dig into the essays of Irving Babbitt,nRichard Weaver, T.S. Ehot, and RussellnKirk before presuming to speak forn”conservatism.”nOn the other side, it must be concedednthat the neocons do a muchnmore credible job of analyzing policynissues with the tools of the social sciences.nThey do not disguise their interestnin politics and administration,nand, quite frankly, they have demonstratedntheir aptitude for it—an aspectnof the case brought out well by LeslienLenkowski. What is more, they are notndoing battle with Richard Weaver andnRussell Kirk but with those who quotenWeaver and Kirk, and therein lies annimportant difference. The old rightnhas fallen on evil days. With the exceptionnof senior men like M.E. Bradfordnand George Panichas, there arenfew distinguished scholars or men-oflettersnamong them. It was Paul Gottfriednwho pointed to at least one of thenreasons: bright young conservativesnhave increasingly abandoned the lifenof the mind and turned their attentionnto politics or political journalism. Ifnthey are less successful than thenJohnny-come-latelies, that is a reasonnfor sour grapes, but hardly the sort ofnhigh moral ground that is sometimesnclaimed.nFrom a seat in the audience, itnappeared that the most serious contributionsnto the debate were made bynGottfried, Kristol, and Mrs. Berger, allnof whom—by and large—talkednabout issues rather than labels. It is anconversation that—however disagreeable—oughtnto continue. If conservativesnare really held together by anticommunismnalone, then they may asnwell make common cause withnMuammar Qaddafi, Lyndon La-nRouche, and Meyer Kahane. If therenis no basis for a conservative dialoguen—as some have suggested—then hownshall we explain that the most distinguishednold right social philosopher,nRobert Nisbet, regularly writes fornneoconservative journals? Nisbet’sncombination of high principle, superbnscholarship, and freedom from cant isnan example worth emulating. (TF)nPrayer in a closet may no longer be annoption, at least wherever two or threenare gathered together. A Colorado districtncourt recently fined a ministern$12,500 and ordered him to serve 80nhours of community service for holdingnprayer services and Bible studynclasses in the basement of his home.nMost of the neighbors saw no problem,nbut when a few objected to thenextra cars on the street and to the noisynkids showing up in the neighborhood,na zoning restriction on “religious activity”nwas invoked by the courts. Fornignoring the court’s zoning ruling, thenRev. Richard Blanche has been citednfor contempt of court. Blanche’s lawyerntold Religious Freedom Alert thatnhis client “could have had the samennumber of people over to watch DenvernBronco games on Sundays andnnothing in the code would havenstopped that.”nBut the Alert reports that the ChristiannLegal Society has encounterednsuch zoning problems “all over,” withncases in Florida and New Jersey reachingnthe appellate or state supremencourts. In Rockford, Illinois, the FamilynChristian Fellowship was recentlynfined $1,000 ($500 for the congregation;n$500 for the pastor) for violatingnthe zoning laws by holding services onnproperty that could legally be used fornholding street carnivals but not fornworship. The Rockford zoning ordinancenis so antichurch that liquornstores and junkyards are easier to establishnthan a church. After a long legalnfight, the Family Christian Fellowshipnmay persuade the county board tonchange the zoning code. But the problemnillustrates the meddlesome sillinessnof bureaucratic government at allnlevels: in many cities now you can’tnburn leaves, assemble for prayers, andn—before long—let your cat out fornthe night without a special permit.nThey are so busy coercing, regulating,nand licensing law-abiding citizens, it’snsmall wonder they do so little aboutnorganized crime.nIn the forthcoming issue of Chronicles:nThe Spiral Staircasen”Do Darwinists point to the prime significance of reproductivensuccess? They might quote Genesis: Be fruitfulnand multiply. For the Darwinists’ emphasis on competitionnand strife, we have the entire Old Testament—nbeginning with the story of Cain and Abel—to illustratenthe human propensity for strife. On point after point—nfrom sexual differences to social order—Darwinists (especiallynsociobiologists) have been providing ammunitionnfor the almost-empty cartridge belts of Christian apologetics.nWhile most Darwinists mistakenly regard the Christiannview of man as too static and rigid to have anythingnin common with a science based on evolution, in factnChristianity is a remarkably dynamic faith that has consistentlynheld out the promise of improvement. … Tonput the matter as plainly as I can, an atheist Darwinistnsometimes serves the faith more effectively than a conventionnof deacons or a convocation of bishops (or is that antautology?).”n—from “Journalists and Other Anthropoids”nby Thomas FlemingnALSOnE.O. Wilson examines the fallaciesnof determinismnStanley Jaki traces the horror ofnmodern times back to DarwinnPaul Hollander looks at the continuingnattraction of socialismnnnJULY 1986 / 7n