A (2:58)

It was a festivus. He had beef with everybody except himself and Justice Roberts.

B (3:03)

I know he seems like the kind of person I would love to have a couple drinks with and get the his real opinions out on things. Although he seems to be sharing them pretty loosely now.

A (3:14)

Yeah, he is. He's an interesting guy. And I think the thing is though, if you had drinks with him, he would be very happy to talk to you about his judicial opinions and not at all willing to talk to you about, like, why, who he is, what's his background like, all of that stuff. I interviewed him. Oh, gosh, this was a couple years ago.

B (3:38)

You found him to be a personally private person, but loquacious about his jurisprudence.

A (3:43)

Yeah, so very loquacious about his judicial philosophy. And I was just like, I was interviewing him and really trying to establish like, hey, we're talking and having a really great conversation about jurisprudence. Now I want to ask something about your origin story, like where does this come from? He shut that down really quickly, Sky. He shut that down really quickly. So, yeah, he does not like to be. Or at least certainly not. I don't want to make blanket statements because I've had one interview, but he was not interested in any being analyzed by me. Let me just put it that way.

B (4:24)

Well, I respect that. I respect that. Anyway, I want to point everybody to the stuff you've done at AO Advisory Opinions. You've written a really great piece in the New York Times explaining why this recent ruling by the Supreme Court might be the most important one of the 21st century so far. Lots of good stuff there. But we're not going to talk about it because I want to talk about a piece you wrote a couple of weeks ago about the rise of antisemitism, particularly on the maga.

A (4:50)

Right.

B (4:51)

And how that links to Christian Zionism. I appreciated your article. I agreed with a lot of it. There's a couple of bones I want to pick with you, though.

A (5:00)

Sure. About this.

B (5:01)

But I think it's an important topic because it comes up in Christian communities quite a bit as it relates to America's foreign policy with Israel. But let's begin with where you begin, which is an examination of what exactly is going on on the maga, right, as it relates to anti Semitism and how. What do you. What's your explanation for the rise of antisemitism on the right?

A (5:23)

Yeah, so it's very complicated. But the short answer is that what is going on is that some of the most popular voices on the right, some of the most influential voices on the right, whether it's a Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, of course, a Nick Fuentes, who, you know, he said words like I love Hitler or you know, equivalent, that you're seeing a explosive growth of antisemitism. You're seeing it in some of the biggest voices. And then you're beginning to see that people are sort of glomming onto this. And as they glom onto it, they get bigger and they have more of a voice. In other words, once you join the wave of antisemitism, your voice doesn't diminish, it expands, it grows. Okay, so that's what we're seeing on the right. So we've got some of the biggest voices now. There are a lot of people who push back on them. But here's the interesting thing. A lot of the people who push back on them sometimes see their audience shrink. They lose subscribers, they lose people. And so you have this phenomenon where, you know, for example, a Megyn Kelly who has essentially, you know, in many ways become kind of like a human weather vane, like, like she. Where, you know, where MAGA winds are blowing, you're going to see Megan really staking out that ground. And one thing that is interesting to me is how reluctant she has been to weigh in and use her voice to, like, clearly condemn a Candace Owens and some others. That. And I think part of the reason is that this is where some of the growth is on the right. This is where you're gaining audience and influence on the right. And sky is coming from a lot of different places. The first thing to understand is that antisemitism and conspiracy thinking just go together. And the reasons are. And they have for a long time. It's like as soon as a community gets conspiratorial, just as soon as they get conspiratorial, it's like, start the clock. Antisemitism is on its way to that end.

B (7:27)

I want to reference something you quote in your piece from Candace Owens where she said, this is a quote, jewish supremacists had everything to do with the Civil War in America and that Jewish people were in control of the slave trade. They've buried a lot of it, but it's There and you can find it. That's her quote. So this isn't like they're. It's a recent conspiracy theory around Jews are doing this or the other. She's citing the civil war was caught and slavery itself by the Jews.

A (7:52)

Yeah, I mean, that's what we're dealing with. So a lot of this is. And you know, you talk to people like Yair Rosenberg over it and at the Atlantic and he has a sort of a much richer explanation than this. He's been a student of antisemitism for a while. But like there is some bottom line stuff here about just the rise of conspiracy thinking means a rise in antisemitism. And one of the things you see from both the far left and the far right in this country is an enormous amount of conspiracism, just a huge amount. So that's no surprise. The other thing that you're seeing that's on the right but not on the left is sort of the rise of a sort of hyper traditionalist fundamentalist Catholicism and Protestantism. That is so for example, on the Catholic side that rejects Vatican ii like Vatican ii, that's when the church went wrong and really wants pre Vatican II Catholicism. And then you really have some of the folks in Protestant world and who are very dedicated to Christian nationalism. They don't have much patience for the existence of a Jewish state unless the Jewish state is ethnically Jewish and theologically Christian. Right. They don't necessarily. And they have a very sharp view. And both of these views have a sort of a similar theological background and sort of a similar theological approach. And it's basically summed up as step one. When Jesus came, the special relationship between God and the Jewish people was severed. It's over. The purpose of the Jewish people to bring the Messiah to be the people who ushers in the Messiah is over. It's done. Now you're just any but like anybody else. And the chosen people, the chosen people are Christians. And then you add on to that that they really just twist biblical verses about the crucifixion to say not only did the Jews have they been cut off from the tree of life, they have. They killed Jesus. So they're the people who killed Jesus. They're cut off from God's grace. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out sort of how Christian attitudes harden against Jewish people when they've been cut off from the tree of life. They killed Jesus. And this is where you get a lot of that pre Vatican II Catholic antisemitism that was the scourge, this scourge of Jewish people in Europe for years and years and years.

