DEDICATED TO THE MEMORY OF ST. JOHN, ARCHBISHOP OF SHANGHAI AND SAN FRANCISCO

1.      Science, Scholarship and Scripture: Whale Evolution?

2.      Book review: Upon This Rock

3.      A Presumption of Guilt and Unjust Prejudice?

4.      The Slippery Slope to Socialism

5.      Proposed legislation makes Bible Hate Literature

6.      Scripture commentary

7.      How the West was Won and How it Will Be Lost

In the 1980s and 1990s, numerous fossils were found, particularly in Pakistan, which allegedly demonstrated that whales evolved from land-dwelling, carnivorous mammals called mesonychids. A slew of fossils seemed to indicate an unmistakable progression from the land-dwelling Pakicetus ("Pakistan whale") all the way up to modern whales in a traditionally Darwinian step-by-step manner. It turns out, however, that paleontologists were seeing in these fossils what they wanted to see, rather than what actually was there.

While these fossils were being unearthed, geneticists in the U.S., Belgium, and Japan analyzed the DNA of living whales and determined that the mesonychid-to-whale progression, supposedly so obvious in the fossils, was false. These tests suggested that whales did not descend from mesonychids at all, but are members of a mammal family called the artiodactyls, which include hippopotami. At first, whale paleontologists firmly dismissed the findings. However, more meticulous DNA testing led by Norihiro Okada at the Tokyo Institute of Technology strengthened the findings considerably, and paleontologists dropped their objections (Wong 2002: 78).

Later, excavations in Pakistan turned up foot bones of Pakicetus and another alleged ancestor of today's whales, Ichtyolestes, and the mesonychid theory was finally dropped, despite what had appeared to be overwhelming fossil evidence in its favor. The reason was that all members of the artiodactyl family have a unique feature in their anklebones known as a "double-pulleyed astragalus." The anklebones of both Pakicetus and Ichtyolestes were found to have this unique feature, identifying them as members of the artiodactyl family, not as mesonychids (Wong 2002: 78-79).

Scientific American reported that the mesonychid theory soon went the way of countless other evolutionary theories that were once touted as practically undeniable:

 "What of the evidence that seemed to tie early whales to mesonychids? In light of the new ankle data, most workers now suspect that those similarities [between mesonychids and whales] probably reflect convergent evolution rather than shared ancestry and. that mesonychids represent an evolutionary dead end"(Wong 2002: 79).

Two points must be raised here. First, the similarities between mesonychids and' early whales do not automatically have to be interpreted as "convergent evolution," but could just as well be credited to Intelligent Design. Second, evolutionists are now falling into the same trap that they fell into with their mesonychid theory; just because two extinct creatures, Pakicetus and Ichthyolestes, were   highly similar to whales, it does not necessarily mean that they are the evolutionary ancestors of whales, but merely that they are related to them.

Although scholars of whale origins still cling to the theory of macroevolution (major changes leading to brand-new species), the failure of the mesonychid theory displays the extreme danger of using fossils to determine evolutionary ancestry. For 20 years, the findings in Pakistan and other places were touted as solid evidence for the evolution of whales from mesonychids, but later finds proved them wrong. This accentuates the essentially unreliable nature of trying to use the fossil record as proof of macroevolution, and it also demonstrates how paleontologists convince themselves to see what they want to see in the fossil record, rather than what is actually there.

Reference:

Wong, K. 2002. "The Mammals that Conquered the Seas." Scientific American 286, no. 5.

Stephen Caesar holds his master's degree in anthropology/archaeology from Harvard. He is the author of the e-book The Bible Encounters Modern Science.

The constant refrain of Mr. Dale’s book is the importance and necessity of discerning the true dogma of the Orthodox Church. Without the true faith, the genuinely Apostolic Faith, there can be no true life in Christ, thus no salvation. Our salvation consists of meeting and being in communion with Christ Himself through the true faith and conforming our life to that faith.

Mr. Dale was educated in England, graduating from the famed Military Academy at Sandhurst and serving in a cavalry regiment. Later he read for the bar and then theology. After his ordination, he served as a priest of the Church of England for 35 years and converted to Orthodoxy in 1998.

