Who could not be moved at the sight of a major political party naming Barack Obama, an African American, as its presidential candidate? To me, there could not be a better sign that America has left behind its racist past. We are now approaching what may be termed "the end of racism." The End of Racism was the title of my 1995 bestseller, hugely controversial when it was published, but now it seems to have been a decade ahead of its time. If we appreciate the significance of our current moment, we are driven to an ironic but rational conclusion: perhaps the best way to recognize Obama's historic achievement is to vote for John McCain this November.

Consider this: for the past several years we have been hearing liberal Democrats emphasize how racism still defines America, how things haven't really changed all that much, how racism has gone underground and is now more covert and more dangerous than ever. It may seem strange that a racist country would adopt legal policies that discriminate against the majority and in favor of minorities. Even so, liberal activists and civil rights activists continue to browbeat white America in the schools, in the universities, in politics and in the media if there is the slightest dissent from civil rights orthodoxy.

Well, I don't know how many people have been drinking the liberal Kool-Aid, but these people must be utterly shocked at the success of Barack Obama. Here is a guy who could not possibly have made it as far as he has with only black votes. He has attracted not only white votes but the votes of some of the most affluent and successful segments of the white community. Obama, not Hillary, is the pillar of the white establishment. Moreover, Obama's own campaign is based on the premise that America is no longer racist. Far from making race-based appeals, to blacks on the basis of solidarity, and to whites on the basis of guilt, Obama campaigns on the expectation that whites share his economic values and foreign policy positions and view of America. In other words, Obama's public message is that race doesn't matter and that transracial alliances should be built on shared political and cultural values. It's a good message, and how it must dismay professional civil rights activists to hear it. I wouldn't be surprised if Jesse Jackson is telling family members, "If race relations keep improving like this, I may have to get a real job."

Clearly there are many in the liberal Democratic camp who are made profoundly uncomfortable by the recognition that racism is no more a defining feature of American life or even African American life. Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that racism does not exist. This is a big country, and surely one can find several examples of it. But racism, which used to be systematic, is now only episodic. In fact, when I ask young blacks on the campus today whether America is racist, many say yes. But if I ask them to give me examples of how that racism affects their lives, they are hard pressed to give a single one. The best they can do is to mention "Rodney King" or provide some well-known, recycled horror story. Recently someone told me that McCain is still winning the white vote by a substantial majority and that shows "we have a long way to go" in overcoming white bigotry. By this logic, blacks are have even longer way to go in overcoming their bigotry since Obama is winning almost 98 percent of the black vote. When your logic leads to an absurd conclusion, go back and re-examine the premise.

Even though Obama's candidacy signals that America is overcoming its racial past, neither Obama nor his wife recognize that. Their personal statements, as seen for example in Obama's books, are suffused with race-consciousness, race-obsession and even racial resentment. The more privileges they have received on the basis of race, the more embittered they seem to become. The source of these pathologies is the very liberalism that the Obamas have embraced: a liberalism that declares them equal while treating them as inferiors who need preferential treatment. (Liberals hate to have this pointed out; hence the irrational invective of the early responses to this post.) The solutions are obvious. If you want to get rid of racial obsession, stop talking and thinking about race so much. If you want to remove race as the basis of decision-making in America, let's eliminate America's policies that make race the basis of decision-making. And if you want a party that stands for color-blindess and equal opportunity, you might consider voting for the Republicans.

I think I'll let the Democrats define themselves more clearly at the convention before I comment on it. But I cannot help but regard Obama's choice of Joe Biden as a blunder. Hillary must be going nuts and thinking: "How many votes did I get and how many votes did this guy get? Is this affirmative action for white males or what?" Leave aside the fact that the choice is unimaginative, uninspired, banal. It seems that Obama is going after the hoi polloi by naming one of their undistinguished number to the ticket. Sure, Joe is a jovial character, but when is the last time he had an idea? To date his best lines have been plagiarized from others. Let's just hope he doesn't begin his convention speech, "Four score and seven years ago..."

Well, it's Obama who's at the top of the ticket and it's Obama we should be focusing on. So far it sounds like Obama is running not for president of the United States but for president of the world. Obama is a globalist, and in his Berlin speech at the Brandenburg Gate Obama decalred himself a "fellow citizen of the world." I guess this means that in conflicts between our world and other worlds, Obama is decidedly on the side of Planet Earth.

Sure, there's more to Obama's argument than his platitudes. Essentially Obama has been arguing that "there is no challenge too great for a world that stands alone." The problem with this is that there are competing ideals and competing interests in the world. China would like to be a regional bully and kick around the little countries that are in its neighborhood. Russia too would like to restore some of its czarist and later Communist hegemony. How exactly does our Chicago community activist propose to change these global realities?

Obama's answer is: through the power of prose. In his stump speeches Obama has been sounding a Robert Frost note, talking a lot about walls. According to Obama, the greatest threat in today's world is not terrorism or nuclear war. Rather, the "greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another." According to Obama, the walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic, or between natives and immigrants, or between races and religions, "cannot stand."

"Something there is that doesn't love a wall," Frost wrote, and certainly we can all share the feeling. Perhaps the best example of an unloved wall is the Berlin Wall, which came down thanks to the efforts of people like Reagan, Thatcher, the Pope, Havel, Walesa and Solzhenitsyn. Yet Frost's poem ends with these striking lines: "Good fences make good neighbors." Frost's point is that the sentimental resistance to walls must be modified by the recognition of the utility and even indispensability of walls. I'm quite sure the Obamas understand the principle quite well: they would not be happy if their neighbors' kids crossed into their yard and treated it as their own. Good fences make good neighbors.