B (10:22)

So the arguments you just articulated there are not, they're not new. They existed in medieval Europe predominantly and were. We have quotes of Martin Luther, the Protestant reformer.

A (10:37)

Awful things, right?

B (10:38)

Some of that same logic. So when you hear people parroting those ideas today, they're not getting that from Scripture, obviously, and they're not getting it from what I would argue are renowned or credible theologians. They're getting it from medieval stereotypes of antisemitism and Jewishness from Europe, but for whatever reason, civilizational reasons, Christian ideals of what the west should be like, they're just parroting all of those things. The question I have, there's multiple questions I want to go into here, but. But one is there has been a form of antisemitism on the left for some time, in part because the left did not like the United States international support for the state of Israel.

A (11:23)

Right.

B (11:25)

But at least in my lifetime, the conservative end of the political spectrum in the United States tended to be very pro Israel and would not tolerate anti Semitic ideas, at least not in the spotlight, maybe on the fringes. It existed. It's always been there, but it hasn't been. You just mentioned how different voices are spewing this stuff and are being rewarded for it on the right. It's far from being shut down or a blemish on someone's record. They are gaining followers and I assume revenue from using. What do you attribute that to shift to?

A (12:04)

Well, I think it is the relentless momentum, whether it's explicit or implicit, of no enemies to the right. So if you, you've had a culture for a long time that it is totally acceptable to critique a member of the Republican Party, the conservative legal movement or whatever from the right. And so a critique from the right stings. It's the thing you have to worry about. Just like if you were on the left side of the spectrum, let's say you're a university professor, if you're getting critiqued by the TPUSA chapter on campus, well, it could be really bad from people off campus piling onto you, but you're going to get a lot of support rallying on campus. But if you critique, say, Students for Justice for Palestine on campus and you're a solid like left liberal person, you're going to get a lot of blowback from your friends, quote, unquote. And so there's been a culture on the right for 10 plus years, probably longer than that, which is criticisms from the right are valid and criticisms from the right must be taken seriously. Criticisms from the left are wokeness. And so what happens is you have a one way ratchet that radicalizes. And so if you accept a criticism from the left of you, even if you're like a hardcore, like 99% right winger, if, if that 1% gets to you, then it's like, what happened to Sky? What happened to David? I mean, he's paying attention to the progressive gaze, right? But then if you're getting stuff from the right, it's like you got to answer that, you got to deal with that. And so it has this relentless pull towards the radicalization. Then it also has a relentless pull towards conspiracies. Because one of the top ways to find yourself crosswise with the maga, right, and sort of the core MAGA movement is if you debunk a conspiracy theory or two. It's very hard to be in really good standing with MAGA and say, yeah, the 2020 election was totally was free and fair, right? There are kind of a series of conspiracies and a kind of outlook in a worldview that's like the ticket of entry into true maga. And again, once you cross that threshold, once you start walking down the conspiracy path, antisemitism is just waiting for you with open arms. Because it's the turnkey conspiracy. It can always be the Jews. Right? And so that means that I think the actually difficult thing, the actually really serious problem that you have is that all these people standing up to take on the new right wing conspiracy theories are also being labeled as rhinos, as boomers, whatever you want to, whatever you want to call it, that's what they're being labeled as. Yeah. Okay.

B (15:01)

So most people know that there have always been fringe groups on the far, far right that were anti Semitic, the kkk, neo Nazis, those kinds of the. The folks marching in Charlotte with the tiki torches saying the Jews will not replace us. Those folks have always existed on the far right. But what's changed is it's no longer okay to call those people fringe loons, racist. Like, you can't critique them. And so their messaging seems to be coming in more and more and more to like the normal.

A (15:35)

Right?

B (15:36)

So you do get people like Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly and others who are, if not platforming neo Nazis and antisemites, are parroting some of their conspiracy theories. That's what's so weird here. It's not that this is new, it's that it's become acceptable and even applauded. And I think your theory is correct, that the no enemies to the right idea and you just keep getting more and more extreme because of the algorithms and everything else that gets rewarded these days is really bizarre. Okay, here's the pivot that I want us to really explore. And your piece does this as well. What is the link between antisemitism and anti Zionism? Because I've had numerous conversations with different guests on ever since October 7th and the attacks that started the war in Gaza. And I've been to Israel since the war started, and I've talked to people on all sides. And there is this weird thing that happens when in some settings, if you express any criticism of the state of Israel or the Netanyahu government or the tactics that they're using in Gaza, or if you question some of the parameters of the modern state of Israel, you are accused of being anti Semitic, that these things are synonymous. So what's going on there? And how do we differentiate between the two things?

A (17:01)

So the first thing you have to realize is there's absolute loons on each end of the spectrum. Just loons when it comes to this issue. I will never forget talking to someone not long ago who said there are only a few areas where if you write about it, you can expect to see and get commentary from people that you feel like what is happening, what planet are they writing from? Because this is so radical, this is so extreme and. And it's not just radical and extreme, Sky. It's radical and extreme and confident. My mind is untroubled by the doubt of the righteousness of my opinion. And that's in this world. So there are people that, unless you will say Israel committed genocide, they will believe you're a genocide apologist. Like that you are evil to the core. You shouldn't be able to speak. And then there are people who, if you criticize anything that Israel does well, then at the very minimum, you're contributing to antisemitism at the maximum. You're an anti Semite yourself. So I wrote a piece. I have been long a supporter of Israel and I represented the interest of the government of Israel. And I was part of a legal team that was representing the interests of the government of Israel in proceedings at the International criminal court after the 08 Gaza war. So I'm very familiar with these issues. I have looked at IDF tactics. I understand IDF tactics. I'm a JAG officer, I understand American tactics. And I wrote a couple of pieces, including one where I said the Cutoff of aid is full is wrong. And the cabining of aid into particularly dangerous areas where it's very difficult for people to get to is full on wrong. And in spite of all that that I had done, Sky, I was accused of blood libel. A blood libel. Like, Come on. So the first thing you have to do, if you're going to talk about Israel and Palestine in any way that is intelligent, meaningful, reasonable, you have to learn to screen out the edges. You just have to. It's so hard not. It's so hard to. Because they're so loud and they're so insistent and they're so strident. And so how do you talk about this while screening out the edges? The people who believe that Israel has absolutely no legitimate right to exist versus the people who think that Israel not only has a right to exist, but it has a right to all of the territory, say, and they'll have different biblical time periods. Right. They'll. They'll look at the west bank and they'll say they're entitled to. They don't call it the west bank, they call it Judea and Samaria.

