Interestingly, I’ve never thought about the cross referencing of my arguments because I’ve always assumed this is what a lot of people do (well, more than assume, I copied the style). If people will dismiss the argument (not you, obviously) then I’m inclined not to take such criticisms seriously because the reference is made to arguments elsewhere.

On the issue of religion and capitalism was relevant to the argument because in context it was designed to give a counter example to the idea that Christianity in contrast to Islam is tolerant and modern whereas I wanted to show that the issue was more complicated than this. In one sense I wasn’t having a dig at Reagan and Bush, more that they are representatives of modern capitalism, conservative Christianity, but a Christinity which is not always tolerant and how it is a form of capitalism that is not modern liberalism. I was challenging the constructed difference between ‘us’ and ‘them’ to show how it can break down in practice.

On pre-1967/WWII dispensationalism, I’m not sure why I would cover this – the post-1967 stuff was included to show how it was part of a broader cultural shift and when it really came to cultural prominence. Before that, when it wasn’t so prominent, wasn’t really my concern. The book firmly concerns the past 40 years.

On the loaded language and sarcasm, yes, I won’t deny that! But in many cases when academics are talking about Arabs not suited to democracy or ‘rights’ obsessed with sex and Mediterraneans abusing their own for their own good and other related statements, I can’t say I’d ever be inclined to treat such statements kindly. Now you say that this will polarise people and I think you are probably right but, as you imply, I don’t think a lot of the people I attack will be convinced or ‘converted’ so to speak, at least not explicitly. But, as I emphasise at the end, I would like people to cut out this language and that might happen in the future even if my criticisms are not explicitly taken on.

On the more politically extreme bloggers and wasting of energy, I see where you are coming from but the idea was to show that the problem is not restricted to the extreme but to what we might call the ‘mainstream’ (which was my real interest) and that there are some fundamental agreements between the extreme and mainstream (though to be honest, as I said, I thought Ristau was by far the most politically intelligent even if I thought he was almost always wrong). I’ve argued elsewhere that the extreme can be just as illuminating as the centre and that unbderlies my argument here. In terms of empirical evidence and charts etc, I toyed with the idea but concluded it would be impossible (I wouldn’t know how to categorise them) and ultimately was irrelevant because I could only find very rare exceptions to the propaganda model, not to mention that it was in the writing and discussion where the politicisation really came in.

As fopr the propaganda model, I think it is more helpful than you think because I assume the results there and without those results I would have had to do I don’t know how much extra work on the media and higher education to show cultural trends. What the propaganda model shows, crucially, are broader trends in elite culture which I can then work with. I don’t think much more needed to be said because it is a simplistic (and I mean that in a very positive sense) model which I simply took in a different direction and gave further supportive evidence.

As for my suspicions of ‘committed Christians handling ‘evidence’ for the resurrection of Jesus Christ’ I’m not sure I have an answer. Obviously some will want to find the evidence at all costs but I see no difference in agendas dictating results in committed Christians than I do in anyone else. Maybe you are right on the role of evidence in the debate I did with Craig. I’d add that he may have an agenda but I don’t think I’ve ever come across a conservative Christian so dedicated to discussing every scrap of evidence and detail that might be available.

Yes, I agree with the conclusion on grounding arguments in evidence but I would stress that one of my main aims was more precise: to stop or at least back up some of the bizarre generalisations about Arabs and Jews (among other things). You are right to worry about ‘substantive evidence’ and I would use the phrase in a double edged manner: if someone feels to need to back up, say, loaded generalisations then why feel the need? Also it was a suggestion to certain scholars to look more carefully at just what they are arguing with next to no evidence in support.

And a nicely spotted typo, particularly with all those ‘i’s!

I hope that was sort of coherent.

Thanks again,

James