a little while before going back to bed.”

Gay male relationships are different by their very nature --- generally (if not always) lacking the civilizing, long-term, romantic perspective that women naturally bring to a couple. That difference also emerges in the disgusting instant messages recently published and involving Congressman Mark Foley and a 16-year-old page. Yes, Foley obviously abuses his power in a shamelessly predatory way, but the boy in his responses obviously encourages the libidinous lawmaker. It is difficult to imagine any 16 year old girl providing equivalent encouragement without assuming some emotional or romantic attachment on her part. Of all the stomach-churning aspects of the Clinton-Lewinsky association, perhaps the most pathetic and unsavory involved Monica’s frequently expressed starry-eyed infatuation and happily-ever-after dreams about the President of the United States. She even reported on their conversations, and her ardent hopes, concerning a possible future opportunity to live with him, after he left the White House and abandoned Hillary.

No one would assume that the teenaged page who flirted with Mark Foley entertained any similar fantasies. Not all opposite sex relationships include commitment and long-term romance, and not all same sex relationships lack such commitment and enduring love, but it’s obvious (and statistically provable) that male-female connections are vastly more likely to produce lasting consequences (including children) as opposed to fleeting excitement and titillation.

This inarguable distinction relates, of course, to the ongoing debate about same sex marriage. The endlessly retreated arguments by advocates for marital redefinition begin with the assertion that “we don’t want to change the institution of marriage—we just want to expand it.” But expanding social sanction and governmental recognition to include relationships like the one described in this week’s New York Times Magazine (where a partner brings home two other guys after bar-hopping, and the “ethicist” doesn’t even question his behavior) involves an obvious change in marital ideals.

Gay advocates can argue that enlarging our notion of “marriage” to include such late night adventures might prove energizing and enriching for the allegedly tired, old institution. But no rational observer can claim that with such fashionable, cosmopolitan up-to-date adjustments meant to accommodate the very different nature of gay male relationships, that the institution of matrimony would remain unaltered.

Yom Kippur, the “Day of Atonement,” reached its climactic conclusion just a few hours ago and while this most sacred festival of the Jewish year certainly brings its share of inspiration and satisfaction it is also, inevitably, something of an ordeal.

It’s not just a question of the fasting – though any time you avoid food or drink of any kind for more than 25 hours you’re bound to feel a bit uncomfortable, or at least light- headed, at the end of the process.. The intense schedule of worship services also adds to the intensity and exhaustion associated with the day. This year, Yom Kippur services began on Sunday night at sundown and lasted, typically, two-and-a-half to three hours, before you go home at night. Then prayers commenced again this morning (Monday) usually at 8.30 or 8 AM, and continued with only a brief afternoon break (typically no more than two hours) until full dark at about 8 PM. Those hours in the synagogue (a total of 8 to 12 hours for most congregations) feature a vast collection of Biblical readings (in Hebrew), carefully structured liturgy, five repetitions of a lengthy, painstakingly formulated, and ancient congregational confessional, and a vast collection of “Piyutim” – often mystical poems and hymns formulated by Medieval rabbis more than a thousand years ago. No matter how fascinating this material (and some of it counts as powerfully absorbing indeed), or how beautiful the singing, or how passionately you mean to repent your sins of the year just passed and seek forgiveness from God, the weight and length and seriousness of the services become mind-numbing, even oppressive.

That’s especially true in the concluding service of the High Holy Day – “Ne’ilah,” or “closing” – which focuses on the slow closure of the heavenly gates on the one day a year considered most appropriate and advantageous for achieving forgiveness for all your shortcomings. In traditional congregations, participants remain standing for nearly all of this concluding service – usually more than an hour. After a day of fasting and prayer, remaining on your feet for this uninterrupted length of time represents one of the holiday’s most substantial challenges.

In any event, even those who try to take religious obligation most seriously will check watches and begin to count the moments as Yom Kippur draws to its dramatic close. Today, I found myself regularly computing the percentage of the fast I’d already finished: for instance, by 2.00 in the afternoon, I figured out that I’d already endured some 75% of my deprivation and found myself on the home stretch toward that first, fantastically refreshing, fast-breaking glass of water.