B (19:34)

Did you see Tucker Carlson's recent interview with Mike Huckabee?

A (19:36)

Yeah. Yeah. Gosh, I hate neither one. Neither one covered themselves in glory.

B (19:42)

No. And I, and I really don't like Tucker Carlson, but I, I had to give it to him. He held Huckabee's feet to the fire and showed the inconsistencies of his own position, which was pretty illuminating.

A (19:54)

Well, you know, Huckabee seemed to embrace a maximalist view of Israeli domination of the Middle east, which I've never even heard any Israeli leader articulate.

B (20:06)

We can get into that in a minute. But okay, before we go further on this, so you say something in your article which I want to wholeheartedly agree with, and it's avoiding those two extremes that you're talking about. You wrote this. Any form of advocacy for Israel that treats Palestinians as any less deserving of safety and security than Israelis isn't just unchristian, it's anti Christian. It directly contradicts the teachings of scripture which place Jews and Gentiles in a position of equality. Okay, Wholeheartedly agree. Amen. Full stop. Later in the article you go on to talk about, you self identify as a Christian Zionist. And that term is triggering for a lot of people for different reasons. So some people would argue that calling yourself a Christian Zionist and saying what you just said here that I quoted, those are incompatible with each other. So how do you define Christian Zionism that that makes you comfortable identifying yourself with that term.

A (21:11)

It is the defense of the existence of Israel as a, as a Jewish state, not through the use of prophecy, but through the use of Christian ethics and morality. Okay, So I distinguish that from some of the extreme version of Christian Zionism, which is essentially the belief that the modern nation state of Israel is the heir to the biblical nation of Israel. And that has been this particular iteration of the nation state of Israel has been prophesied. It is part of God's plan, often part of God's plan, sort of towards the unfolding of the end times and I think debates about what is the role of the modern state, nation, state of Israel in biblical prophecy. I find that debate interesting. I also find it irrelevant to what national policy should be and actually how the Christian church should truly interact with Israel.

B (22:06)

Okay, hold on, let me pause you there for a second. If I hear what you're saying, your definition of Christian Zionism is as a Christian rooted in Christian ethics and Christian teachings, you believe in the right of the state of Israel to exist.

A (22:19)

Yes.

B (22:19)

Do you acknowledge though that that's not how most people define Christian Zionism?

A (22:24)

I acknowledge that most people don't have a definition of Christian Zionism, that it is one of the most contentious terms you can possibly imagine.

B (22:36)

Yeah.

A (22:36)

And I would say that there are a lot of people who have a very prophecy driven version of Christian Zionism and there are a lot of people who do not. That's the way I would say it.

B (22:51)

When I first read your piece and got to that part of it, I kind of went, I'm not sure I'm with you here, David, because it's a little bit. This isn't exactly the same, but it's a little bit like saying, well, I'm a Christian and I'm a patriotic American, so that makes me a Christian nationalist. I'm like, I've heard other politicians have made that argument, like Lauren Boebert made that argument. And she has obviously not ident. She doesn't understand the difference between patriotism and nationalism. But a lot of people are framing the phrase of Christian nationalism as just means I'm a Christian who's patriotic and loves my nation. That's not what Christian nationalism actually means, at least in its historic use. Christian Zionism for the most part is largely equated with a dispensationalist view of the modern state of Israel as it fits into a certain theological framework and interpretation of prophecy.

A (23:45)

I mean, certainly not in the Catholic context.

B (23:49)

Yeah, perhaps not, but in the way it dominates American. Yeah, Protestantism, that's usually. I mean, Mike Huckabee would be a Christian Zionist and he would root it deeply in his reading of Genesis 15 and prophecies and things like that. So that's what caught me by surprise is I also believe the state of Israel has a right to exist. I also think I'm approaching both Israelis and Palestinians through an ethic set by Jesus and human dignity and equal rights, things like that. But I am very hesitant to call myself a Christian Zionist because of the way that term is often heard and assumed to be equated with. I think the modern state of Israel has God's ordained blessing to do what they want because they have a right to this land. Going back to Genesis, I don't agree with that theological framework. So I just. I understand rooting your view in Christian ethics, as all Christians should. The difference is most Christian Zionists, I think, root it in more than Christian ethics. They root it in Christian theology and a particular kind of Christian theology.

