Articles on the current administration and politics in general.

Look This Up!

/in , , /by
Do me a favor and open up ChatGPT. Ask “Is the current poverty level in the US lower than it’s been in 50 years and, if so, can you provide the statistics to prove it?”
Contemplate what you find.
Next, I want you to ask ChatGPT “Is the current crime rate lower now than it was during the Biden Administration?”
Try this one:” Have illegal border crossings diminished significantly in the United States since the beginning of President Trump’s 2025 administration?”
Finally, “Is the current inflation rate in the US lower than the peak inflation rates during President Biden’s term in office?”
The responses you get explain why I voted for President Trump and why I will vote for those who support him in the midterms.
You’re listening to a party that has been able to successfully distract attention away from their failed policies by manufacturing a reality where anyone with the capacity to reveal their failures can be dismissed by assaulting their character.
President Trump is not my Savior, nor do I support him because of his past indiscretions. I support him because he champions policies that work. Your party has no platform apart from their disdain for the current President.
The Modern Day Democrat stands on a pile of excuses and complaints, desperately trying to validate their political existence by insisting that anyone who subscribes to an ideal is a hypocrite and anyone who succeeds is corrupt.
See you at the polls…!

Iran

/in , , , /by

This was a comment I made in response to a video where Secretary Hegseth responds to a congressman that referred to the current situation in Iran as a quagmire. Here’s what I wrote:

Why is it that Dems only applaud military missions when undertaken by someone in their own party?

I think it’s reprehensible to undermine the mission of those who have volunteered to serve, and then be deployed with a definitive goal and able to report legitimate successes, only to be compromised by a dirtbag politician who only wants to figure out yet another way to piss on our troops, our country, our President, and all those who support him.

If there was ever clearer reason to attack and defeat an enemy that has been actively crying for our destruction for 47 years and whose doctrine dictates the destruction of those who wage war against Allah, it is here and it is now.

If your perspective on militant Muslims is somehow vague and ignorant, in part because you’re looking for yet another reason to criticize the current administration, you’re blind, lost, and arrogant.

That’s neither a political criticism, nor a subjective assessment. We’ve been dealing with militant Muslims since Jefferson’s administration and to favor them over your own country and justify by saying it’s a pointless endeavor and poorly executed is to ignore the results, dismiss the context, and root for an ideology that wants you to cease breathing.

A friend of mine responded and I have his response as well as my rebuttal documented below.

comment response
Bruce, this current President is 100% responsible for this nonsense in Iran.

To say that President Trump is “responsible for this nonsense in Iran” is to ignore, not just centuries of history, but even modern day manifestations of radical Islam to dominate and destroy anyone that doesn’t worship Allah. With Iran, you’re not dealing with a country, you’re dealing with a creed that is dedicated to the destruction of the West.

It’s specified in the Qur’an. Their doctrine demands the destruction of non-Muslims:

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them, in every stratagem of war. (sura 9:5)

And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. (sura 2:191)

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day. (sura 9:29)

In my original post, I referenced how America has been contending with militant Muslims since the administration of Thomas Jefferson. In addition:

Bottom line: Orthodox Muslim doctrine specifies an unrelenting attack against those who are not Muslims. It has been a present resolve for over two centuries, particularly targeting the US. So, to even suggest that President Trump is responsible for creating the current tension in Iran is to pretend that the problem doesn’t exist apart from the one who is actually doing something about it.

The latter half of sura 9:5 commands,

“But if they repent and establish worship and pat the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”

As a result, Muslim armies must not put down their swords until the time their opposition submits to Islam or Islamic law – that is, until unbelievers either worship or pay a special protection tax and acquiesce to an Islamic political system. For the devout Muslim, war has a divine purpose and a divine outcome – securing the territory in the name of Allah, to whom all must bow.

After the enemy submits, the surrender is considered forever binding. If at any time, years or even centuries after the treaty was accepted, a conquered party breaks it, war is to be waged until such time Islamic law is fully reestablished. The Qur’an decrees…

And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief – Lo! They have no binding oaths – in order that they may desist (sura 9:12).1

A Modern Day Democrat can’t condemn militant Islam as evil because that implies a standard that exists independently of the way a person thinks or feels – something a MDD maintains as non-existent.
The Obama agreement that also included many countries in support, was the EXACT same thing that tRump tried to put in place AGAIN in his first attempt at a new deal with Iran. He screwed this up. There should be no problem in that region. He created it, you and I are paying for it.

