still not so clear cut

Jim Lindgren has updated his original post, "Protestant Denominations and Israel", with a response to my criticism. Basically, Professor Lindgren is probably correct as it applies to the ELCA, but I still disagree with his attempt to make a general rule. Lindgren says, "Hinderaker's point, which seems sound to me, is that one can't possibly discuss the merits, morality, or effects on peace of the fence without addressing why it was built". But of course one can do so. If I think that some action is intrinsically wrong, then I don't need to look at why it was initiated to discuss its merits, morality or other effects. For example, if I think that a death penalty law is intrinsically wrong, then it's irrelevent that it might have been passed as the result of some specific set of horrific murders or other crimes.

Just to be clear, I don't have strong feelings one way or another about Israel's security fence and I think Israel gets more criticism than it deserves and I would prefer that the ELCA keep its mouth shut in general about political issues, especially ones as far removed from Lutheranism as the security fence is.

P.S., like Hinderaker, I, too, am an ELCA Lutheran, in case anyone is wondering.