A (24:54)

Yeah. Also, there's another element of this, because so much Christian antisemitism, there's been so much Christian antisemitism, There is a need for a specifically Christian response to Christian antisemitism. And so part of the problem I have is that I don't consent to other people's definitions of things. Okay? So if, if, if you're going to be. If you're going to talk about conservatism, for example, I do not consent to MAGA's definition of conservatism. Okay. If you're going to talk about Christian Zionism, I do not consent to my Kakabi's definition of Christian Zionism. Because the fact of the matters guy, and this is something that I think evangelicals forget all the time, is evangelicalism is really one channel of Christianity. It is in one channel that's not even the biggest channel. It's a one channel of Christianity. And we get often so parochial and myopic as if the arguments that we have with each other as evangelicals are the Christian arguments. Right. That. I object to that, and I object to that more and more and more every year, that a lot of the arguments that you have in evangelicalism are actually like, in some ways, given the numbers of people involved and given the sort of the strange offshoots and different sects in evangelicalism, often it's like, reminds me more of a debate in a dorm room over obscure theological points than it reminds me of a debate in, like, an actual classroom, say, where you're actually having to defend a position against its most rigorous opposition. And one of the problems that I have is we have an evangelical world that is often quite cloistered, only listens to each other. And it has powerful elements that have bought into this sort of, you know, divine that. This idea that the modern nation state of Israel has been established by God. It is absolutely providential, no question about it. And we're going to be enemies of God if we disagree with the Netanyahu. Netanyahu administration. It, you know, at some point it just gets absurd. Right. And so what I'm trying to do is articulate a vision of this that is rooted in my Christianity, that responds to Christian heresy, I think, and Christian bigotry in explicitly Christian terms. Right. Because.

B (27:21)

Yeah, I agree with you on that. Here's my question. Does a Christian response to antisemitism have to be Zionism?

A (27:33)

I find it very difficult. I find the argument against the idea of a Israel as a Jewish state. I find that argument, I understand it in the abstract. The problem I have is in the concrete. So there are a lot of people who support a Palestinian state and they do not support Israel as a Jewish state.

B (28:01)

Well, there are some. I mean, the official position of the United States is still a two state solution. A Palestinian state and a Jewish state.

A (28:07)

Correct.

B (28:08)

But the way I have generally understood, I mean, there's a lot of variation within the term Zionism. Clearly. Tom Friedman has written a lot about this over these years, a colleague at the New York Times, and he talks about three incompatible desires that Zionists want. And his argument is you can have any two of the three, but it's

A (28:28)

hard to have all three.

B (28:30)

And the three elements are a Jewish state that occupies all the land, that is a democracy. He says, you can have a democracy, that's all the land, but it's not Jewish. You can have a Jewish state that's a democracy, but it's not going to get all the land. Or you can get a democracy with all. I forget how that all goes. But some Zionists are arguing modern state of Israel should have all that land from the river to the sea kind of idea. It should be a Jewish state and a democracy. And he keeps arguing, you can't have all three of these. But that seems to be what some Zionism, or the most strident form of Zionism is arguing.

A (29:07)

Extremists. Yes, yes, extremists want that. No question.

B (29:11)

So can you have to be a Zionist and say, no, the state of Israel should be a pluralistic culture that Includes people, people who aren't Jewish.

A (29:18)

Well, you can be a Zionist and say, because the modern state of Israel is a pluralistic culture that includes people who are not Jewish, it just has a very large Jewish majority. And so which is probably going to continue for the next hundred, five hundred years unless Israel conquers the west bank and assimilates it and does what the maximal Zionists want to do. In which case then all of a sudden you have something much more like an apartheid state which, where you would have a Jewish minority or a 5050 that has engaged in wars of conquest to assimilate within the borders. A whole bunch of people that if everyone was granted equal rights, it wouldn't be a Jewish state anymore. Like, think about it like this. Think about if I'm supporter of Kurdish autonomy and independence, which I am. So you have a concrete geographic region that is disproportionately inhabited by an enormous number, a disproportionately high number of Kurdish citizens. They grant civil rights to non Kurdish citizens. But definitely because of the geography, it's a majority Kurdish. So I feel like I could say because of the historical oppression of Kurds and because Kurds have been singled out for being Kurds, for oppression, that one of the absolute best ways to preserve a people from domination, oppression is through the means of a nation state. And so would somebody say that I am therefore for apartheid Kurdistan? No. But if Kurdistan decided that it's going to invade all of Iraq and rule the Shia and Sunni Arab population as Kurdistan, that's a problem. Similarly, if you had a Palestinian state and it's a Palestinian state, but then it tried to conquer Israel as a Palestinian state, you've got a problem.

B (31:04)

Yeah, well, we're not going to solve the Israeli Palestinian conflict, obviously in this conversation, but some would argue, depending on what point in the last hundred years you want to look at, it hasn't been a Jewish majority state. There were equal if not more Palestinians on that piece of land for a lot of the last century until they were removed or forced into exile or as refugees. It goes on and on and on. So your analogy doesn't quite work because I would agree. If you have a designated set of land where 80% of the people are all ethnically the same and there's a minority group there that's given equal rights, of course, that could be Kurdistan, that could be Israel. That could be what?

A (31:42)

Whatever.

B (31:42)

That's not the situation in this geographic space that we are talking about. It's not as clearly evident that Jews are overwhelmingly the majority on that piece of land, which is where all the conflict comes from. And so that's the hard part, the

A (31:59)

bottom line, the problem is you also have overlaying this, the Holocaust, sure, But

B (32:05)

that gets you, that gets back to my point. If you want to rewind history to 1945 or 1920, the question is, is the only solution to antisemitism, Zionism or Zionism as defined by the most radical proponents of.

