Is Billy Graham an anti-Semite? Was Richard Nixon? Newly released tapes from the Nixon Library certainly make these fair questions, and not for the first time. But perhaps even more importantly, since Graham is an old man and Nixon is dead, it invites us to ask what those questions really mean and who is best suited to answer them.

From Capitol Hill to Main Street, it's amazing how many people think the fight in Iran is a battle between the forces of freedom and those of religious fundamentalism. And it's amazing how wrong they are to reduce a complex struggle to terms which miss the real issues that are in play and likely to affect us all. Not to mention that nobody really knows what will come out the other end of this ongoing struggle, whichever side emerges victorious.

I am no fan of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and it's pretty certain that when even the Mullahs who back him admit that there were significant "election irregularities", the election was anything but fair and the results are anything but reliable. However, none of that means that the people marching in the streets are necessarily the champions of the kind of democracy that most Americans hold dear.

Members of the National Socialist Movement, a neo-Nazi group, not only participate in the Missouri Department of Transportation's Adopt-a-Highway program, but have named a stretch of the road, which they spend a few hours each month cleaning, in honor of their group. It's not the first time this has been done, either.

In Kentucky, the National Alliance, another hate group adopted a highway and named it after William Pierce, author of the "The Turner Diaries", a perennial favorite among dangerous lunatics including Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh. And in St. Louis, the Ku Klux Klan also adopted a stretch of road. In that case, after losing a court battle to end their sponsorship, the DOT renamed the Klan-adopted road, Rosa Parks Highway.

Now the state is planning to rename the road adopted by the National Socialists in honor of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, the world renowned theologian and civil rights activist. Considering the money saved by the government because of the volunteer efforts of these hate groups, is it really fair to rename the highways they adopt after people whose life work they diametrically oppose? Absolutely, it is. And for the same reason that these organizations have every right to adopt these highways and have their groups acknowledged for so doing.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took a bold step toward peace on Sunday. Speaking at Bar Ilan University's commencement exercises in Tel Aviv, the Israeli PM departed from his past positions and redefined Israel's stance on a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians.

Rising to calls from the Obama administration, the Palestinian Authority and a few members of his own governing coalition, Netanyahu declared that "Israel embraces the idea of a Palestinian state, would not build any new settlements and would refrain from expanding existing Israeli communities in the West Bank."

But it's hard for some people to take yes for an answer.

James W. von Brunn, the man identified as the suspect in Wednesday's shooting at the U.S. Holocaust Museum, apparently isn't just a bitter old white supremacist; he also claims to be a member of Mensa and a decorated veteran who served as a PT boat captain during World War II. These facts, if true, will raise at least two different and equally important issues which should be addressed in the wake of the attack at and upon the United States Holocaust Museum.

First, the identity of the shooter in today's attack will no doubt frustrate the hate-filled and fear-driven voices which have filled the internet this afternoon, voices which were already explaining how we could "know" that this was the work of Muslims. Some went so far as to blame President Obama and his speech in Cairo for inviting such an attack by Muslims empowered to take revenge on America and upon Jews. I wish I was kidding or even exaggerating, but I am not.

The level of rage reflected in these comments is not only offensive, it is dangerous. In fact, without drawing a moral equivalence between the thinking of these commenters and Mr. von Brunn, it is worth noting that they are potentially, at least, just as dangerous.

Second, the facts of von Brunn's life will unsettle all those who blithely assume that ethnic, religious or racial hatred is the domain strictly of stupid or unaccomplished people. While contrary to 50 years ago, the social acceptability of expressing such hatreds tends to limit itself to the lower echelons of society, the challenge is present at all levels of our culture. To be sure, it is nowhere near as common as it once was, but neither is it something to be ignored.

Ultimately though, this seems to be the work of one man, albeit one steeped in a culture of hate and a network of people who shared his hate. What that means is that the attack, as a real threat, should not loom too largely in our consciousness, but addressing the challenges we face when hate defines any part of our community should.

Dr. George Tiller was murdered because he performed abortions. Those who defend such actions justify them by claiming that it is entirely appropriate to kill a person in order to prevent them from killing other people. Unless one is a genuine pacifist, the argument that we kill one murderer to prevent the murder of many innocents is not an unreasonable argument.