You want to pretend that that JCPOA somehow contained radical Muslim thought and eliminated both Iran’s ability as well as their resolve to build a nuclear weapon. The agreement took effect on January 16, 2016. Yet, Iran never stopped being a leading sponsor of terrorist activity…

In 2016, Iran supported various Iraqi Shia terrorist groups, including Kata’ib Hizballah, as part of an effort to fight ISIS in Iraq and bolster the Assad regime in Syria. Iran views the Assad regime in Syria as a crucial ally and Syria and Iraq as crucial routes to supply weapons to Hizballah, Iran’s primary terrorist partner. Iran has facilitated and coerced, through financial or residency enticements, primarily Shia fighters from Afghanistan and Pakistan to participate in the Assad regime’s brutal crackdown in Syria. Iranian-supported Shia militias in Iraq have committed serious human rights abuses against primarily Sunni civilians and Iranian forces have directly backed militia operations in Syria with armored vehicles, artillery, and drones. (UN Refugee Agency)

In 2018, Israel discovered a half ton of nuclear weaponization files revealing how Iran had continued their nuclear program after having agreed to suspend all such activities.

The JCPOA is an illustration of how the Liberal mindset is more preoccupied with the absence of tension than the actual presence of peace. In the absence of truth, peace is nothing more than being complicit with whatever wrongdoing is being accomplished. It’s either a coward’s way of ignoring a problem, or a fool’s way of convincing themselves that they’ve solved it.

Bottom line: The JCPOA and President Trump’s MOU have one major difference: Accountability. The JCPOA relied on inspections and the word of an enemy that meant absolutely nothing. Trump’s MOU has the force of America’s military behind it with a comprehensive plan to financially starve the militants out of existence and rebuild Iran in a way that overwhelms the militant evil that currently dominates that area.
War is wrong.

It depends on why it’s being waged. The Revolutionary War was not “wrong,” nor was the War of 1812, or the Civil War, or WWI, WWII, etc. Evil is wrong. If a war is being waged in order to take what isn’t yours, that’s wrong. But those who would oppose that kind of enemy are absolutely correct in fighting back and defeating that enemy.

It’s a noble sounding sentiment to say that “War is wrong.” But in doing so, you condemn anyone who has ever served in the military as either a fool or a fiend, which is both insulting and reprehensible. At the same time, it’s perfectly logical when it comes from a mindset that doesn’t want to acknowledge the reality of an objective moral standard. You can’t condemn something as being “wrong,” if you want to simultaneously say that truth is whatever an individual wants to believe. While that is not necessarily the prevailing mindset of the Modern Day Democrat, it is nevertheless a common conviction within their ranks.
This Hegseth guy is a loose cannon, a firehose gone rogue. Not a fan. It’s disgusting that these problems are being created by this administration and then they (and it seems you) blame the Dems.

I don’t the blame the Democrats for creating the problem, but I do hold them responsible for pretending that the problem is nothing more than a tension that can be eliminated through meaningless negotiations.

There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. The radicals are estimated to be between 16% and 25% according to most of the intelligence around the world. That means you have between 180 and 300 million people dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization. Just to give you some perspective, the number of people in the US is 320 million. Connect the dots and you have the equivalent to an entire nation determined to see the US cease to exist. That by itself should be enough to give decision makers pause.

How can you tell if the Muslim that’s running for office is a militant? Or, how you can tell if a militant Muslim is being honest when they sign a treaty?

You can’t.

  • Taqiyya is an Islamic concept that means “prudence” or “religious dissimulation”. It allows a person to hide or deny their true religious beliefs and outwardly conform to a hostile environment when facing credible threats of severe injury or death. (https://www.britannica.com/topic/taqiyyah)
  • “Tamkeen” is Arabic term most commonly used in political Islam for the long-term strategy of empowerment, institutional entrenchment, and placing members in key governance and societal positions.

Militant Muslims have terrorized Western Civilization and America in particular for centuries. Moderate Muslims are conflicted in their ability to denounce orthodox Muslims because it’s not a political dispute that fuels the militant Muslim’s resolve. It is a religious zeal that has targeted America since the 18th century (Shores of Tripoli). See also Western Leaders: Your Time is Up.