It is singularly moving to see our Lord enlightening a man who was trained in the theological system of the West, to come to a realization that genuine Christian theology is not intellectual gymnastics and philosophizing, but an essential guide to communion in Christ, which is our salvation, and which can only be found in the Orthodox Church. However, his background cannot be so easily escaped, and his writing is often tediously repetitious and over intellectualized. Nonetheless, there are many sections in which his detailed analysis is effective and convincing and irrefutable. But we will mention the points we find hazy or off the mark.

Often, when speaking of the Church, he appears to mean the Roman Catholics and most Protestants. This is contrary to his own definition. It appears to be a carryover from his previous history. He defines the Church by saying that wherever there is a life of repentance and union with Christ, there is the Church. However, this has a Protestant hue, i.e., that preaching will bring a true repentance and salvation. Mr. Dale here ignores the incarnational aspect of the Church, and the necessity of the organic Apostolic continuity of the Holy Mysteries, without which there can be no Church of Christ. To be fair, he would probably agree with this, but in practice his arguments overlook it. This overlooking of the incarnational aspect of Church unity is evident in Appendix 3, where he explains St. Cyprian’s words, extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

When he defines dogma, he insists that this is an apophatic statement, decreeing not what must be believed, but what must not be denied. This is really a clumsy definition, not only difficult to apply but opening the door to slippery speculation, because, if nothing else, the Creed has us affirm One God, the Trinity, in so many words. We also must affirm that we believe in Christ, especially at our Baptism. The traditional way of stating that dogmas are apophatic in nature is to say that all words are inadequate when attempting to delineate, to grasp “through a glass darkly”, a great and unknowable mystery; therefore there can never be a complete and comprehensive definition. Yet since the words of the dogma are inspired by the Holy Spirit, they are a sacrosanct and immutable as Holy Scripture. Consequently, there can be no development or evolution of dogma, which Mr. Dale rightly rejects. Since the content and meaning is profound, being beyond words, a dogma can only be dimly understood with the inspiration again of the Holy Spirit, as is the case with Scripture.

Concerning the interpretation of Holy Scripture, Mr. Dale states emphatically and categorically that the Orthodox Church permits only typological interpretation. We can state quite as categorically that he is wrong. The Holy Fathers used every appropriate method of interpretation as the Holy Spirit guided them. Of course, Mr. Dale might be reacting to the inanities resulting in the West when the rote, mechanical method of allegorical interpretation advocated by Augustine of Hippo was adopted there. The Church has never accepted this.

He mentions that many doctrines and theories of atonement have proliferated throughout the centuries of the Church. In this, he is in error. The Biblical and patristic doctrine has ever been the same in the Church, whose profundity, however, has been expressed with a varied emphasis. Hundreds of Western scholars have proclaimed this fact when they declare that the Orthodox Church has retained a primitive or undeveloped doctrine of the atonement. The satisfaction theory of appeasement appeared only in the West, and is entirely contradictory and opposed to the Orthodox dogma. It is impossible to hold that both are true or are some expression of the truth, for they are mutually exclusive. The Anselmian atonement theory finally rests its plausibility and authority on the unscriptural and blasphemous statement of Augustine of Hippo, which Calvin quotes in his Institutes (5:10) to support the atonement theory.  “Incomprehensible and immutable is the love of God. For it was not after we were reconciled to the Father by the blood of His son that He began to love us, but He loved us before the foundation of the world…. loving us, though He was at enmity with us because of sin…. He loved even when He hated us” (Tract in Jo. 110). Aside from the division introduced here into the Holy Trinity, as if the Son had a different will from the Father, the Father Himself is portrayed as being schizophrenic, loving and hating at the same time. There is the further blasphemy that God labors under the impediment and necessity of satisfying justice before His love can be effectual.

Many will find this book helpful to give form to an Orthodox position and to articulate it. We are sure the author would be happy if we were to read his book with critical care and readily question many of its statements.