As I considered my own impatience, yearning for the clock to move more quickly and the day to wind down to its conclusion, I realized that my restlessness reflected part of the genius of the holiday. Through most of our lives, time moves too fast—for instance, on Thursdays and Fridays I’m astonished without fail that another week has vanished so quickly, or when we celebrated our 10^th anniversary of moving to Seattle it seemed ridiculous, unbelievable -- hard to believe it had been more than a year or two. With our second daughter starting college a week ago (and living on campus) we’re particularly conscious of the fleeting nature of time--- in many ways, I still feel like a college kid myself, but the gray hair at the temples and the sudden maturity of our three kids tell a different story. I’ve joked with the children about putting a clock in the freezer to try to freeze time – or at least to slow it down. If I could find a reliable means to stop the headlong rush of hours, days, weeks, years, I would gladly do it, and make a point of cherishing the moments I have left.

Yom Kippur, with all its obligations and discomforts, provides an utterly reliable way of slowing down time. All of a sudden, in your hunger and restlessness, undistracted by e-mails or phones or random conversations, you want that clock to move faster, to push forward. I suspect that most of my fellow Jews would agree with me: Yom Kippur is easily the slowest day of the year. The Day of Atonement is the Day of Slow-down-ment. And that’s a good thing for an occasion which is all about perspective: trying to get you to look at all your limited hours outside of synagogue with the same self-aware focus you bring to the stately, ordered unfolding of the High Holy Day.

Ideally, after 25 hours of self-conscious focus on your deeds and directions, you can come out the other end with a better sense that each moment represents an opportunity –and an obligation for maximizing the life and light you bring to it. While rushing to meet the usual desperate deadlines (completing these thoughts in writing, paying bills, updating the checkbook, plowing through newspapers before I go to sleep) I want to keep just a bit of that Day of Atonement consciousness – recalling a few hours ago on my feet at the end of synagogue services, when the moments crept, and dragged, and slowly accumulated, and mattered.

As the days tick down toward a fateful and fiercely contested election, both parties have sharpened and simplified their messages to the masses. In each case, in fact, the partisans have reduced their electoral appeals to four words.

The Democrats tell the public: “Iraq is a mess.”

The Republicans insist: “We kept you safe.”

Both these messages count as powerful and persuasive because they’re both obviously true – and will win agreement from the vast majority of our fellow citizens. Yup, Iraq is a mess—even at a time of reduced US casualties and apparent political progress for the new Iraqi government, insurgent attacks are up and the cost of the war is crushing. And yes, President Bush and his GOP colleagues have kept the US homeland safe from terrorist attack, despite the deadly Islamo-Nazi strikes against some twenty other nations around the world.

So if both parties convey potent messages that produce widespread agreement, which one wins in November?

That depends, of course, on the way that each side responds to the other guy’s assault.

For the Democrats, the right way to hit back at the “we kept you safe” argument is to offer yet another four-word declaration: “We’ll keep you safer.” In order to make that case plausibly, however, they must explain what they will do that differs from the Republicans. This counts as a tall, almost impossible order, for two basic reasons:

First, when it comes to an appropriate strategy for Iraq and the War on Terror in general, Democratic candidates simply cannot agree with one another. That’s why party leaders must resort to unconvincing platitudes like calling for a “new direction” with no explanation on what that new direction might be.

Second, as much as the Dems would like to make this election all about Bush, they can’t vote him out of office. If they run too hard on foreign policy initiatives, even if they finally agree on some “new direction,” they’ll still face a tough time explaining how they’ll change our defense and diplomatic strategies from the House of Representatives or the Senate. Like it or not, the Constitution gives the President control of our military and our relations with the world, and the presidency isn’t on the ballot in 2006.

Meanwhile, how should Republicans respond to the core Democratic declaration, “Iraq is a mess”? The right answer --, as Karl Rove, Ken Mehlman and George W. Bush no doubt understand—is one final four word slogan: “They’d make it worse.”

While Democratic partisans may insist that Iraq couldn’t possibly get worse, the GOP must challenge the public to use its imagination. A precipitous US withdrawal could produce a powerful, hostile, truly fanatical government in Baghdad, in place of the current shaky but friendly authorities. Most Americans will reject the idea that concessions to terrorists will somehow discourage them. By highlighting Democratic weakness, division and confusion on the war on terror in general and Iraq in particular, the Republicans can make the case that a “new direction” could be more dangerous than a consistent commitment.

