You decide

After seeing some of what Sullivan has written, a question comes to mind. Why does anyone pay attention to him? I'd rather not waste anymore time on his inane rants.>

I think all the attention given to the Gibson rantings is ridiculous.>

Andrew Sullivan declares the Pet Shop Boys the geniuses of our time about once a week.>

Medved, clearly.>

Also, yes, Medved's approach is more compassionate (and loads less hypocritical) than Sullivan's. Plus, well, Andy is becoming as shrill as a 13 year old girl of late, which is why I largely avoid him these days. ;)>

Medved, ever an apologist for Christian conservatives, wants to divert attention and focus on the real menace: the left. While I think Sullivan has gone overboard, Medved isn't a terribly credible player in this game. He's so coopted by the far-right he can't even be taken seriously.

He's not going to bight the hand that feeds him. Who else pays attention to Medved except Christian conservatives???>

If we are going to question Sullivan's credibiilty, shouldn't we also question Medved's whose schtick changed as the political winds changed?>

He was referring to the "artist" whose greatest achievement was staring in Mad Max

... of course he did win an Oscar for Best Director. I take it you are a big Mad Max fan.>

If you don't like him, maybe we can take each case of Medved on a case by case basis?

Maybe he's right this time, even if he's not always right other times?>

Great posting, great Larger Question too. If I can be forgiven a little self-linking, I wrestled with a similar question (lovin' the art, having severe qualms about the artist) here. It's a puzzler!>

Cato,

I think your position on Israel/Arabs is too simplistic. You state:

"Israel can pursue whatever policy it wants. I wish them the best. I am not a citizen of Israel. I am an American of European Christian descent, so it is not really my concern. Let them and the Arabs fight it out. However, when the U.S. government uses my tax dollars to fund either one of these groups (whether Israel or the Arabs) it is my concern."

If you are taking the position (an essentially libertarian one) that no U.S. aid should go to ANY country, that's fine. But if you are saying there is no difference between giving tax dollars to a small, besieged, civilized country and giving $ to various Arab despotisms and Islamic fanatics, that's morally problematic.

"I think that American Christians can be divided into two camps:
(1) Dispensational Christians (mostly Evangelicals) who think it is their Christian duty to support Israel. This line of thought is largely American and came into existence in the late 19th Century.
and
(2) Non-Dispensational Christians (older forms of Protestantism and Catholicism*) who think it is their Christian duty NOT to help Israel."

There are many in both camps who do not fit this neat division. Furthermore, this only holds up if you believe the divide is strictly along theological lines. Many people, Christian and non-Christian, simply see Israel as being right in this fight and the Arab world (after numerous invasions to "finish Hitler's work") as morally wrong. You do not have be a dispensationalist to believe this. I am a Catholic traditionalist, attend Latin Mass, and share many of your views. I would no more take neutral position on the Arab-Israeli conflict than I would a neutral position on a rapist verses his female victim (even if she had a superior weapon in her purse). It just doesn't make sense.

As to point #2 (non-dispensationalists and their "duty" to NOT help Israel), if someone told you that Catholic theology MANDATES a duty not to help Israel, that person is either extremely dishonest or needs to up his medication. No such theological position exists. You could argue, based on the Christian duty to seek peace, that the path forward is best if the U.S. aids no one, but that is simply your prudential judgement how Catholics should apply Catholic teachings.

And why assume that your informal polling of conservative and liberal Catholics at the Vatican represents anything other than national and ideological bias? The Vatican is a European state. Its members often espouse European views on topical subjects, for better or worse. This does not constitute Catholic theology, the non-dispensational theology of Roman Catholicism notwithstanding.

Need I add that it is at least possible that someone in Europe might have a teensy weensy bias against the Jews? I know, that's crazy talk, but consider it.

Now that Cardinal Israel-is-evil Sodano is on his way out, Italian and international Vatican watchers speak of two factions within the Vatican: one that is anti-Israel (like Sodano) and one that is more favorable to Israel. Many include Pope Benedict XVI in the latter category. Dispensationalism plays no part in this divide.

"I wish [Israel] the best."

You didn't say this about the Arabs. Might this be the slightest favoring of one side over the other? I hope so.>

So sorry about he above, inexplicable comment posting. I was reading "Right Reason," a wonderful blog for conservative philosophers, and responding to someone named Cato. I have NO FREAKIN'IDEA how this posted on Crunchy Con, except to say I a tech idiot. But this is a first for me.

Unfair to Cato, as his original comments are on another blog. FEEL FREE, ROD, TO DELETE erroneous comments.

Someday I will send something to my boss that was meant for a contentious blog discussion, then I'll be hitting you guys up for a job.>

Rod: "Do fans of Woody Allen have to explain themselves in light of the Woodman's running off with his virtual stepdaughter?"

To the extent those fans defended previous Woody Allen movies about running off with stepdaughters as merely a metaphor, yes.>

Mel ranted like a maniac but is repenting like a mensch. Medved recognizes this --- which speaks well for Medved.>

Rod,

These Christians may support Israel, but they also desire to convert us out of existence.

Which makes us nervous.>

I applaud the statement of Michael Medved, as coming from a wise, thoughtful, sensitive, and FORGIVING individual. I can't help but remember the 'hysteria' that was generated by some, regarding 'The Passion of the Christ'. When the predicted pogroms didn't happen, an embarrassed 'silence' took place. I can't help but suspect, that at least on 'some' level, by 'some' individuals, the recent 'foaming at the mouth' attacks on Mel Gibson, have to due with a deep-seated hatred of Christianity, and Catholicism in particular. I don't defend Gibson's behavior--which was foul, but it seems that much of the reaction is over the top. By the way, Gibson IS NOT ROMAN CATHOLIC! My understanding is that he has built his own church building, has his own 'schismatic' priests officiating, and has NO ties with the official Roman Catholic diocese of his area!>