No one would argue that the traditional biblical understanding of homosexuality is carrying the day in the culture wars. In the movies and on television, "gays" are now mainstream, routinely portrayed as wise and well-adjusted souls struggling with the ignorant buffoonery of the straight world.

And yet, defenders of traditional views more than hold their ground on the talk shows and in public debate. Folks like Jerry Falwell and Alan Keyes are never left foundering when homosexual advocates advance the notion of homosexuality as an "alternative lifestyle." Maybe it is a classic case of preaching to the choir, but it strikes me that they are quite adept at using biblical passages and commonsense observations about the effects of the homosexual lifestyle on the health and longevity of those who engage in it.

 (Pat Buchanan recently reported on a survey of the obituaries in the homosexual press. The average age at death of homosexuals with AIDS was 39; 42 for those without AIDS.)

That said, there is a new argument being advanced by Christian homosexuals and those sympathetic to their cause that presents a challenge. It rests upon the idea that there are consequences to accepting the Church's long-held position that there is nothing sinful about being tempted by homosexual longings, as long as the person beset with this temptation overcomes its lures and lives a chaste life. I recently came across an effective presentation of this call for toleration of homosexuals in the letters to the editor section of the journal First Things (February 2002).

The letter writer was a Lutheran minister and former Eagle Scout from Ohio, writing in protest against the position taken by Fr. Richard John Neuhaus (the editor of First Things) in support of the Boy Scouts ban on homosexual scouts and scout leaders. His complaint was that Fr. Neuhaus and the Boy Scouts make "no distinction between orientation and behavior," and that "the scouts require no infraction in behavior in their exclusion of homosexual persons. They are committed to exclude scouts and scout leaders for being truthful about homosexual orientation, and this when they do not exclude recovering alcoholics, heterosexuals struggling with lust, or any other disordered condition not showing itself in sinful behavior. "

He argued that "the presumption of the guilt of homosexual behavior or anything else on the part of homosexual men and women is on its face unjust prejudice and a slap at those brothers and sisters who struggle valiantly and successfully" to stay chaste.

Well? What is wrong with this Lutheran minister's argument? Is there any reason why a homosexual who overcomes his temptations should be treated any differently from those who are afflicted by longings for other sinful behavior, especially when The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that "every sign of unjust discrimination in [homosexuals] regard should be avoided"? I say, yes.

Why? Because those who overcome their temptations to other sins do not openly label themselves with the sin. This is a crucial difference, with implications that must be taken into account. We would never know if a scout leader lusted for the wives of the other scout leaders. If he overcame his temptation to seduce them, he would not call himself a philanderer scout leader. We would not know it if a scout leader was beset by a lifelong temptation to steal everything not nailed down. If he did not embezzle the funds in the scout troop's treasury, he would not call himself a robber scout leader.

We would not call these men philanderers or thieves unless they acted upon their impulses. We would have no clue to the nature of their inner demons, unless they revealed them to us. And why would they want to do that? If they have overcome their temptations, why would they want to be publicly associated with the sin?

Yet this is exactly what certain self-professed chaste homosexuals want to do. They want to come "out of the closet," to be known as homosexual scouts and scout leaders. The question is why. Why do they want the other scouts and scout leaders and parents to be aware of their "orientation" if they agree that acting upon it would be immoral? People simply do not do this with their other temptations to sin. (Except recovering alcoholics. But this tendency of alcoholics to publicly identify themselves as alcoholics is a special case. It is in the main a consequence of the recovery process required by Alcoholics Anonymous. Unless a recovering alcoholic scout leader was in charge of driving scouts to their campsites, a fall from grace would not present a threat even remotely close to a homosexual scout leader giving in to his weakness.)

I would argue that those who insist upon the "right" to identify themselves as homosexuals, even though they have successfully overcome the temptation to engage in homosexual sex, are telling us more than they intend. They are making clear that they are in sympathy with the proposition that guilt and shame should not be attached to homosexuality; that they hold homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle. That is why they insist that they should be free to acknowledge their homosexual yearnings. One does not maneuver in this way in regard to behavior one considers immoral or a psychological disorder.