So when should walls be taken down? Consider a contemporary example. It's possible that the wall the Israelis are building is saving Israeli lives and protecing that nation's security. It's also possible that the wall is unncessary, and that it's fueling further Palestinian grievance. My point is that the correct position is going to derive from a careful analysis of the situation on the ground. Vague and lofty talk about the badness of walls isn't going to help. Yet that is precisely the level of analysis that we are getting from Barack Obama. Now will the press stop genuflecting before this man and do him--and our democracy--the dignity of critically examining his views?

For the past few days I've been blogging on racial differences in the short and long distance Olympic races. I noted Jon Entine's argument that such differences may have a biological origin, a taboo subject because once we start talking about physical differences, perhaps some people might then begin to suspect differences of intelligence between the races.

In my book The End of Racism I argued against such differences, noting instead that culture is a far better explanation of ethnic differences in intellectual achievement and economic performance. But when we turn to the issue of men and women, I note an anomaly.

No one denies that men are taller and stronger than women on average. This explains of course why competitive sports is based on the "separate but equal" principle. Men play against men, and women play against women. Segregation on the basis of gender appears to have an obvious rational basis in physical contests of speed and strength.

Yet one of my favorite games, namely chess, is not such a contest. Rather, chess is entirely based on intellectual capacity. It involves planning, calculation, strategy. One would assume that since men and women are equally intelligent, therefore women should be fully competive with men in chess. But it is not so. Consider: of the top 100 players in the USA currently, only two are women. Even more startling, of the top 100 chess players in the world today, only one is a woman.

So embarrassing is male over-representation at the top level that most chess competitions today are divided into two categories. There is a general category that is almost inevitably won by a man, and then there is a separate women's championship obviously designed to give women a chance to succeed as well. Currently there is a World Chess Champion and a World Women's Champion. Somehow the chess world seem to have adjusted to the reality that int his particular mental contest, women simply aren't as good as men.

Can culture account for the difference between the sexes? Actually no. Culture can help to explain why certain countries like Russia are more dominant in chess. They simply play a lot more chess over there. But culture doesn't explain why Russian males are so much better than Russian females in chess. I am not aware of an historical exclusion of women from chess, and even if there was some past discrimination, how come women still fare so poorly in an age of equality? Of the top 20 junior chess players in the world, there isn't a single woman. So in these respects the cultural explanation falters.

Are we forced to conclude then that men are smarter than women, at least when it comes to chess? Not really. The average IQ of both groups is 100. But when it comes to the bell curve distribution, an interesting difference emerges. The female bell curve is taller and narrower, with the vast majority of women bunched in the middle. The male bell curve is shorter and flatter, with more men at both ends of the distribution. What this means is that there are more male geniuses and more male morons. And this would effectively account for why at the very top level of an intellectual contest like chess, we find far more men than women.

It's Kenya's national sport, a kind of national obsession. From a tiny age, young Kenyans dream of the roar of the crowd, the fame and success that comes from demonstrated excellence on the field.

Conventional thinking--and quite a few liberal academics--hold that this cultural obsession is the best explanation for the incredible Olympic success of Kenya's distance runners. Kenya in particular, and East Africa in general, enjoys a near-monopoly in medals in the long distance races.

The only problem--pointed out by John Entine in his fascinating book Taboo--is that the national obsession in Kenya is not running but soccer. Kenyans are crazy about soccer! "Unfortunately," Entine observes, "Kenyans are among the world's worst soccer players." Even in Africa, Kenya is routinely routed by West African countries like Cameroon and Nigeria.

Running is not such a big deal in Kenya. And when it comes to short-distance sprints, Kenyans and other East Africans aren't particularly good. Virtually every running record from the 100 to the 400 meters, male and female, is held by athletes of West African ancestry. It's only in the 5,000 meters, 10,000 meters and in the marathon that the special abilities of East African runners manifest themselves.

Entine, an Emmy winning journalist formerly with NBC News, has done his homework. He does not completely reject economic and cultural explanations of athletic prowess. He just shows their inadequacy. For instance, examing the notion that poverty is responsible for success in sport, Entine notes that most poor countries do terribly in sports. How many runners from poverty-stricken Bangla Desh, for instance, have won Olympic medals in Beijing? The "spur" of poverty is more than trounced by the benefits of superior nutrition, superior facilities and superior coaching in affluent countries.

So what about culture? Yes, culture can help to account for why Americans do well at baseball and why the Chinese usually triumph in ping pong. Americans play baseball more than most others, and no one takes ping pong more seriously than the Chinese. But Entine notes that running is universal. In every country, young people run races. "Given the universality of running," Amby Burfoot writes in Runner's World, "it is reasonable to expect that the best runners should come from a wide range of countries and racial groups." So why are there such enduring and overwhelming racial differences in the outcome?

Entine is not afraid to say that "genetically linked, highly heritable characteristics, such as skeletal structure, muscle fiber types, reflex capabilities, metabolic efficiency, and lung capacity are not evenly distributed among populations." These traits help to explain why groups succeed--and sometimes fail--in certain sports. For instance, the same body type that works so well in the boxing ring and on the track doesn't do so well in the water. How many black swimmers have there been on the U.S. Olympic team? Even countries on the African coast have a terrible record when it comes to swimming medals.

Entine's book is titled "Taboo" because he knows how controversial his thesis is, how fiercely it is hated and resisted. I suspect this is not because of powerful academic evidence that Entine is wrong. If there is such evidence, I would like to see it, but so far I've had a hard time finding it. Rather, the resistance is due to the liberal fear that if we praise black athletic superiority and attribute it to genes, this opens the door for racists to speculate about black intellectual inferiority and to attribute it too to genes.

