I would be pretty surprised if Bush (or at least his people) didn't know about the negotiations with Syria when he gave the speech.  In hindsight, he may have been referring to Israel's government, not Obama, when he was referring to appeasement.

I'd be pretty interested to see how Paulville would develop, practically speaking. From afar.

has many opponents in the physics world because it indeed has no evidence to back it up.  String theory might well be 100% incorrect.  Right now there is no way to test it.  Many consider it to be more of a fad than good science.  See The Unraveling of String Theory.

Evolution, on the other hand, has evidence to back it up from paleontology, geology, genetics, sociobiology, neuroscience, and virtually every other science that might have something to say about it.

Scientists don't like ID because the whole point of the ID movement is to force science teachers to teach religion (a "competing theory") in science class.  ID is not science - it's actually anti-science - and should therefore not be taught in science class.

Why do you distinguish between a strip club and prostitution? Every argument you make against prostitution applies to a strip club as well.

Also, I noticed you threw the word "sinful" in there... "Sin" has no place in a government that distinguishes between church and state.

Rachel76 - You're linking to blood libel websites?!? Seriously?

Anyway, I'll take your word about Polin and that she manages the website.  So what?  If the cases she's presenting on her website are legitimate, it doesn't really matter who's running it. If there are any false accusations on the page, then by all means, expose them. Otherwise it's just an ad-hominem attack.

I hate to say it, but Obama's in trouble.  Whether or not it's justified, he's going to be perceived as anti-American by a lot of people.  He doesn't wear a flag pin, which is presumably because he doesn't believe in hollow patriotic gestures, but that's also a risky thing to do, especially since he's such an unknown. This debacle with Wright and comments by his wife are seriously hurting his candidacy.

I still support Obama, but he has a lot of damage control to do.  Some very cold water is being splashed on his campaign.

With all due respect, Wertheimer makes a poor case for re-engaging with traditional Judaism.  His argument does not seem to deal with the reality that secular Jews feel even less of a connection than Kurtzman, and Kurtzman is at least trying to frame the discussion in terms he feels strongly about (Tikkun Olam, etc).  By belittling what tenuous connections Kurtzman has to Judaism, Wertheimer risks alienating secular Jews looking for some basis to connect.  What Kurtzman is saying is "I'm not buying what you're selling, so give me something else".  Wertheimer is saying "There is nothing else".  Wertheimer argues convincingly that Kurtzman's "something else" is sub-par for building and sustaining Judaism, but he almost completely ignores the "I'm not buying" part.

In other words, why should Kurtzman and other non-traditional Jews care about building and sustaining Judaism?  Wertheimer seems to take for granted that they do, that "repairing the Jewish people" and "authentic Judaism" are concepts that they care about.  But there's no basis for this assumption, based on Kurtzman's words (and subsequent comments).

Kurtzman, for his part, does an even poorer job of making the case for a universalist Judaism (again, with all due respect).  The reason is that he defines being Jewish so vaguely that it becomes meaningless.  If being Jewish means simply studying and internalizing Jewish texts (ignoring of course the particularist stuff), then why bother defining Judaism at all? I read and take in the ideas of John Stewart Mill, but that doesn't make me a Millian.  If I studied Mill exclusively, maybe that would make me a Millian.  But once I see Mill as simply one voice among many, I can read him critically and objectively, and take away what I feel is logical and relevant.  My resulting worldview might be heavily influenced by Mill, but defining it as Millianism is just silly.  Why bother?

Last but not least - not being engaged in traditional Judaism is not "adolescence".  Using that term is demeaning and serves no legitimate purpose.