But what of this Lutheran pastor's insistence that he is talking about homosexuals who have overcome their temptations and are living chaste lives? Well, I would be willing to bet, if the Boy Scouts accepted his demands and agreed to accept "chaste" homosexuals as scouts and scout leaders, that this would be nothing more than the proverbial camel's nose under the tent.

Consider what would happen if the Boy Scouts were to agree that homosexual leanings, if not acted upon, were morally acceptable for members of their organization. Can anyone picture them a year or two later excluding a scout or scout leader who decided to act upon his yearnings? I can't.

I'd go so far as to say that this call for toleration of chaste homosexuals is a bait-and-switch scam, an attempt to lure the rubes in with one offer, and then sell them something else that they had no intention of buying.

It is difficult to understand the long-range implications of current events. This is to say, it is difficult to know whether a current event is part of a historical sidetrack, a cultural fad, or a mainstream trend.

Smart people have called our attention to this reality. For example, the late Ayn Rand described the insidious process which takes a society, inch by unremarkable inch, to socialism: "The goal of the 'liberals' — as it emerges from the record of the past decades — was to smuggle this country into welfare statism by means of single, concrete, specific measures, enlarging the power of the government a step at a time, never permitting these steps to be surmised up into principles, never permitting their direction to be identified or the basic issue to be named. Thus, statism was to come, not by vote or by violence, but by slow rot — by a long process of evasion and epistemological corruption, leading to a fait accompli. (The goal of the 'conservative' was only to retard that process.)"

When the federal government took over the task of inspecting luggage at airports and terminals, it added more than 30,000 new employees to its payroll. Most of them will become dues-paying members of government unions. They will become un-removable, overpaid wards of a government monopoly. They will become predictably dependent upon and grateful to the advocates of big government and higher taxes. They will become Democrats.

Surely there can no longer be any doubt that America is well on its way down the slippery slope to socialism. The government continues to grow in size, power, and arrogance as it asserts increasing sovereignty over the lives and behavior of its subjects. The noose tightens, and the rabble wears it like a badge of honor.

Our progression on this path is so subtle that only in retrospect, when it is too late to resist, will we understand that our freedoms have been irretrievably forfeited and our Constitution irreversibly abandoned. In the words of Irish philosopher Edmund Burke, "The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts."

The idea of socialism is attractive. Its basic seductive premise is the same as that of modern liberalism: The government is responsible for implementing altruism throughout society. The government must control all available resources with a view toward equality and fairness. The government must fight the selfish impulse of people to keep the fruits of their own labor. Everyone, impelled by "compassion and caring," must sacrifice for the common good, so that all may share and share alike.

This noble-sounding doctrine is often expressed this way: "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." So what if it's the creed of Communism! However, there are a few problems when one descends from the political pulpit and attempts to translate this ethereal concept into practice.

Given a choice, people are disinclined to immolate themselves in service to others. The sacrifice of the fruit of one's hard labor for the achievement of a larger social goal is not natural behavior and cannot be maintained on a voluntary basis. Sooner or later, it requires force, which will not come openly, but like a thief in the night.

What comes to mind is the observation of Lord Chesterfield that "arbitrary power must be introduced by slow degrees, and as it were, step by step, lest the people should see it approach."

The massively cruel and ruinous communistic experiment of the Soviet Empire would not have been necessary if philosophers and intellectuals had not ignored a basic truth about human nature: Human beings, as a derivative of the instinct to survive, are innately driven to act in their own self-interest. Notwithstanding propaganda, conditioning, or brute force, any government or institution which runs head on against the grain of this basic human drive is doomed to fail.

We seem not to have learned a basic lesson of history: Capitalism harnesses human self-interest; socialism exhausts itself trying to kill it.

The bureaucrats, who seize and dole out other people's assets, initially see themselves as humanitarians. Eventually, they conclude they are indeed superior to others, and treat themselves accordingly. They make laws to which they are not subject; they vote themselves and their wards privileges and benefits. They no longer serve; they rule a nation of the government, by the government, and for the government.