A (32:23)

Obviously defined by the most radical proponents is absurd, right? They're loons. They're loons, okay? But how many years of history of vicious, violent, genocidal persecution do you need to have before you can say that? You know, perhaps the only way this people can live in some degree of security and peace is if they have their own state. And you know, if you go back to the partition in 1947, you know, you had, if you look at that map, it was divided up into majority Palestinian areas and majority Jewish areas. It was kind of a patchwork quilt. But in both of those areas there was a majority Palestinian community and a majority Jewish community. And the Jewish state said yes to that. The Palestinian and all their Arab states said no to that. And once you do that and you launch offensive warfare, then the problem that you have is you might lose that war. You might lose that war. And when you lose that war, you don't get to just go, oh, our bad, our bad, we tried to exterminate you. Now we all go to status quo antebellum. That. So at some point, my point on this with, because people absolutely got upset about this piece about it being a Jewish state. And I would respond, I'd say, do you have the same feeling about Kurdistan? Do you have the same feeling about the Czech Republic, Slovakia?

B (33:50)

I mean, and this is a part of your article that I think needs to be highlighted because it shows your consistency. You wrote this as an extension of this commitment. No group of people should be subjected to abuse or persecution, much less genocide. You go on, in this formulation, a so called Christian Zionist would also probably be a Christian Kurdists. Not a phrase you hear every day or have a Christian commitment to Palestinian statehood. So you're saying that the persecution or genocide against Palestinians is equally abhorrent to the Christian mind and we ought to advocate for their peaceful existence on an autonomous self governing state.

A (34:27)

And also there's an element of this, that where there's a Christian bigotry that requires a Christian response and that Christian bigotry is that extreme Zionism that would say drive these Palestinian folks off the land and so, you know, it's, it's interesting. I like the concept of equality, of treating like with like things alike. You know, that's the fundamental concept of equal protection is similarly situated. People should be treated similarly. And so if you have a geographically compact area that is the home of a deeply persecuted minority that has not been able to find security under the umbrella of safety of anybody else, and in fact all of history is contradicting that, that's maybe even possible. And it's so sad to see the rise of antisemitism here in the United States, which has previously been like a real home for Jewish people. So what do you do with that? And it's very interesting to me, and this is where antisemitism converges with anti Zionism. I know lots of people who would very happy to see Kurdistan Independent. I know lots of people who would be very happy to see a Palestinian state created out of the west bank and Gaza Strip as a Kurdish state, as a Palestinian state, but then are absolutely revolted at the idea of Israel as a Jewish state. So then again, one of the issues with antisemitism is that you treat Jews differently and worse than other people groups. And so if you have an analysis of people groups and sovereignty and ethnicities and nations, and you're willing to grant sovereignty and nation state status to persecuted people groups, but not to Jews, but not to Jews, then my eyebrow's gonna raise. Yeah, my eyebrow's gonna raise.

B (36:20)

Like I said earlier, I also support the right of the State of Israel to exist. I think the moment we are in, and I think this Tucker Carlson interview with Mike Huckabee, who's the current Ambassador of the United States to Israel, highlights is our foreign policy and our current government is aligned with some of the most extremist ideas of what Zionism means. And it's often at the expense and turning a blind eye to the abuses of the Netanyahu government towards Palestinians, towards people in the west bank, towards Gazans. That's what makes it hard in this moment because there isn't a strong advocacy in the United States government right now for the rights of Palestinians. At the same time, whenever I bring up this topic in various settings and sound like I am advocating for the equal rights of Palestinians or some critique of the Israeli government, what sometimes gets thrown at me is, well, you're being anti Semitic, which is insane because I don't think criticism of the state of Israel means you don't believe in the equal dignity and human rights of Jewish people anywhere. So that's we just. The rhetoric has gotten so bizarre in this current setting that I wish we could hold these things together. And it's one of the reasons I stay away from the language of Christian Zionism because it's such a loaded, triggering term that doesn't help the conversation move along well.

A (37:41)

So that's the difference between you and I, Sky. If there's a term being fought over, I run to the battle like a moth heading towards flame. And I'm like, we gotta define this thing. And, you know, I think you might have some pretty prudent like this. This term is getting corrupted, and maybe it's not very useful.

B (38:00)

I would argue the term is corrupted. You're trying to redeem it, which. Okay, but I would rather fight a different battle.

A (38:07)

But, you know, the bottom line is the definition of Zionism is supporting the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. That is what Zionism is. And what I'm saying is it is absolutely. That is an absolutely. That Zionism, not support for Netanyahu, not support for the various Israeli tactics in Gaza. We have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. And when somebody jumps at me for saying I'm a Christian Zionist because of anything that Netanyahu did, I said, I'm not aware of a definition, any credible definition of Christian Zionism that includes supporting Benjamin Netanyahu any more than I'm aware of any definition of patriotism, of American patriotism that requires me to support Donald Trump. No. Now there are radicals. I mean, you and I have seen them all the time that will say, we don't support Donald Trump. So we're not patriots and we're not even Christian.

B (39:05)

Yeah. I think I have no problem with someone saying, as a Christian, rooted in the ethics of Jesus, I'm a Zionist. But the moment you say I'm a Christian Zionist, it brings all of these theological. All this baggage about Genesis 15, and we can't do anything that would be against the government of Israel because then America won't be blessed. And all the rights of the. It goes on and on and on with this bizarre theology. And that's where I'm like, that is not a helpful conversation. And the assumptions that it carries are. And I hear you saying that that's a narrow view that captures a lot of American evangelicalism. But it's not the broader understanding of Christian Zionism. It is the operational one in this government today.

A (39:52)

Except that this government isn't exactly that. It's very divided. So one of the things about this government is that it has actually coerced Israel into some agreements that if Biden had done it, then there would be anger at Biden. Sure.

B (40:08)

I mean, even the ceasefire that Trump was able to accomplish would never have happened under Biden, probably.