Secretary Hegseth is a “loose cannon” only in the mind of someone who doesn’t want to acknowledge the way a problem is being addressed and would instead pretend that the problem itself doesn’t exist.
It’s not a party thing, it’s cow-towing to large corporate interests. It’s about the redistribution of money upwards into the hands of the already wealthy people and corporations (read: socialism for these two parts of our society).

To reduce this conversation to a commercial for Socialism is fundamentally flawed. It’s an attempt to distract attention away from a creed that has been promoting terrorism and openly declared itself a threat to Western Civilization and reduce it to nothing more than an opportunity for corrupt individuals to make some money.

1. “The Truth About Islam and Jihad”, John Ankerberg and Emir Caner, Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, Oregon, 2009, p19

Two Mottos

/in , , , , /by

The political conversations that you’re hearing these days can often be categorized beneath two mottos:

  • In God We Trust
  • You Can’t Force Your Beliefs on Me

Either the individual is accountable to something greater than themselves, or a person is accountable to no one but themselves.

By using phrases that imply a form of oppression, the Modern Day Democrat is able to distract attention away from their resolve to reduce the world to a collection of personal preferences where the truth is based more on how you feel rather than what is real.

It’s not so much about policies or personalities, or even two political parties.

It’s about two mottos…

Recent polls suggest conservatives are more likely than liberals to support bans on politicized practices, even when both groups view the practice as similarly immoral (e.g., abortion opposition among pro-life conservatives vs. pro-life liberals). We propose a novel theory to explain this phenomenon based on people’s moral philosophies. Nine studies found that conservatives tended to endorse moral absolutism, whereas liberals tend to endorse moral relativism, and that moral absolutists were more likely to support banning practices they deem immoral. Conservatives on X (formerly Twitter™) used more absolute language than liberals, particularly in tweets containing morality-related words (Study 1). In a data set spanning 59 countries and 30 years, conservatives more often endorsed moral absolutism over relativism (Study 2). Studies 3-4 identified a need for closure as an underlying mechanism. Studies 5-9 documented a downstream consequence of moral absolutism: support for banning practices one deems immoral. The link between the perceived immorality of a practice and support for banning it was stronger among conservatives, even after controlling for attitude extremity (Study 5). Moral absolutism predicted support for banning practices deemed immoral even after controlling for regulatory focus, deontological thinking, individual and binding foundations, ideological extremity (Study 6), and attitude strength of the politicized practices (Study 7). Liberals and conservatives exposed to moral relativism reduced their support for banning practices that they opposed (Study 8-9). Our theory linking ideology to moral absolutism versus relativism can help explain why the link between perceived immorality and support for bans varies across the ideological spectrum. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved). (PubMed)

No Bottom Lines

Anytime you converse with a Modern Day Democrat, you want to begin by clarifying how the define the concept of truth. Ask them if they agree with the idea that what’s true for one person may not be true for another, and they will most likely agree.

You see that supported in the 2025 study published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin where it examined the relationship between political ideology and moral absolutism vs. moral relativism across nine different studies (see sidebar).

The study found that:

  • Conservatives tended to endorse moral absolutism.
  • Liberals tended to endorse moral relativism.
  • Conservatives used more absolute moral language than liberals.
  • The pattern appeared not just in U.S. data but in a dataset covering 59 countries over 30 years.
  • People who endorsed moral absolutism were more likely to support banning practices they considered immoral.

This is a portion of a speech given by Katherine Maher, President and CEO of NPR. In it she elaborates on how Wikipedia doesn’t pursue the truth as a bottom line, as much as it looks for a positive consensus. At one point, she uses the phrase “minimum viable truth” to describe an approach that sets aside bigger belief systems and instead focuses on what appeals to the majority. It translates to a nonsensical contradiction in that while she says truth needs to be processed as something that’s different for everyone, she then goes on to say that, “…the truth of the matter is…” As though what she is saying now transcends the definition of truth she just articulated.

Now, that is not to say that the truth doesn’t exist, nor is it to say that the truth isn’t important. Clearly, the search for the truth has led us to do great things, to learn great things. But I think if I were to really ask you to think about this, one of the things that we could all acknowledge is that part of the reason we have such glorious chronicles to the human experience and all forms of culture is because we acknowledge there are many different truths.