A Canadian member of Parliament, Svend Robinson, the most aggressive and politically astute pro-homosexual activist, is proposing new legislation that would brand as criminals those who cite Bible texts condemning homosexuality.

On October 21, WorldNet Daily's Art Moore reported that Robinson was set to reintroduce his bill, C-4 15, which would include "sexual orientation" under Canada's hate crimes legislation's protected categories

Though some Canadian Christians maintain their position is one of loving the sinner while hating the sin, homosexual activists, wrote Moore, "contend such a distinction cannot be made with homosexuals anymore than it can with matters of race or ethnic origin.

"The argument of separating the person from the behavior is their concept." insisted Kin range, president of Ottawa-based EGALE, Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere.

"In reality they are the same thing," Vance said in a WND interview. "That's language that they use to justify opposition; but its language that we don't agree with"....

"The most dangerous aspect of this amendment is that 'hate' and 'hate propaganda' are not defined, says Brian Rushfeldt, executive director of the Canada Family Action Coalition in Calgary, Alberta.

"I would have no way of knowing I'm conducting a criminal act until I'm charged with it, because there is no clarity in the law," Rushed told WND. "Sexual orientation also is not defined in the law...."

"A Saskatchewan man recently was fined $5,000 for buying a newspaper ad that quoted verses from the Bible condemning homosexual behavior.

"Two years ago, the Ontario Human Rights Commission penalized printer Scott Brockie $5,000 for refusing to print letterhead for a homosexual advocacy group. Brockie argued that his Christian beliefs compelled him to reject the group's request.

Robinson's amendment would make both of these men criminals, opponents contend.... "In a current case, a British Columbia teacher could lose his job for making 'derogatory and demeaning' statements against homosexuals, according to the judgment of a teachers' association panel. Though none of the statements in question were made in class, the panel cited letters to a newspaper that indicated veteran teacher Chris Kempling's attitude could poison the class environment.

"One Kempling letter cited by the panel said: 'Gay people are seriously at risk, not because of heterosexual attitudes but because of their sexual behavior, and I challenge the gay community to show some real evidence that they are trying to protect their own community members by making attempts to promote monogamous, long-lasting relationships to combat sexual addictions."

"The Vancouver Sunreported September 25 that the panel does not need to find direct evidence of a poisoned school environment to determine that a member is guilty of conduct unbecoming. The panel said, "It is sufficient that an inference can be drawn as to the reasonable and probable consequences of the discriminatory comments of a teacher"...

U.S. opponents of this kind of legislation fear that the United States is heading in the direction of Canada and Sweden as battles continued to be waged over the addition of sexual orientation as a protected category; in hate crimes laws and employment discrimination.

"In an action alert distributed last week," Moore continued," "Rushfeldt wrote that if C-415 becomes law in Canada, the following consequences will result, especially once hate crime charges are brought before the courts:

a) The Bible, at least certain portions of the Bible, may be declared 'hate literature.'

b) Churches will not be able to mention certain Scriptures.

c) Clergy may be subjected to criminal charges if they refuse to perform wedding ceremonies for homosexuals.

d) Parents may be subjected to criminal charges if they refuse to allow their children to attend classes that teach about and promote homosexual behavior.

e) Expressing disagreement with homosexual behavior or the homosexual agenda, either verbally or in writing, would be considered hate propaganda.

f) Educators, including those at private religious schools, will not be able to refuse to teach homosexual curriculum.

g) Religious institutions will not be allowed to teach anything non-supportive of homosexual sex.

h) Canadian Blood Services will not be allowed to screen risk-behavior donors.

Governments (including local municipalities) will be prevented from passing (even debating) sex standards laws."

The eleventh chapter contains an exposé and remedy for certain improprieties in church gatherings, namely: 1) women not covering their heads in church, and 2) disorders at agape dinners. The essence of the first injunction lies in the fact that at common church gatherings women should attend with their heads covered, and men with their heads bared. St.