Yet this is a non-sequitur. Groups can be unequal physically and still be equal intellectually. Men and women are clearly unequal in upper-body strength, for instance, and yet the average IQ for males and females is the same, although the bell curve distribution of that IQ is not. But I'll leave that subject for a later blog.

My general point is that many liberals are looking in the wrong place to find a justification for their support for political equality. As Jefferson noted a long time ago, inequality of endowment, whether it exists or not, is no warrant for inequality of rights. Equality is not a factual proposition, derived from biology. It is a moral proposition, derived from Christianity.

I've been watching with patriotic interest the Olympic track and field events. And I notice something about the results that is both remarkable and fascinating. Even so, this something is never commented on by NBC or any of the analysts.

Consider the sprints. The winners seem to be overwhelmingly of African, specifically West African, origin. The man and woman who blew away the field in the 100 meter dash were both from the tiny country of Jamaica . Indeed the contestants in general seem to originally come from the same part of the world. Virtually no one from a different race and region even qualifies. Sure there are Canadian and French and American sprinters, but they too tend to be blacks of West African heritage. These races come down to our West Africans against everyone else's West Africans.

Now consider the long distance races. The winners once again are overwhelmingly black, this time from East Africa . The 10,000 meter race, for instance, came down two guys from Kenya, two guys from Eritrea, and two guys from Ethiopia. Basically it was a contest of six guys from the same neighborhood! If there were a couple of whites and Asians in these races, they seem to have been running strictly to get photos for the family scrapbook.

These results are not a coincidence. They hold true of every Olympics in living memory. In the early 1990s Amby Burfoot, executive editor of Runner's World, published a lead article called "White Men Can't Run." Burfoot documented that blacks have not only dominated Olympic and world championship races for five decades, but also that black hegemony has increased over time. Along the same lines, the Sociology of Sport Journal reports that since the 1930s, "there has been no American white woman who was world class in the 100, 200 or 400 meter dashes. All the outstanding sprinters have been black."

Yet if black domination is a fact, the mysterious question is why. There are three possible explanations, two of which we need to take seriously. The first and most unlikely possibility is that there is widespread discrimination in favor of blacks in sports-not only in running but also in boxing, football, basketball, and so on. Let's call this the liberal explanation. It seems utterly obtuse, but we have to raise this argument because it uses precisely the logic of our civil rights laws.

Our civil rights laws presume that if groups are not equally represented in a given field (say university admissions or jobs or government contracts or sports teams) it follows that invidious discrimination can be inferred on the part of the over-represented groups, directed against the under-represented groups. In this case, of course, is it even reasonable to speculate that blacks are ahead because they are keeping everyone else down? Laugh out loud if you will, but you are laughing at the crazy logic that operates in civil rights jurisprudence in America today.

A second possibility is that there are cultural and motivational differences between groups. For instance, an NBC documentary preceding the 100 meter final noted that Jamaicans simply love to run and they start running competitively at a very young age. Perhaps West Africans simply have a cultural preference for short-distance sprints, and East Africans attach high social priorities to long-distance running. Using the same line of reasoning, sociologist Harry Edwards has suggested that black success in NBA basketball can be explained by the desire of poor African Americans to "jump, jump, jump out of the ghetto." Let's call this the cultural explanation.

The third possibility is that there are natural or genetic differences between the races that explain why one group is so heavily over-represented among both the contestants and the winners. Let's call this the Bell Curve explanation, after the controversial book published several years ago by Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein. Admittedly Murray and Herrnstein were writing about IQ and intellectual performance, not sport. The role of biology in sport is candidly explored in Jon Entine's book Taboo, which I'm reading during the commercial breaks.

Setting aside political correctness, I'm trying to figure out which explanation is right. I don't think we need to be scared to discuss this topic. Before I offer my thoughts, I'd like to know what you think.

"Christian God? Jewish God? Or no God?" This was the topic of a very lively Orange County debate between atheist Christopher Hitchens, the Jewish radio host Dennis Prager, and me. The debate was held in the spring at the Bat Yahm Synagogue, and the audience was predominantly Jewish, with a fair representation of Christians and atheists.

This debate is finally online, and you can watch it here.

One might think that this three-way format would benefit Prager and me, because we were the two theists against the atheist. But Hitchens, who is perhaps the most supple debater on the atheist side, did his best to drive a wedge between Prager's position and mine.

For instance, Hitchens hammered Prager on the history of Christian anti-Semitism, leading Prager to make one of the most extraordinary defenses of Christ that I have heard, a defense even more remarkable for its synagogue setting.

Hitchens also tried to get me to dispatch all the Jews in the audience to hell. Aren't you claiming--he asked--that your religion is exclusively true and everyone else's is false? I noted that all three of us on the podium were claiming some form of exclusivity. After all, if Hitchens is right about his atheism it follows that all religions in the world are false. So Hitchens is just as much of an exclusivist as any religious fundamentalist.

Moreover, I noted that Christianity is the only religion that holds another religion, Judaism, to be true. That's why Christians essentially incorporated the entire Old Testament into the Christian Bible. While I believe that Christ is "the way, the truth and the life," I for one am not willing to judge anyone or expel anyone from heaven.

Hitchens on the other hand has said that he doesn't want to go to heaven, which he views as a kind of celestial North Korea. I suspect heaven is full of people who chose God and prayed to Him, "Thy will be done." Hell is reserved for those who by their own free choice refused God and to whom God eventually said, "Thy will be done."