A (40:13)

And some of what we're seeing that we're treating as support for Israel is actually support for the United Arab Emirates and other people who have been lining Trump's pockets and this Trump coalition. I don't think people realize how much antisemitism is in it. There's an enormous amount, including within the government. And so this is why this battle is so intense is that when you had Tucker and you had Huckabee. Yeah, Huckabee is the ambassador. But does Tucker have supporters and friends up and down the Trump administration? You better believe it. And so I think the actual reality is a lot more complicated. I think the actual reality is you have an older generation of Republicans who are very much. They're the ones who are most influenced by what you might call that extreme Christian Zionism. And then you have the younger generation of Republicans that is really shot through with antisemitism. And all of the momentum right now is on the side of the younger antisemitic faction. That's where all of this momentum is. And so the ability, it is, I think, very important because they're appealing to Christianity to support their Zionism very explicitly. And so the answer to them has to be Christian because you're talking to communities that are believe. If one side is making a Christian argument and they're Christians and the other side is not making a Christian argument, the side making the Christian argument tends to win. And so what I'm. I mean, two Christians, obviously. And so what I'm saying is there a Christian argument against the pre Vatican II Catholic anti Semites, and there's a Christian argument against the like we'll call them Huckabee. And I don't know how radical he is as practically as a matter of his policies, but he seems pretty radical. So you have to have a Christian arguments against Huckabee, Huckabee ism. And you have to have a Christian argument against pre Vatican II ism or you're not reaching Christians. And so I think that that's a very important part of this very important component of all of this.

B (42:25)

I don't disagree with any of that. I do think having engaged with quite a few Palestinian Christians, both here in the United States and in Palestine, the label of Christian Zionist is not going to get you a hearing with that community for sure. It's a huge barrier. So I am all for Christian arguments. Absolutely. Everywhere we go, we should be advocating from a Christian, explicitly Christian point of view for equal rights, human dignity, safety and security, self determination, all these different things for all kinds of different people. But we need to be shrewd about the way we do that and sensitive to the way history has defined terms that can open doors or close them. So. Okay, before we wrap up, I want to briefly talk about another piece you wrote this month about a movie that you said broke your heart. And I'll confess up front, it's a movie I have not seen. It's not a movie I had planned

A (43:21)

to see, but after reading it, me neither.

B (43:23)

I know you say that up front. So tell us about the Testament of Ann Lee. What is it and why did it strike you so deeply?

A (43:32)

Okay, so the movie is about Ann Lee, who is. Well, that's a news flash. Testament of Ann Lee. Sky. It's about Ann Lee, not Ang Lee. Ann Lee, not Ang Lee. Ann Lee. Ann Lee is the founder of the Shakers, the Shaker movement, also known as Shaking Quakers, although it's less clear that they were actually an outgrowth of the Quakers, as opposed to religious dissidents from various different traditions. But it's the story of her forming the very tiny. And when I say tiny Shaker religious sect, I mean tiny when they formed it. In England, she encountered brutal persecution, just brutal persecution, because remember, England at this time, this is colonial era America has a very robust state church, which she dissented from. So she's brutally persecuted. She's imprisoned in the worst of conditions. At the same time, she has this kind of arranged marriage to a guy who's not, as the movie portrays it, he's not kind to her. The historical record is a little more mixed on that. It's very clear that it was sort of an arranged marriage that she wasn't really into. And then she gives birth to four children in four years who all die. And in the midst of this religious persecution, in the midst of this suffering and trauma, she says she has a revelation from God that the thing that is really keeping the millenarian church from purity and righteousness is sex. And when I say sex, Guy, I mean all of it, right? Total celibacy, premarital. Total celibacy. Total celibacy.

B (45:04)

I mean, I haven't studied this, but when I hear her story, being in a marriage, she didn't really want to be in losing four children sequentially. I mean, if I were her, I would be like, yeah, every sex has brought nothing but pain and suffering into my life. It can't be from God. I'm out. Like, it makes sense. There's a logic to it.

A (45:24)

Yeah. She also lived in a part of Manchester, England, that was known for its just absolute depravity. So she's surrounded by sexual depravity. She has experienced kind of arranged marriage. She has lost four children, and she's being brutally persecuted by the Church of England and English authorities. And so she says this is a revelation from God. And about eight or nine people kind of agree with her. Like, this is not the thing that you get out in the streets and you start preaching this sermon that is packing them in. Right?

B (45:56)

No, this is not a church growth strategy, for sure.

A (46:02)

So she says, let's go to America, which is sort of the call and the cry of persecuted people for centuries. And this is the early version of this. Let's go to America. And so she and I think eight others get on a boat and they cross the Atlantic Ocean in extreme hardship, as you did. They arrive in the United States of America. And this is where the movie just was gut punching me again and again. So they come to America for freedom. And what's one of the first things that they see? They see a slave auction, the revolution. They come in the middle of a revolution. What happens to them? Well, revolutionary soldiers, patriots, colonists, want to know where they stand. And these are shakers who are pacifists. So they're not just celibate, they're also pacifists. They also were very egalitarian. So she was a female preacher. She was the leader of the sect. They would welcome people who are women, who are black, who are white, who are Native American. It was very egalitarian. So that raised a lot of hackles back in that day. So she's seized by colonial authorities for not swearing allegiance to the colonial cause. And then later, after an underappreciated figure in American history, New York Governor George Clinton, who is also a leading anti federalist, intervenes to say, what are we doing? We don't imprison people for rights of conscience. She's let out and then she's beaten by her own neighbors and beaten by other communities to the point where it essentially kills her. When she was reinterred in 1820, they found a skull fracture. That's how badly she'd been beaten. But the movie is so powerful because at the very end of it, so you see this woman who's coming to America out of hope, and yet, yeah, she's able to establish a community, but she's also viciously persecuted. Both of these things are happening at once. And then in this super powerful moment, one of the women comes up to her and gives her the news that Washington has surrendered to Cornwallis. And she kind of surrenders.