Finally, the GOP must understand the real thinking (and feeling) behind the overwhelming public disapproval of the current war. The solid majorities who dislike the way the President is conducting the battle in Iraq do not agree on a better approach – many (if not most) of these critics, believe that the Republicans haven’t been tough enough on our enemies. One of the consistent complaints from callers to my radio show is that “Bush is running a politically correct war” and refusing “to take the gloves off” in dealing with our enemies.

If the President managed to convey a new vigor and resolution in prosecuting this war – perhaps by increasing the number of troops and launching aggressive new strikes against our enemies – he could win back some of these doubters. In any event, stronger displays of toughness and determination could underline the indispensable answer (“They’d make it worse”) to the Democratic attack on the war (“Iraq is a mess.”)

While this election cycle will continue to turn on four word messages, by 2008 it’s likely that there will be only one word that matters to voters concerned with our Middle East policy: either “victory” or “defeat.”

The Gallup Poll indicates that Americans have more confidence in the military than in any other profession (cops and clergy are second and third, respectively) so it should come as no great shock that Hollywood releases two new movies that glorify men in uniform. The surprise is that both these films – “Flyboys” and “The Guardian” – are so expertly crafted and so richly entertaining.

“Flyboys” (released last Friday, and doing respectable business at the box office) tells the stirring story of the Lafayette Escadrille in World War I. These Americans volunteered to fly airplanes (assembled from wood and canvas, mostly) for France before the United States formally entered the war in 1917. Amazingly, these daredevils dueled German pilots in elaborate aerial battles (thrillingly reproduced on screen) barely ten years after the Wright Brothers first flew at Kitty Hawk. The movie is old-fashioned in the best sense of the word: with vivid, sympathetic characters (including a heroic Bible believing Christian who sees himself on a holy mission), stunningly staged action sequences, and even a touching romance involving an American kid (James Franco) from Wyoming who speaks no French and a French farm girl (the lovely newcomer Jennifer Decker) who speaks no English. Inky-dinky parlay voo? TV veteran Tony Bill directed this independently produced, largely unheralded gem with a determination to tell the story with faithfulness and respect to the historical record. He’s succeeded in terms that easily surpass what jaded moviegoers had any right to expect.

“The Guardian” (released today, Friday, September 29) celebrates Coast Guard rescue swimmers, who drop from helicopters to save victims on board boats that are menaced by raging storms. Director Andrew Davis (“The Fugitive”) does a superb job with the menacing seas -- even more scary here than in the hit thriller “The Perfect Storm.” But Kevin Costner also delivers one of his best-ever performances as a world-weary veteran (just jilted by his lovely wife, Sela Ward) who takes a break from his legendary career as a rescuer to teach others at an elite Coast Guard school. Ashton Kutcher plays his most arrogant student, a former swimming champ with his own guilty secrets. The movie is formulaic, manipulative, and an unmitigated pleasure to watch --- moving and engaging and richly satisfying, from beginning to end. The heart-stopping scenes of rescue swimmers in action might be expected, but the rich, intelligent written characterizations count as a significant bonus.

Both “Flyboys” and “The Guardian” are rated PG-13, though “Flyboys” (with its discreet treatment of violence and death, and its very mild references to sexuality) is far more appropriate for youngsters (anyone over the age of ten) than the darker, more adult “The Guardian.”

As a film critic, the most common question I hear (constantly) is: “Seen any good movies lately?” Well, I’ve seen two solid cinematic contributions in less than ten days. It may not herald some new “golden age” for Hollywood but it’s refreshing and energizing to find films—two of ‘em, in fact -- that deserve enthusiastic recommendations.

The acclaimed new documentary “Jesus Camp” reveals far more about liberal paranoia than it does about the fervent Pentecostal Christians it sets out to expose.

The film, opening in theatres across the country, focuses on a religious summer program called “Kids on Fire” in Devil’s Lake, North Dakota, that draws young campers from across the country. While the two New York-based directors (Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady) claim they tried to treat their subjects openly and fairly, the ads for the movie indicate their obvious agenda—featuring an endorsement claim proclaiming “Jesus Camp” as “One of 2006’s Most Frightening Films.”