I notice that after posting all my early debates on his website, Richard Dawkins has stopped featuring my recent debates. This is perhaps an indication of how the atheists are faring. Of late I also haven't heard any of these guys call themselves "brights."

If Hitchens can't get the job done, who can? While the pusillanimous Dawkins won't debate me, at least Hitchens keeps trying. My re-match with him is on September 10 in St. Louis, and tickets are available here.

Is there morality without God? This was the topic which I debated with Princeton philosopher Peter Singer on the Riz Khan show on Al-Jazeera Monday. The segment is now up on the web and you can watch it here.

No, I haven't signed on as an Al-Jazeera regular. But the producers of the Riz Khan show on that network seemed a bit disappointed when Richard Dawkins agreed to appear on their show but then threw a tantrum when he found out he was scheduled to debate me. Instead Dawkins insisted on separate segments, with him going second, so that I wouldn't have a chance to challenge his arguments.

Singer is a much braver soul, and truth be told, he strikes me as more articulate and versatile than Dawkins. I suspect the only reason Singer isn't more of an atheist hero is because his social positions are so controversial. Basically Singer has declared that newborns have no rights and can be killed off during the first few weeks of their life, and he would vastly liberalize the rules for infanticide and euthanasia. Singer and I will be debating all this on December 3 at Princeton University. By all means come, but perhaps you should leave the grandparents at home.

In the Al-Jazeera exchange, Singer echoed a theme sounded by some of the street interviews: we don't need God to be good. And in this sense, who can disagree? Of course atheists can be kind and truthful and keep their oaths and contracts. No one is saying that Christians have a monopoly on virtue, or that unbelievers are incapable of it.

Rather, the deeper point is that morality seems built into human nature, and it doesn't have an adequate Darwinian explanation. Singer, an ardent Darwinist, admits this. He said on the show that evolution tells us what we are but it doesn't tell us anything about how we should be. Dawkins too writes that he is Darwinian in his biology but anti-Darwinian in his ethics. According to Dawkins, biology programs selfishness into our genes but we can rise above all that and behave unselfishly. Yet as I pointed out on the show, ants and cheetahs cannot do this. It makes no sense to say, "Bad cheetah! You shouldn't chase after that nice antelope." So where do we evolved primates get this other capacity that frequently operates against our self-interest? This is at least worth reflecting on.

One caller provoked Singer's derision by suggesting that even atheist philosophers get their morality from religion. Singer responded that this was factually wrong. He noted that John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham weren't religious. True, but their utilitarianism is based on the principle of equal respect for human beings, and that is a principle that came into the West because of Christianity. Singer attempted to deny this. He tried to locate this Western egalitarianism in Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius, but he offered nothing to substantiate this far-fetched claim. If there were historians watching the show, I am sure they were shaking their heads. Certainly the American founders didn't get "all men are created equal" from the sayings of Epictetus or the meditations of Aurelius. By their own account, they attributed our egual dignity and our inalienable rights to the "Creator."

I'm looking forward to exploring this topic in greater detail with Singer on his home campus in December. But before that, I have my third debate with Christopher Hitchens coming up September 10 in St. Louis. As Hitchens himself put it, all our debates are different because each time we get better at countering what the other guy said the last time. If you'd like to find out more and get tickets, you can do so here.

Sigmund Freud is no longer the revered figure he once was. A recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education noted that Freud is no longer routinely assigned even in psychology curricula. In a way, Freud is following the downward path of that other great totem of the last couple of centuries, Karl Marx. It's hard to believe so many intelligent people spent their lives studying these two thinkers. Intellectuals, we have to conclude, are often fatally attracted to far-out theories that tease the mind but that bear little relation to what's actually going on in the world.

Marxism worked well in academic laboratories and only failed miserably when it was actually tried. Similarly for decades Freud spun out his elaborate theories, and they sounded so scientific and so modern and so avant garde. Depression? Well, that's because your sister abused you when you were four, and you have concealed from yourself the memory of it, but if you do hundreds of hours of therapy, you can excavate the source of your anxiety, and by coming to terms with it you can slowly overcome it. But today when you go to the doctor and are diagnosed with depression, he gives you a pill and you feel better. No need for most people to visit the therapist's couch.

Freud also argued that what we are secretly attracted to, we make into a taboo. Freud explained the "incest taboo" by saying that we secretly want to have sex with our mothers and our sisters, and so we repress those feelings and outlaw them. In Freud's words, "The strength of the incestuous wishes can be detected behind the prohibition against them."

The cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker pointed out the shortcoming of this theory. Pinker notes that by Freud's logic the fact that humans are averse to eating cow dung shows that we secretly want to eat it. Pinker's point is that there are sound evolutionary reasons both for avoiding cow dung and for avoiding incest. The former is unhealthy and attracts disease-carrying insects; the latter results in biological abnormalities. So natural selection produces humans who avoid both. Once again, Freudian fantasy is replaced with a much more plausible scientific alternative.

I've been reading Freud's The Future of an Illusion, where Freud makes the case that religion is a form of "wish fulfillment." Freud writes that for the individual "life is hard to bear," and beyond this there is "the painful riddle of death, against which no medicine has yet been found." And so to "make helplessness tolerable" man invents God and religion not because they are true but because we wish them to be true. " For Freud, one may say, Christianity is adult Disneyland. We forget that Freud is the author of this portrait of religion that is widely espoused in our time.