B (48:04)

Cornwallis has surrendered to Washington.

A (48:05)

I mean, Cornwallis. That's a historical revisionism, right? Cornwallis has surrendered to Washington. And she, like, falls on her knees in gratitude because of the hope of liberty to come. And then there's this beautiful scene at the very end that just tears. Boom. Just exploded for me is her plain pine casket is underneath this beautiful painting of a tree. And why would that matter? Because, remember, we just referenced Washington. And what was Washington's favorite Bible verse, the one that he wrote 50 times to people, including to the Hebrew congregation of Rhode island, talking about accepting religious liberty? It was Micah 4. 4. Yeah.

B (48:47)

And it's in his farewell address, famously.

A (48:50)

It's in, yes, every man shall live under his own vine, in his own fig tree, and no one shall make him afraid. And it just struck me to see a casket under the tree. And it was such a powerful vision of the hope of the American experiment with the gut punch that the reality is that we don't often. We have failed to live up to it time and time again. And so I saw it as like, you know, for me, it was sort of like this very, you know, emotional moment that was like, how many more caskets will there be under the tree of liberty before we can be who we are supposed to be? And so that's why I love.

B (49:32)

That's why I loved it, especially in this moment. I mean, you wrote this piece earlier in February when the whole country was riveted by what was happening in Minneapolis, and not just the tragic deaths of some of the protesters, but the clearance stoking of violence and animus towards immigrants who, many who entered this country undocumented illegally. I understand there's a lot of controversy about what our national policy should be towards that. But almost universally, these people came, like Amy Lee Ann. Lee Ann Lee, to seek something better for themselves. They were drawn to this country because of its promises and hope. And we can have a much better system that welcomes people and screens people and all that that's clearly needed. But to punish people and dehumanize them for the very promise upon which this country was built seems inconsistent. And this story from 200 years or 250 years ago captures that very live debate right now. So I was touched by your article, even Though I haven't seen the movie yet.

A (50:45)

I mean, it's so touching. Sky. Because it really, you know, I used in the article the phrase already and not yet, which, you know, I'm sure you've heard that in the evangelical world, like, there's the already Christ did come. You know, he's already defeated death and hell, but not yet. Like, there isn't the second coming. There isn't the establishment of Christ's kingdom. You know, this is. We live in that already and not yet. In many ways, we do. As a country, we have already sort of staked out a lot of ground around concepts of liberty and pluralism and democracy and rule of law, and yet we still, 250 years later, fall short of our own aspirational goals. And I just thought it was a beautiful movie illustrating that on both ends.

B (51:32)

It does seem kind of ironic, and we've talked about this in the past, that at least again, in my lifetime, the political right side of the spectrum has tended to be the more libertarian side, the one that says, we want limited government, don't tread on me deregulation. Uncle Sam shouldn't be sticking his nose into all of our private affairs and business and on and on and on. And yet that would be sort of the let each person live in peace under their own fig tree and not worry about being interfered with. And kind of that frontier mentality of go west, young man, and be independent. That's been more the ethos on the political right. And yet today, the political right is marked by things like Christian nationalism, which is an illiberal vision that says we want to impose upon everyone else what we think is right and not let people live in peace based on their own values, religions, or convictions. How did we get to that point?

A (52:27)

You know, it is a great, great, great question because, you know, the political right also claims to, like, sort of speak for the founders, right? But if you look at the founders at their best, when they were saying what they wanted for this country, what they aspired to, and again, I'll say it, you know, they didn't live up to it, as I wrote in the piece, like Washington, who was so wonderfully dedicated to that vine and fig tree verse, his slaves were. He did not designate to free his slaves until his wife died. That was his intention. So we're talking about very imperfect people. But when they were talking about what they imagined. I want to read for you a very short part of Madison's memorial and remonstrance against religious assessments. This was the very famous letter that he wrote against a sort of religious assessment for the support of particular churches in Virginia. And he says this because the proposed establishment is a departure from that generous policy which offering a an asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every nation and religious religion promised a luster to our country and an accession to the number of its citizens that that'll preach. Sky like this is founding vision. We're a beacon of liberty and hope. I was talking to. I had the occasion to speak to David Blight, who's a Yale historian and one of the foremost historians of Frederick Douglass and sort of that Civil War period. And we were reflecting on the declaration at 250 and he was talking about how much the Declaration was supposed to be a beacon. This was supposed to be something that would attract people to us. And so right now there is an irreconcilable tension in the heart of the Republican Party that I think is the vestige of the GOP that you and I have talked about combined with MAGA means that you have this devotion to the Founders but a total contradiction to their ethos in the same movement. And that will not last. One or the other is going to have to win out totally.

B (54:36)

Madison's quote reminds me of one from George Washington. I cited this numerous places, but I gave a message earlier, late 2025 when I was out in California about Christian nationalism called Malice toward None and I quoted Washington this one. I've used this so many times because I think it's so relevant to our current circumstances. He said this. The bosom of America is open to receive not only the opulent and respectable stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all nations and religions whom we shall welcome to a participation of all of our rights and privileges. So the idea that America was always supposed to be a Christian only nation and not welcome people who are Jews or Muslims or, you know, name what your religious background. It's demonstrably untrue whether you quote Madison or Washington. That founding generation had this vision of Jefferson. Jefferson, right.

A (55:28)

Yeah.

B (55:29)

So to turn your back on that and say, no, no, no, no, no, we're a Christian nation and you maybe will tolerate your presence here, but you don't get all the same rights and privileges if you're not a Christian. That is antithetical to everything the founders believed in and what the founding documents articulate so totally.

A (55:47)

Yeah.