The movie goes to great lengths to make a faith-based summer camp look like an authoritarian training ground for Nazi youth or jihadist killers – comparisons deliberately invoked in words and images. The filmmakers use extreme close-ups and dizzying camera angles show a congregation in fervent prayer, or speaking in tongues, accompanied by dissonant, don’t-look-in-the-closet music that could have been borrowed from “Psycho” or “Night of the Living Dead.” Mike Papantonio, an outspokenly leftist radio host for “Air America,” provides running commentary that regularly warns the audience of the alleged danger and dishonest of Christian conservatives.

But even more than the hysterical tone of the film itself (which regularly punctuates images of enthusiastic religious kids with “ominous” media sound bites concerning the nomination fight for Justice Samuel Alito) the reaction of prominent critics demonstrates a wildly exaggerated fear of people of faith. According to Jennifer Merin in The New York Press, the movie depicts evangelists stirring campers “into such frenzied chanting about banning abortion and creating a Christian America that they enter trance-like states… These hair-raising moments…expose a terrifying training ground of religious indoctrination and will (hopefully) convert those who watch it to a greater awareness of what’s happening on our home front.”

Meanwhile, in the prestigious New York Times, Stephen Holden writes: “At Kids on Fire we see children in camouflage and face paint practicing war dances with wooden swords and making straight-armed salutes to a soundtrack of Christian heavy metal. We see them weeping and speaking in tongues as they are seized by the Holy Spirit. And we see them in Washington at an anti-abortion demonstration.”

He then concludes his review with a warning of such delusional grandeur as to verge on self parody. “It wasn’t so long ago that another puritanical youth army, Mao Zedong’s Red Guards, turned the world’s most populous country inside out,” Holden writes. “Nowadays the possibility of a right-wing Christian American version of what happened in China no longer seems entirely far-fetched.”

Mao and his Communist minions butchered at least 35 million human beings. Does Stephen Holden of the New York Times honestly believe that Christian kids in America might some day do the same?

While the reaction to “Jesus Camp” by the secular establishment regularly features words like “terrifying” and “hair-raising,” the most frightening aspect of the film’s release involves the apparently sincere concern on the part of any number of cosmopolitan sophisticates that decent, devout, family centered, patriotic, kind hearted, law-abiding Christian activists actually represent the present day equivalent of menacing, murderous Maoists.

As conservatives approach a decisive election just 42 days from today, it’s time to face the truth about the Congressional GOP. Yes, the Republicans who run the House and the Senate are far from perfect, but it’s ignorant, dishonest and self-destructive to suggest that they’re “useless,” “identical to Democrats,” or “complete traitors to their principles.”

Consider the all-important issue of taxes: new figures just posted on the website of the Internal Revenue Service, reflecting definitive data from all federal tax returns, highlight some significant accomplishments of Republicans in Washington. In 2000, the last year of the Clinton presidency, the average tax rate for all taxpayers was 15.3%. In 2004 (the latest year for which final numbers are available) that rate had fallen to 12.1%-- an across-the-board cut of more than 20%. The only voters who could claim that a 20% tax cut is insignificant are those who don’t pay taxes.

Meanwhile, the Bush/GOP tax cuts (decried by dishonest Democrats for benefiting “only the rich”) proved especially significant for the bottom 50% of all taxpayers. Under Clinton, these below-average wage earners still coughed up 4.6% of their income to the feds. Under Bush, that rate for the struggling bottom half dropped to 3% --a healthy cut of 35%.

The IRS numbers also give the lie to the Democratic charge that “the filthy rich” gobble up a larger portion of the national income than ever before. The top 1% of taxpayers took an all-time peak percentage of the national income under Clinton—some 17.8%. The most recent figures for Bush show that the privileged one per cent reduced their share of our society’s earnings during his presidency to 16.5%.

Politicians and pundits make it a habit of lying – and they indulge that habit with gusto and recklessness. Statistics, however, don’t lie – at least not when they’re based on the actual money collected by the IRS. Perhaps these new numbers will provide a needed dose of reality therapy for confused conservatives – and cure the crazy idea that there’s no real difference between Democrats and the GOP.

An eccentric professor named J. Philippe Rushton has ignited a raging controversy in the United Kingdom with a new theory that claims that men outclass women in achievement and the exercise of power not because of sexism, social conditioning or hormones, but because of superior intelligence. After all, males develop notably larger brains (even relative to their larger body size) and IQ tests from around the world give men a consistent average advantage of at least four points.