Well, let's examine this Freudian explanation in an entirely secular and rational way. Imagine a bunch of people who have gathered in a room because they want to avoid life's difficulties--sickness, suffering, death--by making up a religion that will make them feel better. I can entirely see how such a group would come up with the concept of heaven. Heaven is a place where there is no suffering and no death. Eternal bliss would surely fit into my wish-fulfillment scheme.

But I don't see why this group would come up with the concept of hell. (We are not talking about why priests might later use the concept to enforce doctrinal obedience or institutional loyalty. We are talking about why wish-fulfilling humans would invent the concept in the first place.) Hell is not only worse than sickness but also worse than death, because death is merely the end, while hell implies eternal separation from God.

I also don't see why seekers of wish-fulfillment would come up with Christian morality. Who needs the Ten Commandments or other such rules which make our lives more difficult by asserting a series of "Thou Shall Nots"? Even Christians recoil from the severe demands of their ethical code. Recall the church father Augustine, who kept putting off his conversion to Christianity, praying to God, "Make me chaste, O Lord, but not yet." In other words, a project of wish-fulfillment would seem to dictate a much more libertine social morality than the one we find in the Old and New Testaments.

Bottom line: Judaism and Christianity, not to mention the other great religions, hardly look like they are the product of mere wishful thinking. In fact, they posit a God and a moral universe that makes some fairly stern demands on humans. It's almost wishful to think that God does not exist, so that we can escape those demands. This is a point that does not seem to have occurred to poor Sigmund Freud.

Seems like we have a bit of a pattern here. First, it was Bob Packwood, sexually harassing a slew of women but then trying to escape condemnation on the grounds that he was a consistent champion of women's rights.

Then Bill Clinton took advantage of his office, both as governor or Arkansas and then president of the United States, to have a series of sleazy affairs. He too tried to cover these up and then excuse them on the grounds that they were minor private offenses, small distractions from his noble dedication to the causes of equality and global uplift.

Eliot Spitzer took time out from his crusade against Wall Street malefactors to indulge himself in high-priced prostitutes. He too saw himself as excused from the normal canons of morality because of his commitment to the cause of common man.

And now Edwards. By all accounts here is your typical legal sleazebag, who got rich through ambulance chasing tactics and had a sordid affair while his wife was battling cancer, possibly producing a little bambino in the process. Even the term "love affair" is inappropriate here: Edwards himself says he didn't care about the woman, so he was apparently just using her for the same reason that Clinton said he used Monica Lewinsky: because he could!

Secret meetings, financial payoffs: is there any limit to how low this gets? Yet John Edwards has, at least until now, been considered a wonderful, upright, admirable guy. How is this possible? To put the question in its broadest form: How does the liberal sleazebag come to be viewed so favorably?

The short answer is that the liberal tries to cover up his despicable character by appealing to his virtuous political stances. Shameless and reprehensible behavior is dubbed "private," as if it were nobody else's business, and contrasted with public social stances. "Yes, I cheated on my wife and abandoned my kids, but this is of little significance compared to my environmental work and my donations to the United Way!"

There are many problems with this, but perhaps the most obvious is that there are certain jobs, like governor and president, where being an example and representing a dignified office are part of the job description. Unlike a carpenter or a broker, a president doesn't just do things but he also stands for things. Pastors and presidents cannot afford to be moral reprobates because then they dishonor their position and the people they lead and represent.

Still, the liberal morality-evasion scheme does on, and it has been going on for a while. In fact, the inventor of this liberal scheme was Rousseau, whose autobiography presents himself as a wonderful and sincere guy even though the man fathered five children out of wedlock and abandoned them all to an orphanage. Lacking personal moral decency, what Rousseau appealed to was moral opinions and moral posturing.

The good news is that the American people, who fell for it during the Clinton era, aren't falling for it any more. We shouldn't feel sorry for people like Spitzer and Edwards, nor should we fear that their causes will suffer. Poor people in America could use a more decent champion than the lecher with the $500 haircut.

What is the source of that liberty, equality and fraternity that are now the guiding principles of the West, if not the modern world?

Historians note the anomaly that these principles originated and developed only in Western civilization. In this sense, they are not universal. Of late, however, these principles are being exported to the rest of the world. One may say they are Western in origin but universal in their application.

But where do the principles come from? With the death of Heidegger and Sartre, Jurgen Habermas is now regarded as perhaps our leading living philosopher. Habermas is also an atheist. Yet when Habermas found out that the European Union in its charter gave full acknowledgement to ancient Greece and Rome, but none to Christianity, he erupted in learned outrage.

Habermas's argument is that it is philosophically illiterate to locate the roots of the West in Athens but not in Jerusalem. In fact, Habermas argues that Jerusalem--by which he means Judaism and Christianity--is far more responsible than Athens for the modern principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. In "A Time of Transition," Habermas writes:

For the normative self-understanding of modernity, Christianity has functioned as more than just a precursor or catalyst. Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love.

Habermas's point is that there is too much arrogance in contemporary atheism. Even the atheist is standing on mountain erected by Christianity. How ungrateful it is to scorn the mountain that is still holding you up! How ridiculous the posture of the man who cannot acknowledge the very foundation that sustains him from below!

This is what Christians mean when they say that America is a Christian society. This is not a call for theocracy or "rule of the priests" but rather a call for a public acknowledgement of the historic role of Christianity in shaping our institutions, our values and our culture. The opinions of several leading Supreme Court justices on church-and-state issues would benefit greatly from a slight familiarity with the history that Habermas is talking about.

Habermas's argument would have struck a chord with the greatest atheist of modern times, the philosopher Nietzsche. Nietzsche argued that if you want to get rid of the Christian God, at least have the honesty and the guts to repudiate the Christian ideals of human dignity, human equality and human liberty.

