I thought it was very timely that today’s Directions in Orthodoxy mentioned that England’s favorite saint is St. George. The article mentions at the end that the dragon seems to have made its first appearance (in the icon and the hagiography) in the 12th century, and might just be a local confusion with a pagan myth. But since the devil has been symbolized in the Book of Revelation and elsewhere as a dragon, the icon takes on a new relevancy.

Other interesting reading today:

1. By way of Orthodixie, an Antiochian Orthodox priest in Cheshire:
   

   The best weapons we have against terror are normality and trust in God. Terror always fails when the fear is resisted and prayerful intelligent resilience confronts every horror with unflinching eye. Londoners have often proved in times past that they are made of “stern stuff” and that solidarity in affliction is unbeatable. This is the costly lesson that these despicable terrorists will now learn.

2. On Mere Orthodoxy, Fr. Andrew wonders what the British response will be, with this personal note:
   

   My impression from being in England is that British sentiment is against the American approach of heartily going after terrorists, even when the link is indirect.

   I have a feeling he’s right. It’s worth considering that all through the days of aggression by Northern Ireland against the English, they knew that in the eyes of history, they were the bad guys — sort of as if Native Americans were to wage terrorist attacks on us now. I think they developed the habit of being humbled by the attacks and feeling like they were at least a little justified. They may be able to internalize the difference this time or not. An Englishman being interviewed on talk radio yesterday afternoon was asked by the host if they felt mad, if they wanted to get even. The Englishman answered that they were used to this sort of thing more than the Americans, and also that they were somehow desensitized, having seen the 9/11 images. But then he added, almost as an afterthought, “I think this time though … I think we’re asking ‘Why?’” It may just have been a case of him saying what the American wanted to hear (much as the BBC anchorman led the American reporter in the interview after 9/11 as I mentioned yesterday) , but maybe not. Anyway, it’s a start.

3. Fr. John Whiteford with a telling article into the nature of “Moslem kookdom” and some Pure Truth:
   

   Christians turn the other cheek, when it is their own cheek to be turned. Christians have no right to turn the cheek of other innocent and defenseless people, but rather have an obligation to defend them from murdering Islamic thugs, who believe every kook conspiracy theory they hear, and are bent on destroying everyone that does not bow the knee to them.

4. By way of Get Religion by way of Andrew Sullivan, a British writer mentions that this jihad might be aimed more at Muslims living in freedom in Western countries:
   

   Anybody who tells you these bombers are fighting for the rights of Muslims in Iraq, occupied Palestine or Chechnya should look at the places they chose to bomb. Aldgate? The poorest and most Muslim part of the country. Edgware Road? The centre of Muslim and Arab life in London and, arguably, Europe.

5. And contemplating the left’s burgeoning attempts to use this to slam Bush, BeliefNet’s Charlotte Hays quotes a Christopher Hitchens piece:
   

   It is ludicrous to try and reduce this to Iraq. Europe is steadily becoming a part of the civil war that is roiling the Islamic world, and it will require all our cultural ingenuity to ensure that the criminals who shattered London’s peace at rush hour this morning are not the ones who dictate the pace and rhythm of events from now on.

   (Couldn’t find the piece she was quoting from, but I’m still new to all this blog stuff. )

Well, I’ve got my pot of tea here out of solidarity, so I better get started with that. Ta.