My first reaction in reading a description of this new research was to retreat to well-rehearsed conventional wisdom: men weren’t any smarter than women-- they were just smart in different ways. For instance, isn’t it true that on standardized aptitude tests men always perform better than women on mathematical ability, but women always perform better than men on verbal ability?

To my surprise, this commonplace assumption turns out to be an urban myth: on the Scholastic Assessment Test, males consistently outperformed females on both verbal and mathematical aptitude. Going back forty years, there were five years (1967-71) when women taking the tests topped men on the verbal section (now known as “critical reading”) by margins ranging from two points (out of 800) to seven points (an all time high water mark for females, in 1969).

Beginning in 1972, however, males began beating females on the verbal/critical reading test and never looked back, racking up advantages as large as twelve points (1989). Not once in the 34 years between 1972 and 2006 did females beat or equal males in either verbal or mathematical aptitude. In the math tests, by the way, the male advantage remained huge and crushing—reaching as high as 44 points in 1986, and standing at a decisive 34 points today.

These numbers (reflecting mean SAT scores of all college bound high school seniors) raise many troubling questions. First, given the consistent male advantage on both traditional divisions of the test, there’s no easy explanation for the far greater number of young women admitted to college – and the even stronger female advantage when it comes to university graduation. Nearly sixty per cent of young people to earn college degrees this year will be women – an apparent preference that makes no sense whatever when men so consistently and decisively show greater aptitude. In light of the test scores, there’s no escaping the suspicion that women receive preferential treatment in college admissions and, perhaps, on campus.

Of course, one might argue that the test scores reflect nothing more significant than an ability to game a multiple choice exam, but a wealth of data suggest that the SAT results remain a powerful, reliable predictor of success in academia and later in life. In any event, the scores suggest an imbalance in male and female potential that easily could explain the greater success of males of the species in business, academia, the sciences and most other fields. One might easily find fault with the conclusions or methods of the ever-outspoken, always outrageous Professor Rushton, but the testing results of literally millions upon millions of US college students suggest that his theories can’t be dismissed as utterly ridiculous.

What constitutes the essential, unbridgeable difference between human beings and animals?

The most common answer would probably involve language, but recent research claims to have discerned subtle animal languages in dolphins, apes, elephants and other species. In any event, there’s an even more striking distinction that does stem, in part, from our human linguistic ability.

I would argue that memory—the ability to recall and analyze your own life, and to pass those conclusions on to future generations – represents the most decisive and divine of our distinctive gifts. Individual animals can learn, mastering practical challenges and even, to some extent, teaching those skills to their young. But the ability to make progress from generation to generation – to remember all the accumulated lessons of the past and to pass them on – simply does not exist in the animal kingdom. Recent primate research focused on the emergence of distinctive “cultures”  in different bands of chimpanzees, with the creatures developing varied habits based upon the group that raised them. Despite this evidence of some intergenerational transmission, there’s no evidence of “progress” among animals—of a through-line showing profound changes over hundreds of years. To the best of our knowledge, chimpanzees live out their lives in virtually identical fashion to their ancestors from thousands of years ago, as do dolphins and elephants and bears. They lack memory, which empowers us to change our own lives and to bring about profound alteration in human circumstances over the course of just a few generations.

The importance of memory emerges as one of the primary themes of the just-concluded Jewish holiday of Rosh HaShannah – misleadingly translated as the “Jewish New Year.” Actually, the more accurate, authentic name for the two day festival, featured in the prayers and blessings of the season, is “Yom HaZikaron” – or, “Day of Memory.” On this occasion we want God to remember us mercifully, and to remember the virtues of our ancestors, as we recall our own deeds, good and bad, from the year just passed. Rosh HaShannah—the Day of Memory – ushers in a ten day period of repentance and self examination culminating with Yom Kippur (this year on Monday, October 2^nd), the Day of Atonement. One of the themes of the process of repentance is the effort to transcend our physical, animal nature and to enhance our spirituality – which is why the Day of Atonement brings a full, 25-hour fast. Jewish tradition teaches that all human beings combine elements of animal and angel, dust and divinity; this time of year, by exercising the faculty of memory God has given to us, we hope to emphasize and elevate the more Godly aspects of our being. We use the gift of memory not only to review our own past behavior, but to connect to the distant past and God’s epic revelation at Mount Sinai.

