Reviewing a history of atheism in the 19th-century U.S., titled Village Atheists, alongside a biography of H.L. Mencken—once called “America’s village atheist”—Crawford Gribben addresses the relationship among unbelief, religious enthusiasm, and religious liberty in the United States. While some atheists thought greater tolerance of their unbelief would or should go hand-in-hand with greater tolerance of religious minorities, others did not. Take, for instance, the widely popular anti-religious cartoonist Watson Heston:

Heston was well aware that some of the faithful shared his concerns about the nation’s dominant religious culture. After all, Adventists, Mormons, and Jews were also shut out of full civic participation. However, his sympathy for these outcasts was ambivalent; it was not just his “Hebraic portraits” that were “coarse, derogatory, and predictable.”. . . His visual ridicule left little middle ground between the hegemony of unenlightened zeal and those [like himself] who wished to disrupt it.

Despite the mid-20th-century successes of atheists and skeptics, unbelief has remained on the defensive till today:

[T]hings changed very quickly after the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional the exclusion of atheists from public office (1961), and after the consequent battles for free speech against restrictive notions of blasphemy that precipitated the culture wars and did so much to contribute to the bifurcation of American politics. But the seeds of this decline had been sown generations before, and cold-war paranoia proved unable to retard the continual decline of religious privilege, so that in 1966, only five years after the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the prohibition of atheists in public office, Time magazine ran a cover story entitled, “Is God dead?”

But modern-day believers and unbelievers may both be exaggerating their marginality. Even as debates rage about bakeries and bathrooms, most Americans continue to agree with the Psalmist that, “the fool has said in his heart there is no God.” A Pew survey in 2014 found that voters would look with more negativity on a presidential candidate’s atheism than on drug use or marital infidelity.

Analyzing the recent direct Iranian attack on Israel, and Israel’s security situation more generally, Michael Oren looks to the 2015 agreement to restrain Iran’s nuclear program. That, and President Biden’s efforts to resurrect the deal after Donald Trump left it, are in his view the source of the current crisis:

Of the original motivations for the deal—blocking Iran’s path to the bomb and transforming Iran into a peaceful nation—neither remained. All Biden was left with was the ability to kick the can down the road and to uphold Barack Obama’s singular foreign-policy achievement.

In order to achieve that result, the administration has repeatedly refused to punish Iran for its malign actions:

Historians will survey this inexplicable record and wonder how the United States not only allowed Iran repeatedly to assault its citizens, soldiers, and allies but consistently rewarded it for doing so. They may well conclude that in a desperate effort to avoid getting dragged into a regional Middle Eastern war, the U.S. might well have precipitated one.

While America’s friends in the Middle East, especially Israel, have every reason to feel grateful for the vital assistance they received in intercepting Iran’s missile and drone onslaught, they might also ask what the U.S. can now do differently to deter Iran from further aggression. . . . Tehran will see this weekend’s direct attack on Israel as a victory—their own—for their ability to continue threatening Israel and destabilizing the Middle East with impunity.

Israel, of course, must respond differently. Our target cannot simply be the Iranian proxies that surround our country and that have waged war on us since October 7, but, as the Saudis call it, “the head of the snake.”