John Chrysostom explains this injunction by saying that in Corinth, "women with uncovered and bared heads both prayed and prophesied, while men grew their hair, like those who occupied themselves with philosophizing, and covered their heads when they prayed and prophesied, adhering in both cases to a pagan law." The holy Apostle, finding this inappropriate for Christians, requires that women cover their heads, as a sign of their submissive state in relation to the husband. Besides this, at that time pagan women would go into their temples with uncovered heads, having impure motives, and a bared head for a woman came to be considered a sign of her shamelessness. A profligate woman was punished for her profligacy by having her hair cut off. This is why the Apostle says, if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn (v. 6).

"At first the man," writes Bishop Theophan, [was created] according to God's image, and then, as though according to the image of man, from him was created woman, who "for this reason is the likeness of the likeness, a reflection of the man's glory." For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head (v. 10). "If," writes St. John Chrysostom, "you pay no attention to your husband, then you shame the angels." This covering of the woman is thereby a sign of her meekness, submissiveness and subjection to her husband. But in order that the husband not lord it over his wife and not ill-use his headship, the Apostle says further: Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man in the Lord (vv. 1-12). "Does not nature itself teach you that if the man grows his hair long that this is for him a dishonor?" Sectarians use these words to criticize Orthodox clergy, who wear long hair. But here St. Paul is speaking not about clergy but about ordinary believers and has in mind a widespread custom according to which only women grew long hair, while men cut theirs. Sectarians forget that God Himself gave an ordinance that men giving a vow to be Nazarenes had to grow their hair (Numbers 6:5). The wearing of long hair among today's Orthodox clergy and monastics comes from this same idea of Nazarenes, i.e., the dedication of oneself to God (vv. 14-16).

From verse 17 to 34 the holy Apostle denounces the disorders which took place among the Corinthians at their agape dinners. As in the first community of Christians in Jerusalem, everything was held in common, and all the faithful came together to partake of food at a common table. This custom was preserved for a long time and was kept in all the early Christian communities. At the end of the Divine Liturgy, after partaking of the Holy Mysteries, a common meal was held for everyone; the wealthy would bring food and invite the poor who had nothing. In this way everyone ate together. These were the so-called agape dinners.

The Apostle reproaches the Corinthians first of all for the divisions which arise when they come together in church (v. 18), i.e., that they are divided into factions, either according to families, or friendship, forgetting the poor, which destroys the very purpose of holding these love feasts. In calling them to a reverent participation in these feasts, the holy Apostle speaks (vv. 22-23) about the establishment of the Mystery of the Eucharist, which was usually celebrated before the agape feasts. According to the Typicon, this passage is read during the Liturgy on Great Thursday. Of particular importance to us here are the words: Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord (v. 27)-i.e., those desiring to partake of the Holy Mysteries must prepare by examining their conscience and shunning all that would hinder them from partaking worthily.

The Orthodox Church has for this reason established the practice of fasting and confession before reception of the Holy Mysteries. This is absolutely essential, For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body (v. 29).

In conclusion (vv. 33-34), the Apostle admonishes the Corinthians to wait for one another when they come together for the agape feasts, that they behave themselves and not fall upon the food greedily with no thought for others. And the rest will I set in order when I come (v. 34). This is important: everything comes from the Apostles-all the rules for the well-ordering of Church life are established by them, although not everything is laid out in the Holy Scripture.

The twelfth chapter speaks about the spiritual gifts in the Church. A distinctive feature of the life of the Church of Christ in apostolic times was the extraordinary manifestation of the grace of God in the form of spiritual gifts possessed by the faithful. Here the Apostle enumerates the following spiritual gifts: the gift of wisdom, knowledge, faith, wonderworking, prophecy, discernment of spirits, the gift of tongues and their interpretation. These gifts were to promote success in preaching the Gospel among unbelievers. But among the Corinthians many began looking at these blessed manifestations of the Holy Spirit as a source of personal glory and superiority. In trying to acquire a more striking gift, some fell even into delusion, and having no gift at all, acted like one possessed, uttering inarticulate sounds which no one could understand; sometimes they even darkened their mind and heart in shouting blasphemous ideas, pronouncing, for example, an anathema on Jesus Christ. Here was felt the influence of pagan prophetesses like Pythia and Sibyl. In an artificial and false ecstasy, foaming at the mouth, their hair loose, they would shout incomprehensible or ambiguous diatribes and made a strong impression on people, insistently soliciting answers from them. Certain contemporary sectarians, such as the Khlysti and Pentecostals, are like this. The Apostle warns the Christians against this pagan attitude towards spiritual gifts. He explains that all the spiritual gifts in the Church are the work of the One Spirit of God (vv. 3-11). For this reason, just as one who is under the influence of the Holy Spirit cannot utter blasphemies against God, so too there should be no rivalry between those who possess various spiritual gifts. Just as a person's body is composed of various members, and each of them has its particular function, and among them there can be no antagonism, so too in the Church there can be no rivalry among Christians, who comprise the one Body of Christ.