No beast could recall an event from 3,000 years ago—or even a hundred years ago—and in our unique capacity to remember we affirm the divine, eternal element of our nature. A few themes from the Rosh HaShannah holiday stress the all important distinction between human begins and animals. The synagogue liturgy repeatedly identifies the day as “the birthday of the universe,” and yet all sources agree that Rosh HaShannah actually marks the sixth day of creation, when God formed man and woman. There’s an obvious question here: wouldn’t the birthday of the universe actually involve the first day of Biblical creation, which would have been five days before Rosh HaShannah? Our sages respond that the true celebration of creation could only come when that work had been completed, and man and woman took their place in the universe the Almighty had created for them. In other words, in the Biblical world view human beings (shaped in the image of God, possessing His unique ability to create and remember) don’t count among the beasts of the field, or the air, or the sea, but as a distinctly higher, more divine aspect of creation.

There’s also a relevant message in the portion of the Bible which Jews all over the world read in synagogue on the second day of Rosh HaShannah. For more than a thousand years (at least), we’ve read from Genesis 22 on this occasion, reviewing the famous passage about the binding of Isaac. While Abraham is prepared to answer God’s command to sacrifice his son, at the last moment an angel stops him and a ram is substituted for the young man. (In fact, the ancient tradition of sounding the ram’s horn—or shofar – on this holiday connects with this Biblical passage). The great Twelfth Century sage Moses Maimonides suggests that the aborted sacrifice of Isaac was meant to teach the Jewish people for all time to avoid human sacrifice, so horribly common among ancient and primitive cultures. Animal sacrifice is substituted, just as Abraham substituted the ram, emphasizing the profound intrinsic difference between human beings and beasts. In that sense, the sound of the ram’s horn not only summons us to remember our Creator, and the work of creation completed on this day, but to recall the distinction between human and animal, and our obligation to develop the higher elements of our nature as we review our own shortcomings in the newly completed year.

On this Day of Memory (with the holiday completed at full dark, today, Sunday) I can recall my previous experience of Rosh HaShannah, going back to the hazy recollections of childhood. Of course, I think of standing in prayer with my father and grandfather more than fifty years ago, as my fourteen year old son stood with me today. Our daughter Shayna, newly moved into her sorority at the University of Washington, joined us for the festival, though we felt the absence of our oldest daughter, Sarah, who attended services near her college in New York City. She will, God willing, join us all for Yom Kippur.

At this season of repentance, self-examination and recollection, may we be blessed to use our gift of memory, pertaining to our own lives as well as past generations, to bring forgiveness, reconciliation, growth and progress, for ourselves, our communities, and our country.

   When a foreign leader comes to the UN General Assembly and identifies the President of the United States as "the devil" (not A devil, but THE big guy himself) then it's hard to pay serious attention to the rest of his speech.

   But the address by Hugo Chavez deserves more substantive attention than it's received because it so precisely echoes the common attacks on this country regularly launched by the international left, including numerous academics, bloggers, activists and other opinion leaders in the USA itself.

   The essence of this criticism (elucidated in Noam Chomsky's "Hegemony or Survival: The Imperialist Strategy of the United States," the book recommended so relentlessly by Chavez in his speech) involves the charge that with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. has become the world's dominant, all-powerful Empire. It's not only lefties who believe this: in 1999, the notorious non-Leftist Pat Buchanan wrote a bestselling book called "A Republic, Not an Empire" that also discerned imperialist aspirations in American foreign policy. Pitchfork Pat might have even found some sympathy for some of the ardent words by Mr. Chavez in his speech to the United Nations. In addressing the absent President Bush, the President of Venezuela declared: "I have the feeling, dear world dictator, that you are going to live the rest of your days as a nightmare because the rest of us are standing up, all those who are rising up against American imperialism, who are shouting for equality, for respect, for the sovereignty of nations."

    And how, exactly, has America, demonstrated lack of respect, or disregarded the sovereignty of nations? Where have we set up this elusive "American Empire" that America-haters everywhere love to decry?

  A dictionary definition might prove helpful at this point-- enabling us to discover that the word "empire" signifies "supreme rule, absolute power or authority; domination" or "government by an emperor or empress" or "a group of states or territories under one sovereign power." Which of these  descriptions fits America's current situation?