And so in the spirit of that, I’m certain that the truth exists for you and probably for the person sitting next to you. But this may not be the same truth. This is because the truth of the matter is very often, for many people, what happens when we merge facts about the world with our beliefs about the world. So we all have different truths. They’re based on things like where we come from, how we were raised, and how other people perceive us.And so in the spirit of that, I’m certain that the truth exists for you and probably for the person sitting next to you. But this may not be the same truth. This is because the truth of the matter is very often, for many people, what happens when we merge facts about the world with our beliefs about the world. So we all have different truths. They’re based on things like where we come from, how we were raised, and how other people perceive us. (Katherine Maher)

You see that dynamic elaborated on in a speech given by Katherine Maher, President and CEO of NPR (see sidebar). In it she elaborates on how Wikipedia doesn’t pursue the truth as a bottom line, as much as it looks for a positive consensus.

From a distance, this looks healthy. You don’t want to be so resolute with your opinions, that you disqualify yourself from being able to learn and grow based on a more comprehensive perspective.

But there’s a difference between being open minded for the sake of becoming more aligned with what’s accurate, and posing as someone who’s open minded in order to promote the idea that there are no absolutes.

Intellectual Icebergs

This is where Katherine Maher and the Democrat party are revealed as being an intellectual iceberg in that they appear approachable on the surface, but hidden below the water line is something genuinely sinister.

If truth is relative, then…

  • I am my own absolute – my right to be happy means I get to make up my own rules and I don’t have to answer to anything other than what I’m comfortable with
  • I am a victim – I may be different or damaged, but I am never wrong. When I’m confronted with a reality I can’t dispute without selfish or foolish, by pretending to be in pain, I can avoid having to explain myself or take responsibility for my actions.
  • I am justified – I can silence anyone who disagrees with me in that they are not merely mistaken, but genuinely immoral because they’re not telling the “truth,” which qualifies them as a liar.

But, if truth is relative, then…

  • You are a hypocrite – you can’t logically disagree with someone without violating your own premise that the truth is whatever an individual wants to believe.
  • You are conflicted – when confronted with something that is obviously wrong (a mother killing their own child), you can’t condemn it because of the way you’ve dismissed the reality of objective truth and the obvious difference between right and wrong.
  • You are meaningless – if there is no right or wrong, then your words are just mechanical noises that have no real meaning.

Even in the speech given by Katherine Maher, you see the unsustainable aspect of her platform…

Now, that is not to say that the truth doesn’t exist, nor is it to say that the truth isn’t important. Clearly, the search for the truth has led us to do great things, to learn great things. But I think if I were to really ask you to think about this, one of the things that we could all acknowledge is that part of the reason we have such glorious chronicles to the human experience and all forms of culture is because we acknowledge there are many different truths.

And so in the spirit of that, I’m certain that the truth exists for you and probably for the person sitting next to you. But this may not be the same truth. This is because the truth of the matter is very often, for many people, what happens when we merge facts about the world with our beliefs about the world. So we all have different truths. They’re based on things like where we come from, how we were raised, and how other people perceive us.1

You can’t say, “…the truth of the matter is” without contradicting everything you’ve said up to that point by asserting the idea that there are “many different truths.”

But this is the Modern Day Democrat: A conflicted and meaningless hypocrite posing as a persecuted activist that’s justified in silencing anyone who has the capacity to reveal them for who they are.

An Unacceptable Mindset

On the surface, they are either outraged or oppressed (I am a victim). They are indifferent to what’s real or indisputable because of the way they have empowered themselves to dismiss whatever it is they don’t want to hear (I am my own absolute). And anyone who disagrees can be mocked, maligned, and even murdered, not because they’re wrong, but because they’re a threat to a manufactured reality that can’t be sustained (I am justified).

This is Trump Derangement Syndrome. It’s not so much an objection to a personality or a policy. The same policies could be championed by a Democrat (deportation of illegal immigrants) and they would be applauded as bold leadership. Whether it’s President Trump or any other Conservative, the personality is irrelevant because the same accusations would be made regardless of the individual in the charge.

If the philosophy that drives the legislation includes the idea that the individual is ultimately accountable to something greater than themselves, that is an unacceptable mindset. Regardless of what’s being said or who’s saying it, if it’s coming from a perspective that doesn’t allow a person to proclaim themselves as their own bottom line, it is dismissed first as stupid, then immoral and, ultimately criminal (see the “SIC-ness of the Left“).