I don’t hide. I never have. I stay at home because I like to stay at home, and at home I work. I have not appeared in public for at least ten years. No interviews, no TV.

Why am I here, then? Because, since September 11 we are at war. Because the front line of that war is here, in America. Because when I was a war correspondent, I liked to be on the front line. And this time, in this war, I do not feel as a war correspondent. I feel as a soldier. The duty of a soldier is to fight. And to fight this war, I deploy a personal weapon. It is not a gun. It’s a small book, The Rage and The Pride.

My soldier’s weapon is the weapon of truth. The truth that begins with the truth I maintain in these pages:

From Afghanistan to Sudan, from Palestine to Pakistan, from Malaysia to Iran, from Egypt to Iraq, from Algeria to Senegal, from Syria to Kenya, from Libya to Chad, from Lebanon to Morocco, from Indonesia to Yemen, from Saudi Arabia to Somalia, the hate for the West swells like a fire fed by the wind. And the followers of Islamic fundamentalism multiply like a protozoa of a cell which splits to become two cells then four then eight then sixteen then thirty-two to infinity. Those who are not aware of it only have to look at the images that the TV brings us every day. The multitudes that impregnate the streets of Islamabad, the squares of Nairobi, the mosques of Tehran. The ferocious faces, the threatening fists. The fires that burn the American flag and the photos of Bush.

The clash between us and them is not a military clash. Oh, no. It is a cultural one, a religious one. And our military victories do not solve the offensive of Islamic terrorism. On the contrary, they encourage it. They exacerbate it, they multiply it. The worst is still to come.

President Bush has said, We refuse to live in fear.

Beautiful sentence, very beautiful. I loved it! But inexact, Mr. President, because the West does live in fear. People are afraid to speak against the Islamic world. Afraid to offend, and to be punished for offending, the sons of Allah. You can insult the Christians, the Buddhists, the Hindus, the Jews. You can slander the Catholics, you can spit on the Madonna and Jesus Christ. But, woe betide the citizen who pronounces a word against the Islamic religion.

My small book is not tender with Islam. In certain passages, it is even ferocious. But it is much more ferocious with us: with us Italians, us Europeans, us Americans.

I call my book a sermon addressed to the Italians, to the Europeans, the Westerners. And along with the rage, this sermon unchains the pride for their culture, my culture. That culture that in spite of its mistakes, its faults, even monstrosities, has given so much to the world. It has moved us from the tents of the deserts and the huts of the woods to the dignity of civilization. It has given us the concept of beauty, of morals, of freedom, of equality. It has made the unique conquest in the social field, in the realm of science. It has wiped out diseases. It has invented all the tools that make life easier and more intelligent, those tools that our enemy can also use, for instance, to kill us. It has brought us to the moon and to Mars, and this cannot be said of the other culture. A culture, which has produced and produces only religion, which in every sense imprisons women inside the burkah or the chador, which is never accompanied by a drop of freedom, a drop of democracy, which subjugates its people under theocratical, oppressive regimes.

Socrates and Aristotle and Heraclitus were not mullahs. Jesus Christ, neither. Leonardo da Vinci and Michaelangelo, and Galileo, and Copernicus, and Newton and Pasteur and Einstein, the same.