But are those who defend such behavior when it comes to doctors who perform abortions correct in their application of that ethical principle? It's important to ask this question, upsetting as it may be, because the fundamental claim (no pun intended) made in defense of Dr. Tiller's murderer claims to follow that logic. If correct, it might justify the actions of Dr, Tiller's accused killer and his defenders.

U.S. Rep. Paul Broun (R-Georgia) is trying to get his so-called Bible bill made into law. And while it's not likely to happen any time soon, it's a wonderful idea...at least in theory. What's wrong with a law which would declare 2010 the "year of the Bible"? Given that we already have days for secretaries, months for reading and have parsed the calendar for just about every other purpose and cause from artichokes to zebras, it's almost silly that we have not already done this.

Would it really be so wrong to honor the most influential book, for better or worse, in America? Comfortable or not with that reality, that is the way it is. And for that reason alone, the year of the Bible should be a good idea.

When my daughter asked me the other night why there were so many helicopters flying over our home, I told her there was probably an accident on the expressway closest to our house. I left out the possibility that they were hovering over a nearby portion of the Hudson River into which someone may have fallen, but that was about as bad a thing as I could imagine.

About an hour later, the local news informed me that terrorists had attempted to blow up two synagogues blocks from my house. And you know what; it's really not that big a deal. At least it's not as big a deal as many bloggers and even more Jewish organizations would have us believe. If anything, this is a story about the efficacy of both local and federal agencies doing their jobs and keeping Americans safe.

Major Muslim organizations and more than few Muslim bloggers are taking the Simon Wiesenthal Center to task for hosting the LA premiere screening of "The Third Jihad". Are they right? Yes and no.

There is no question that it's an incendiary film and to that end it's fair to ask what good comes from screening it. Calling it educational doesn't work because even those parts of the film which are accurate (and there are many more of those than those who object to the film are either willing or able to admit) tend to shed more heat than light on the very real problem of violence and hatred which draw their inspiration from Islam.

But any time an organization as large and influential as the Wiesenthal Center acts, they should consider not only whether or not they have the right to do what they are doing, but also whether or not there is real benefit to their doing it. I am sure that they did ask in this case, but fail to see what value lay in screening a movie which will do nothing more (or less) than stir people's rage without creating any constructive outlet for addressing the problems on which the film focuses.

What did you think of President Obama's commencement speech Sunday at Notre Dame? How will the Notre Dame controversy change the abortion debate in America?

Stealing a page from the Republican play book, President Obama asked us all to "starve the beast" of totalitarian religion without asking us to take all the muscle out of our faith or the conclusions to which it leads us. In doing so, he charted a new course in our national debate about a whole variety of deeply divisive issues in which religion is often central to fueling the divisions.

Precisely because we are not all going to agree any time soon, if ever, on a whole range of divisive issues like abortion, euthanasia, and capital punishment, we need a shared ethic of engagement for the body politic of our nation. That is what the President offered in his remarks at Notre Dame. The fact that he did so on religious terms, the terms so often used to polarize the debate around these issues, is truly inspiring.

NAZARETH -- My cell phone rang at about ten o'clock last night, it was my brother. "So, did you meet him? Did you shake his hand?" And I responded, "Yes, I have met the man in the red Prada loafers." We talked a bit about the meeting in Nazareth to which I had been invited, but as I also explained to my brother, the best part of the meeting was neither hearing the Pope's remarks (pleasant enough remarks about peace and interfaith cooperation) nor even shaking his hand. The best part of the meeting was the chance to look into the eyes of the 82-year-old Pontiff.

I appreciate the shaky track record of looking into a world leader's eyes and getting a sense of who he is, especially after former President Bush's experience with then Russian leader Vladimir Putin. But I also know that after days of swirling controversy in which the Pope's every utterance was placed under a magnifying glass, usually to disparaging effect, the look in Pope Benedict's eyes as he walked from the meeting room, provided a context in which to understand his entire visit. It was a look of true gentleness.