   Recent history actually provides a far better definition of "empire" or "imperialism" than any dictionary: the old Soviet Union constituted an unquestionably imperialistic power and had indeed assembled an "Evil Empire." One of the characteristics of that empire involved the "absolute power and authority" over neighboring states, including Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Lithuania, and so many more. As part of the empire, these components couldn't possible defy the "supreme rule" in Moscow. If they did, they got tanks in the streets, as in Budapest in 1956, or Prague in 1968.

   Has the United States subjugated any nation, anywhere, in this imperialist manner? Even Cuba, a mere 90 miles away from our shores, has defied and conspired against the United States, without provoking the easy military response that would unequivocally crush that resistance were we a genuine imperialist power.

   In fact, no imperialist power would allow the emergence of numerous hostile, but democratically elected governments in our own hemisphere, including the current rulers of Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Bolivia and, in Venezuela, the irrepressible Mr. Chavez himself. The United States may enjoy economic, even cultural influence in many (if not all) of these countries but the political control normally associated with Empire simply doesn't exist -- a fact that's more obvious today, with the recent leftist sweep in the hemisphere, than it was a decade ago. And concerning the "economic exploitation" that allegedly characterizes our business relations with developing nations, that's also a far cry from imperialism's exploitaiton of colonies. According to mercantile principles, the mother country is supposed to enrich herself through the colonies; in America's case, developing nations enrich themselves (and often to our detriment) by selling us stuff, or taking our aid. Wouldn't a true imperial power drive down the price of a commodity as essential to itself as oil, rather than allowing a capricious cartel led by Saudia Arabia to set the cost of energy according to its own whims and interests?

   The only two nations on earth that the US may be said to "dominate" and "rule" through force are, of course, Iraq and Afghanistan -- both special cases in which the United States clearly wants to establish governments strong enough to excercise true independence and even to defy us -- allowing our troops to withdraw as soon as possible. No one looking at the balance sheet behind the present and recent past can plausibly argue that our current, lavishly costly efforts to strengthen struggling democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq can enrich our coffers in any way.

  Despite the comments of Hugo Chavez regarding the speech by President Bush ("I think we should call a psychiatrist to analyze yesterday's statement made by the President of the United States"), the address to the UN by the Leader of the Free World remains persuasive and compelling in portraying our true goals. "Every civilized nation, incluing those in the Muslim world, must support those in the region who are offering a more hopeful alternative," President Bush declared. "We know that when people have a voice in their future, they are less likely to blow themselves up in suicide attacks... Freedom, by its nature, cannot be imposed -- it must be chosen."

  He's right, of course -- and a nation that refuses to impose freedom, or any other governmental or economic structure, on even our closest neighbors, can hardly justify the title of "Empire," whatever the scale of its economic and cultural influence.

   The mighty publishing industry has committed formidable resources to alerting complacent Americans to the dangers  of a malevolent force that purportedly menaces all of us:  the growing power of conservative Christians. 

  Tomorrow on my radio show, I confront Sam Harris, author of the latest book length attack on traditionalist believers: "Letter to a Christian Nation," published by Knopf. In the course of his brief book, Mr. Harris declares that "many who claim to be transformed by Christ's love are deeply, even murderously intolerant" and concludes: "It is terrible that we all die and lose everything we love; it is doubly terrible that so many human beings suffer needlessly while alive. That so much of this suffering can be directly attributable to religion.... is what makes the honest criticism of religious faith a moral and intellectual necessity."

   This broadside ( which offers just 92 pages of large type for a startling price of $16.95) represents just the latest release among scores of volumes which have recently slammed and smeared conservative Christians. Among the many, many recent predecessors to "Letter to a Christian Nation" are "Thy Kingdon Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America"; "Jesus is Not a Republican: The Religious Right's War on America"; "With God on Their Side: How Christian Fundamentalists Trampled Science, Policy, and Democracy in George W. Bush's White House"; "With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America"; "The Left Hand of God: Taking Back Our Coutnry from the Religious Right"; "The Baptizing of America: The Religious Right's Plans for the Rest of Us"; "Close Encounters with the Religious Right: Journeys into the Twilight Zone of Religion and Politics"; "Using Terri: The Religious Right's Conspiracy to Take Away Our Rights"; "Liars for Jesus: The Religious Rights Alternative Version of American History"; "Why the Christian Right is Wrong"; "An Outline of the Bible: Why the Religious Right Can't Call Itself Christian": "The New Subversives: Anti-Americanism of the Religious Right"; "American Theocracy: The Perils and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil and Borrowed Money"; "Hijacking of the Christian Church: Voices of the Religious Right," and countless other predictably alarmist titles.