Yet our village atheists want to have it both ways. They want to reject God but preserve at least certain core aspects of the Christian legacy. Nietzsche would have had nothing but scorn for these little men of unbelief, Lilliputians hurling their tiny javelins at the Christian God while they continue to live off His inheritance.

Imagine the scene at Harvard in the spring of 1978 when Alexander Solzhenitsyn gave his now-famous address. Solzhenitsyn had already won the Nobel Prize for The Gulag Archipelago and other great works exposing the murderous nature of atheist Communism. But at Harvard Solzhenitsyn touched on a topic much closer to home.

Even though he was second to none in his denunciation of totalitarian socialism, Solzhenitsyn said, "should someone ask me whether I would indicate the West such as it is today as a model to my country, frankly I would have to answer negatively." The whole address is worth reading, but here are some highlights.

On the lack of courage in facing a totalitarian enemy: "The Western world has lost its civil courage, both as a whole and separately, in each country...and of course in the United Nations....Such a decline is especially notable among ruling groups and the intellectual elite....They get tongue-tied and paralyzed when they deal with powerful governments and threatening forces, with aggressors and international terrorists."

On how materialism makes a nation soft: "Every citizen has been granted the desired freedom and material goods in such quantity and of such quality as to guarantee in theory the pursuit of happiness...So why and for what should one risk one's precious life in defense of common values and particularly in such nebulous cases when the security of one's nation must be defended in a distant country?"

On what has happened to the rule of law: "People in the West has acquired considerable skill in using, interpreting and manipulating law....If one is right from a legal point of view, nothing more is required, nobody might mention that one could still not be entirely right and urge a willingness to show restraint or sacrifice. Everybody operates at the extreme limits of those legal frames....A society without any objective legal scale is a terrible one indeed, but a society with no other scale but the legal one is not quite worthy of man either."

On the rights of criminals: "Legal frames especially in the United States are broad enough to encourage not only individual freedom but also certain individual crimes. The culprit can go unpunished or obtain undeserved leniency with the support of legions of public defenders. When a government starts an earnest fight against terrorism, public opinion immediately accuses it of violating the terrorists' civil rights. There are many such cases."

On the abuses of freedom: "Destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Soceity appears to have litle defense against the abyss of human decadence, such as misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, motion pictures full of pornography, crime and horror...Such a tilt of freedom in the directionof evil has come about gradually but it was evidently born out of a humanistic concept according to which there is no evil inherent to human nature."

On freedom of the press: "The press, too, enjoys the widest freedom. But what use does it make of this freedom? The press has become the greatest power within the Western countries, more powerful than the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. One would then like to ask: by what law has it been elected and to whom is it responsible? How many hasty, immature, superficial and misleading judgments are expressed every day, confusing readers, and without any verification? Thus we see terrorists made into heroes, or secret matters pertaining to the national defense publicly revealed, or shameful intrusion into the privacy of people under the false slogan: everyone has the right to know everything."

On the atrophy of the spiritual life: "Mere freedom does not in the least solve all the problems of human life and it even adds some new ones....We have placed too much hope in political and social reforms, only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession: our spiritual life."

Thirty years ago, the very chattering classes mentioned in Solzhenitsyn's address ridiculed the man as a reactionary and a crank. The literary critic Susan Sontag describes Manhattan cocktail parties at which the cultural left would laugh at Solzhenitsyn. No one--certainly not liberals and libertarians--wanted to hear what the New York Times called Solzhenitsyn's "hectoring jeremiads."

But today when you go to Asia you hear everywhere the slogan, "Modernization, yes; Westernization, no." Throughout the Muslim world there is a reaction--exploited of course by the Islamic radicals--against what is perceived as the shamelessness and decadence of Western values and culture. Even in the West there is deep ambivalence about what has happened to cherished notions of liberty, the rule of law, freedom of the press, and the pursuit of happiness.

We don't have to agree with Solzhenitsyn on everything to say that, far from being a reactionary, here was a man who was ahead of his time in diagnosing some of the serious ailments of the modern era. Not only was he right about the Gulag; in many respects this forlorn Russian hermit was also right about us.

Twenty years ago, Martin Daly and Margo Wilson published their now-classic book Homicide. This book overturned a whole generation of liberal scholarship. It is still a welcome antidote to the kind of nonsense that some liberals, unacquainted with the data, continue to spout today.

For instance, it is not unsual to hear that "with the exception of the police and the military, the family is perhaps the most violent social group, and the home is the most violent social setting in our society. A person is more likely to be hit or killed in his or her home by another family member than anywhere else or by anyone else."

Once this was the conventional academic wisdom. Indeed Daly and Wilson encountered precisely this quotation in a textbook by two leading criminologists in the 1970s. One can see the political purpose to which such conclusions are put. Then, as now, they are used by feminists, homosexual activists and others to justify legal assaults on the nuclear family and to provide justifications for divorce, gay marriage, and other "alternative" family arrangements.

Daly and Wilson are scholars of evolution, and to them this idea that genetically related people pose the greatest social danger to each other's lives made absolutely no sense. So they began to review the data. Indeed they went way beyond what anyone had studied previously, dissecting not only the facts from the United States and other Western countries, but also performing cross-cultural comparisons in some cases going back to ancient times.

Daly and Wilson found that the liberal scholars were simply wrong. In some cases the errors were statistical. For instance, consider the statement that "more people in America are murdered each night in their beds than on the street." This is probably true, and it's because vastly more people are in their beds than on the streets. The statistic in no way shows that the bedroom is a more dangerous venue than the street! When intelligent people make such simple errors the usual reason is that their ideological prejudices are guiding the way they read the data.