B (55:47)

I find the inconsistency on the right crazy that they're the same ones that want to hold up pictures of Jesus handing the Constitution to the Founders and celebrate America as This God ordained nation at its founding and then turn their back on the very founding principles of the nation they say God founded. It doesn't make any sense.

A (56:05)

Do you know what hurt me recently, Sky? It just really hit me. And I think part of that there are several things that are. We're living in a very difficult time. And so a lot of things will kind of unsurprisingly, like, hit you in an emotional way when you're going through, like a nation's going through a difficult time. And I'm sure that a lot of the listeners feel the same way. They'll be kind of shocked by their emotion in a moment because this is a hard time. And I was watching the Apple TV show Tehran. Do you watch that?

B (56:34)

I haven't seen it. No.

A (56:36)

So good. So good. If you like spy thrillers. So good.

B (56:40)

We watched the first season of the Night. Manager.

A (56:43)

Manager.

B (56:43)

Yeah.

A (56:45)

Come on, Sky.

B (56:46)

I haven't seen Join the club. I know I'm late to the game.

A (56:49)

So good.

B (56:49)

All right, Tehran. I'll play this too.

A (56:51)

No, no, I don't. I'm not. I'm not somebody who scolds you for being late. I'm like, come here, big guy. You're part of the club now.

B (56:57)

Have you seen season two yet?

A (56:59)

Yeah, it's seen it all.

B (57:00)

All right. Should I watch season two? Is it worth it?

A (57:03)

100%. Yeah. So anyway, this woman is. She's Iranian and she's wanting to flee Iran, and she's horribly oppressed, as so many Iranian women are, and they ask her, where do you want to go? And I was hoping it would say America. Like, that's what I was hoping. And instead, she doesn't know. And for some reason, that hit me like, that hit me because it is so, so contradictory to everything I grew up with as a kid of the Cold War. Like, you would want to hear somebody who's in Poland or Romania or the Soviet Union or in China. You want to leave, you want to be free, you want to have feel safety and security. Where would you want to go? And for generation after generation, there was an answer. Yep, America, as imperfect as we are.

B (57:55)

I'll tell you one story. And then we got to go. My father is an immigrant from India. He grew up in Mumbai. He went to a High School, St. Xavier's Boys Academy, which was run by Jesuits from New York City, across the street from his high school. I visited there. I've been to this location across the street from his high school. In the 1950s and 60s, the United States State Department set up what was called an American Cultural museum. And it was part of their PR efforts against communism in various parts of the world. And my dad would go across the street from his high school and marinate in Christian pop, or not Christian American popular culture. He'd listen to Elvis Presley records and watch American movies. And that's where he fell in love with America and the ideals of America and the freedoms of America and the equality of America. And that's when he decided his goal in life was to leave India and become an American. And he did that.

A (58:47)

He came here. I love it.

B (58:48)

Now fast forward. I was back in Mumbai a number of years ago visiting family and a younger relative who was a high school student was graduating from high school and he was going to go abroad for college. I'm trying to leave some of the details ambiguous here. And I asked him, I said, are you thinking about coming to the United States for college? And he looked at me and he said, no way. And I said, why? And he said, well, it's pretty obvious you don't like brown people there very much and I prefer not to get shot. So he ended up in Australia. And I was just the dramatic change from my father's experience, which was there was no better place to be in all the world than America. To fast forward two generations and another member of the family in India going, I would never want to come to America. And it just shows you how things have changed. And I wonder what kind of brilliance and talent and intelligence and ingenuity and, and entrepreneurship are we losing? Because there's so many people who don't think of America as the shining city on a hill anymore the way Ronald Reagan used to talk about it.

A (59:57)

Yeah.

B (59:57)

And it broke my heart a little

A (59:58)

bit to hear a relative say that it should. It should. Sky, that's a proper reaction. It's tragic. I mean, it's tragic. And it really cuts to the heart of what I've loved about this country my whole life. My whole life. You know, one thing that I loved was when you would have a defector from the Soviet Union or the Eastern Bloc or China or whatever, and they would join the US Olympic team. I saw them as every bit as American as the people who were born

B (60:32)

here weren't the, the Olympics were so much better during the Cold War, let's be honest.

A (60:36)

Yeah, there was so much more fight for. I mean, I still love them. I still love them, but. Yeah.

B (60:43)

All right, David, thank you for coming back and for the excellent articles and thought provoking ideas and hopefully if People don't want to see the. What was it? The testimony of Ann Lee, then go watch Tehran or the Night Manager, something

A (60:59)

else, maybe something with very different. And I will warn you, the testimony of Ann Lee or the testament of Ann Lee, it shows ecstatic worship in a very sympathetic way. And that's something that is very interesting.

B (61:15)

Why are you warning.

A (61:16)

Rarely seen that.

B (61:16)

What's the warning about?

A (61:18)

Because it's ecstatic worship. Like, a lot of people will look at that and they'll be like, that's not like what I do at church. That's weird. But it's very historically, it's based in Shaker dances, Shaker movement. Stylized a bit more, but very historically based. But also it. It does show in this really powerful way the ecstasy of forgiveness, of confession and forgiveness. And it's beautiful. It's beautiful. So. But it's also not what happens in your normal day in the pews. So that's why I'm saying that it's not mocking Shakerism, it's showing Shakerism. And so it's very interesting.

B (61:58)

They're called Shakers for a reason.

A (62:00)

Yeah, that's true.

B (62:01)

All right, David. Hopefully we'll catch up next month. French Friday is a production of Holy Post Media, featuring David French and me, Sky Giottani music and theme song by Phil Vischer. This show is made possible by Holy Post patrons. To find out how you can become a Holy Post patron and to find more common good Christian content, go to holeypost.com.