My book is also a j’accuse. To accuse us of cowardice, hypocrisy, demagogy, laziness, moral misery, and of all that comes with that. The stupidity of the unbearable fad of political correctness, for instance. The paucity of our schools, our universities, our young people, people who often don t even know the story of their country, the names Jefferson, Franklin, Robespierre, Napoleon, Garibaldi. And no understanding that freedom cannot exist without discipline, self-discipline.

I accuse ourselves also of another crime: the loss of passion. Haven’t you understood what drives our enemies? What permits them to fight this war against us? The passion! They have passion! They have so much passion that they can die for it!

Their leaders, too, of course. I met Khomeini. I discussed with him for more than six hours in calm, and I tell you that that man was a man of passion. I never met bin Laden. But I have well observed his eyes. I have well listened to his voice. And I tell you that that man is a man of passion. We have lost passion.

Well, I have not. I boil with passion. I, too, am ready to die for passion. But around me, I see no passion. Even those who hate me and attack me and insult me do this without passion. They are mollusks, not men and women. And a civilization, a culture, cannot survive without passion, cannot be saved without passion. If the West does not wake up, if we do not re-find passion, we are lost.

To quote from my book:

The problem is that the solution does not depend upon the death of Osama bin Laden. Because the Osama bin Ladens are too many, by now: as cloned as the sheep of our research laboratories. In fact, the best trained and the more intelligent do not stay in the Muslim countries... They stay in our own countries, in our cities, our universities, our business companies. They have excellent bonds with our churches, our banks, our televisions, our radios, our newspapers, our publishers, our academic organizations, our unions, our political parties. Worse, they live in the heart of a society that hosts them without questioning their differences, without checking their bad intentions, without penalizing their sullen fanaticism.

If we continue to stay inert, they will become always more and more. They will demand always more and more, they will vex and boss us always more and more. Til the point of subduing us. Therefore, dealing with them is impossible. Attempting a dialogue, unthinkable. Showing indulgence, suicidal. And he or she who believes the contrary is a fool.

This is what I write about Europe: Identical [are our] faults, the cowardices, the hypocrisies. Identical the blindness, the deafness, the lack of wisdom, the masochism. Identical the ignorance and the lack of leadership that favors the Muslim invasion. Identical the fad of the Politically Correct that encourages it. To believe me, you only have to observe the financial club you proudly call European Union. A club that only serves to impose the rhetorical nonsense called common currency and to pay fabulous and undeserved salaries (tax free) to the members of its inept and useless Parliament.

A club that shelters more than 15 million sons of Allah and God knows how many of their terrorists... A club that fornicates like a whore with the Arab countries and fills its pockets with their filthy petrodollars. The same petrodollars with which the Saudi Uncle Scrooges buy our ancient palaces, our banks, our commercial and industrial firms. A club, moreover, that dares to speak of cultural similarities with the Middle East. You chatterers, you mentally retarded[!] Where the hell is the cultural similarity with the Middle East, you cretins, you silly clowns?!? At Mecca? At Bethlehem, at Gaza, at Damascus, at Beirut?!? At Cairo, at Tripoli, at Nairobi, at Tehran, at Baghdad, at Kabul?!?

When I was very young, about 17 or so, I longed so much for a united Europe I came from a war in which the [Europeans] had pitilessly slaughtered each other: remember? The damned Second World War. Plunged up to his neck in the brand-new struggle, my father preached the European Federalism.... He held rallies, he spoke to the crowds, he chanted: Europe! Europe! We must make Europe!

But this frustrating and disappointing and insignificant Financial Club [with] its sons of Allah who want to erase my civilization, this European Union, which chatters of Cultural-Similarities-with-the-Middle-East and meanwhile ignores my beautiful language, meanwhile sacrifices my national identity, is not the Europe I dreamed of when my father chanted, Europe-Europe. It is not Europe. It is the suicide of Europe.

FROM THE BOOKSTORE

(DT) St. Justin Martyr DIALOGUE WITH TRYPHO translated by Thomas B. Falls. This is the earliest complete witness to Christian apologetics against the Jews (2nd century) other than the New Testament. A valuable picture of the early Jewish-Christian community, and the development of the text of the Old Testament. Paper 229pp. f$25.00 Order