    These volumes -- duly published and promoted by prestigious major imprints -- all seethe with fear, resentment, paranoia and hysterical hatred toward citizens who have perpetrated the unspeakable crime of upholding traditional and Christian religious values. Since Sam Harris suggests in his latest book that the people who share such views constitute an overwhelming majority of Americans -- some 260 million individuals, Harris estimates-- the implacable hostility toward this huge segment of the population represents an appallingly odd business strategy, if nothing else. 

    The increasingly shrill warnings about the dreaded "Christian Right" become particularly difficult to understand in light of the constructive and public spirited behavior of most people who identify as conservative believers. None of the books decrying Christian influence suggest that people of faith in the United States engage in violence against other religions, or unravel the fabric of society through criminality, selfishness or greed. When I've interviewed the authors on my radio show, they have freely admitted that they would be pleased to live next store to an Evangelical, or even Fundamentalist Christian family, because such people are likely to be law-abiding, hard-working, neighborly, stable and considerate. This contradiction demonstrates the irrational nature of the hatred and fear of a group of people who do more than their share to feed the hungry, house the homeless, keep families together, educate their children, serve in the military, give to charity, maintain their homes, nurse the sick, promote adoption and build communities.What, exactly, do conservative Christians do that in any way harms or damages their non-Christian neighbors (like me)?

   In answering that question, critics of the "Religious Right" always come back to issues of political influence and their groundless fears of some future theocracy. The secular liberals don't so much object to what Christian conservatives currently do, as they fear what they believe those activists want some day to achieve. But even here, it's hard to explain the hysteria and negativity. Yes, many (probably most) conservative Christians would like to return to the practice of reciting non-denominational prayers in public schools, and they would like to preserve Ten Commandment monuments and crosses currently on public display. But these preferences hardly qualify as intolerant, Taliban-like, or theocratic -- unless you believe that the USA under the Constitution, between 1789 and 1961, constituted some benighted theocracy. Before a series of Supreme Court rulings in the early 1960's, most American school kids began the school day with prayer but that tradition in no way stifled diversity or free excercise of religious preference -- nor did the religious symbols liberally scattered across the national landscape.

   The ongoing publishing industry assault on People of Fatih targets some of the most generous and patriotic of our fellow citizens. Since these attacks bear no connection to actual damage to communities or individuals, the critics invariably cite theological abstractions -- suggesting, for instance, that Christian conservatives are dangerous because they assume that non-believers are going to hell. But as long as these religious folks don't treat non-believers like hell-- and they don't-- then what's the real problem if you dislike somone else's view of the afterlife? Sam Harris reveals the deeper motivation at the very beginning of "Letter to a Christian Nation." He writes: "If the basic tenets of Christianity are true, then there are some very grim surprises in store for nonbelievers like myself....So let us be honest with ourselves: in the fullness of time, one side is really going to win this argument, and the other side is really going to lose."

   Mr. Harris, in other words, seems to worry about people assuming he's bound for damnation because in one corner of his mind, at least, he fears they may be right. In the argument he describes, it's not possible that Christian believers are "really going to lose." If Mr. Harris is right about humanity and materialism, then there will be no sense of regret or despair if religious people fail to reach heaven after death. If we are, indeed, just spiritless chemicals then we won't be around to feel remorse over a life wasted in prayer, religious fellowship, and good deeds. When he suggests that one side is "really going to lose" he can only have his own side in mind.

   That's why the maturation and empowerment of America's religious communities looks so threatening to atheists, agnostics or the disinterested. The more that people of faith develop confidence, sophistication and influence, the more that those on the other side nurse the dark, inescapable, intolerable fear that they just may be right about life and eternity. It's that profound and perpetual worry -- not the behavior or even ambitions of Christian conservatives - that irritates and alarms those who've rejected traditional faith.