But Daly and Wilson made a more startling, and significant, finding. They discovered that the data on homicide typically did not distinguish between blood-related individuals and non-blood-related individuals. For instance, when you separate murders of children committed by their fathers from murders of children by mothers' boyfriends and step-fathers and other unrelated persons, you discover that the latter group poses a far greater danger to children than the former group. Specifically, Daly and Wilson found that infants are 20 to 100 times more likely to be killed by a step-parent than by a natural parent.

Since Daly and Wilson's book there has been a wealth of data extending their conclusions. The data on child sex abuse, for example, follows the same pattern. Biological parents are much less likely to sexually abuse their children than mothers' boyfriends or step-parents. Here the natural genetic aversion to incest is an obvious explanation, but so is the fact that biological parents tend to be more closely attuned to the welfare of their offspring.

Until Daly and Wilson's book, genetic relatednedss was not considered a relevant factor in measuring infanticide and child abuse. But Daly and Wilson showed that it is the single most important predictive factor. And their pioneering work is now supported by a whole ream of data. The point of course is not that most step-parents pose a danger to children but that children face a greater risk of violence from step-parents than they do from natural parents.

These facts of course fit perfectly with common sense. And even though the cultural left will continue to make excuses, the facts also makes biological sense.No wonder that increasing divorce rates in society have produced a dramatic increase in violence against children. And if these biological and historical patterns hold, a further increase in the legitimation of "alternative lifestyles" can only be expected to produce more victims.

Obama opposes drilling in Alaska because he thinks it's a political ploy. Obama says the benefits of drilling may not be realized for five years or more.

Well, I guess politicians aren't allowed to think that far ahead, are they? Incidentally Clinton made the same argument, and that was more than 10 years ago. If we had started drilling then, we would currently be enjoying the benefits of home-produced oil, prices would be lower, and we would be that much less dependent on Middle Eastern oil.

Oil is now the fuel that drives the engine of Islamic radicalism. Remove the revenues of oil and the Muslim world would join sub-Saharan Africa as the least important part of the planet. Of course if America stops buying from them the Muslims would still sell to other countries. But who can deny that new sources of supply would reduce the global price of oil? And this would naturally reduce the surplus that is available to fund Islamic terrorism.

Currently about 40 percent of America's oil comes from domestic production, and the rest is imported. Approximately 20 percent of our oil imports are from Canada, and another 20 percent come from Mexico and South America. Africa--mainly Nigeria--accounts for another 20 percent. Remarkably, only about 15 percent of America's oil imports are from the Middle East.

What this means is that eliminating American reliance on the Muslim countries is an entirely reasonable objective. The problem is that America's oil needs are increasing, and domestic production is not keeping up. So we are becoming more dependent on imports.

McCain intends to reverse this. He's not insensitive to environmental concerns, and so rather than drill in the Alaskan wildlife reserve he intends only to drill offshore. Even so, he is being opposed by the Obama Democrats and some fanatical environmentalists. These naysayers are trying to convincing America that more oil from Alaska means no more glaciers and caribou.

This is a wild exaggeration and a false choice. And if Americans are forced to choose between lower gas prices and a few more caribou, is there any doubt how the vote would go? I think I am in the majority in saying that I don't mind caribou, but I really like my car. Caribou are nice to see but we need gas to drive out and see them.

Let's by all means drill off the coast of Alaska. At the same time, let's drill some sense into the liberal Democrats.

Postscript: More than one regular responder to this blog has commented that my percentage numbers add up to more than 100 percent, demonstrating my poor math skills. Re-read the post. It says that two-fifths of our oil comes from domestic production and the remaining three-fifths from imports. Then considering only the imports, I give the breakdown of what percentage comes from each foreign region. So there is no math error--or rather, the error is on the part of the posters, who would do well to read more carefully or enroll in basic math.

My Youtube exchange with Richard Dawkins on Al-Jazeera is finally up on the web. You can watch my segment here and the subsequent Dawkins segment here. This is the famous "debate that never was." And that's the real pity. Dawkins insisted on appearing separately from me and being interviewed after me. This way he ensured that I could not rebut anything he said on the show. Fortunately I have an AOL blog where I can carry on the conversation.

Dawkins made some good points, noting for instance that evolution does not rely on mere "chance," but he also made some obvious blunders. When a caller pointed out that World War II was motivated in substantial part by a "survival of the fittest" ideology, Dawkins pretended to be completely baffled. He proclaimed the caller's reference "absolute nonsense." Yet Richard Weikart's book From Darwin to Hitler provides extensive documentation that the Nazis repeatedly invoked Darwinian evolution and that Nazi doctrine used "survival of the fittest" as a virtual recruiting phrase. So Dawkins is either historically ignorant or wilfully obtuse.

Here I want to address Dawkins's response to my argument that the effect that is the universe requires a causal explanation. It seems unreasonable in the extreme to say that even though nature had a beginning, somehow nature is the cause of itself. So God is the name we give to the supernatural being that is the cause of nature as a whole. Dawkins argued: "This leaves open the question of where did the creator come from?" Since the creator is this "great big complicated thing," what good does it do to invoke one complex thing to explain another? "If you postulate a designer you haven't explained anything." Basically what Dawkins is saying is that there is no point in using complex explanation A to account for complex phenomenon B if you cannot account for A.

This is a fallacy. We can see this by applying the logic to evolution itself. The logic of evolution is a "great big complicated thing" with all its elements of replication, natural selection, mutations, genetic drift, and so on. Yet it is invoked to explain another complicated thing: the exquisite fit between living creatures and their surroundings. How reasonable would it be to argue: "We are invoking one complicated thing, namely evolution, to explain another, namely living things. Yet this leaves open the question of where evolution came from. We have no idea how and why evolution originally started. Since we cannot account for evolution, our explanation is useless. Simply to postulate evolution is to explain nothing." This is precisely Dawkins's argument regarding God, and here we can see how it boomerangs on evolution!

But consider the argument itself more closely. Is it really true that Complex Explanation A for Complex Phenomenon B only works if we can give a full account of A? Actually it is not true. Gravity may account for why objects fall at a certain pace, but this does not require that we give an account for where gravity comes from or why it exists in the first place. If we find various signs of intelligent life on another planet we can conclude that there are aliens on that planet without having any idea of who created them or where they came from. In summary, the best explanation for something does not require that we also provide an explanation for the explanation.

The problem I think for Dawkins is that his trademark snorts and sneers only work against televangelists who do not do much more than hurl Bible verses at their opponents. When he is confronted with history, philosophy, and logic, Dawkins seems to have very little to say. And perhaps this explains his peculiar insistence that I be given no chance whatever to respond to his statements on the Riz Khan show.

I appeared Monday on the Riz Khan show on Al-Jazeera with Richard Dawkins, and guess what? We had a civilized three-way dialog. No one erupted into Hitler-type yells. The Gestapo didn't show up, nor the Inquisition police, to drag Richard Dawkins from the studio. Host Riz Khan interviewed me for the first half of the show on the compatibility of Darwinism and religion, and on the issue of how to teach evolution in the schools. Then Khan interviewed Dawkins for the second half, mainly on why he encounters resistance to evolution and also why he rejects arguments for God as the creator of the universe.

Unfortunately Al-Jazeera hasn't yet posted the show on the web, so I'll withhold comment on Dawkins's central argument until I can link to it. But I do think that there is something on which everyone who sees the show can agree. Dawkins's excuses for not debating me (Dinesh is a "creationist" or Dinesh uses Hitler-style "yells and shrieks") are utterly absurd. Why won't Dawkins simply admit he's afraid? I don't really mind a coward as long as he's an honest coward.

I'm not the only one befuddled by Dawkins. So is evolutionary biologist and atheist David Sloan Wilson. Several months ago Wilson wrote a savage review of Dawkins's The God Delusion for Michael Shermer's magazine Skeptic. Basically Wilson said that Dawkins is supposed to be an expert about evolution but his book fails to examine religion from an evolutionary perspective. Rather, Dawkins insists on faulting religion based on claims--theological, philosophical, historical--that lie entirely outside his area of knowledge. No wonder that Dawkins's one-paragraph "refutations" of the likes of Aquinas have an amateurish, even juvenile, quality.

Wilson argues that a true scientist would develop a hypothesis about religion and then test it to see how it holds up. For instance, against Dawkins's and view that religion is a kind of destructive virus, a culturally transmitted epidemic that may benefit its parasitic carriers (the preachers) but certainly not those who succumb to the infection, Wilson offers a rival hypothesis. Wilson's view is that "religious groups are products of cultural group selection....A given religion adapts its members to their local environment, enabling them to achieve by collective action what they cannot achieve alone or even together in the absence of religion. Even though elements of religion often appear bizarre, irrational, and downright dysfunctional to believers, when examined closely most of them will make sense."

In his book Darwin's Cathedral, Wilson offers the case study of the Calvinists in sixteenth-century Geneva. At a time when factionalism and internecine conflict was rending the social fabric of the city, Calvin and his deputies introduced the Ecclesiastical Ordinances. Wow, do they sound harsh! Fines for dancing and jail for gambling are only the beginning. Yet Wilson surveys a wide body of historical scholarship that concludes that "there is little doubt that Calvinism was instrumental in solving the problem of factionalism and helping the city of Geneva survive as a social entity."

How? Basically Wilson found that morals are the key to restoring social morale. (The two terms "moral" and "morale" are connected by more than the similarity of their sounds.) Wilson writes, "I was especially impressed by how the mechanisms for preventing cheating extended to the leaders in addition to the rank and file. The head of the church was not a single individual but a group of pastors who made decisions by consensus. Calvin shared all the duties of a pastor, despite his enormous additional workload as primary architect of the religion. Double accounting methods were used to prevent the inappropriate use of charitable funds. The egalitarian spirit of Calvinism is perhaps best illustrated by the duty of caring for dying plague victims. This life-threatening task was decided by lottery."

Wilson concludes, based upon this data, that at least in this one important case, the Dawkins view is wrong and his hypothesis is vindicated. The Calvinist leaders were not out to benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else. It is simply wrong to say that they got ahead while everyone else suffered. Rather, the opposite is true. Calvinism's dour doctirnes of original sin and predestination contributed to an unprecedented identification of leaders and followers and caused the introduction of checks and balances to curb the suspect tendencies in human nature. To put it in blunt evolutionary terms, Calvinism was socially adaptive.

So what does Dawkins have to say about all this? The short answer is: nothing. Dawkins wrote a lame response to Skeptic, noting that he didn't purport in his book to be using an evolutionary understanding of religion. This would be like a doctor saying, "Well, I wasn't claiming to be giving a medical opinion." I suppose Dawkins considers it normal for an evolutionist to ignore his own field and dispense folk prescriptions based on a cursory persusal of other disciplines. I hope that Wilson does not invite Dawkins to debate this issue. What excuse will inventive Richard come up with this time?