I am Never Wrong Because I am Always Hurt

The problem, however, is the inevitable situation you find yourself in, as far being being revealed as either a fool or a fiend, given the transcendent nature of truth and the results that can’t be ignored regardless of the distortions and distractions constantly being circulated in the marketplace.

But, by asserting the idea that they are a victim, the Modern Day Democrat is never wrong because they are always hurt. By communicating every talking point from the perspective of someone who is either outraged or wounded, they’re able to distract attention away from the nonsensical aspects of their platform because of the way you can’t criticize someone who’s in pain without being labeled cruel and hateful. As a result, the Modern Day Democrat is accommodated rather than evaluated.

Medical Realities, the Rule of Law, Moral Imperatives, Historical events, Mathematical certainties, Irrefutable evidence, Divine Absolutes…

None of these are acknowledged by the person who’s determined to see themselves as their own bottom line. They are either antiquated traditions or biased attacks that violate a person’s right to be happy.

We Hate America…

Darializa Avila Chevalier (NY-13): Abolish prisons, abolish ICE, abolish borders, defund the police, and ‘all deportations are wrong’, including for violent criminals. She has called the U.S. an ‘effing disgrace’, and said in a prior social media post ‘I forgot to get napkins so I just wiped my hand on the American flag behind me.’”

Michigan Democrat Senate candidate Abdul “El-Sayed’s campaign website calls the Supreme Court a ‘major impediment for democracy.’” (Bloomberg Law: Campaigning Democrats Amplify Calls to Overhaul Supreme Court – 7/8/26)

Hasad Piker is an associate of Abdul El Sayed. Piker is on record for having said he hated America.

The DSA has released a new program that, besides contemplating the advent of a classless society, calls for abolishing the US Senate, the presidency, and the Supreme Court.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani sat in the Al-Khoei Islamic Center in Queens on February 20, 2026, during Friday prayers on the first day of Ramadan. The imam led a supplication in Arabic invoking the Mahdi with words translated by MEMRI: “Through your hands comes the relief for the believers and the killing of the infidels by your sword.”

If truth is whatever an individual wants to believe, then there is no “correction,” only “oppression.” Their opponents are Nazis, their Republican leaders are tyrants, and their world is oppressive. Anything that has the capacity to reveal the fact that their ideas don’t work and they are the very thing they claim to despise is disputed, not as a valid criticism based on facts and results, but as a personal attack fueled by fear and hate.

You can’t argue with people who think that way because they’re not listening to you. They’re simply waiting for you to stop talking so they can tell you why you should feel sorry for them. Regardless of the facts and the bottom lines you would use to validate your position, it is all dismissed as irrelevant and unreliable propaganda – not because it’s lacking in substance but because it’s a threat to the way in which they have authorized themselves to dictate what’s real according to what they prefer.

This is the dialogue being heard in our society today. It’s not a conversation between two different parties who both want the same thing, only differ in the way it’s obtained. Rather, it’s a contest between two spiritual paradigms summarized as two distinct mottos: “One nation under God,” or “You can’t force your beliefs on me.”

Those Aren’t Words, Those Are Masks

The Modern Day Democrat cheers for America’s enemies. 40% of Democrats believe church has a negative effect on society, and several recent Democrat primary winners have made it clear that they don’t like America or its institutions (see sidebar).

Words like “corruption,” “unconstitutional,” and “racism” are not words as much as they are masks when they’re coming from the mouth of a Modern Day Democrat. They’re strategically selected terms designed to trigger an emotional reaction in order to prevent an objective analysis. When you invoke the idea that you’re “hurt,” or that you’re being violated, the first priority is to medicate your wound rather than question your logic. And the more your logic is revealed as nonsensical, the more you have to assault the character and intelligence of those you can’t dispute. The result isn’t a conversation as much as it’s a demonstration. Even when you’re talking to a solitary person, you’re still interacting with the equivalent to a group of people screaming slogans and waving signs.

Real Results and the Right Questions

So, how do you navigate a situation where you’re attempting to reason with someone who’s unreasonable?

Results.

And while you can be accurate by simply stating the facts, if you want to be effective, you want to ask the question that can’t be answered without your opponent having to state those facts themselves.

The current administration is delivering a collection of policies that have resulted in:

And when you look at the military strategy accomplished by securing an agreement with Greenland, the reacquisition of our oil interests in Venezuela3, coupled with the President’s fearless efforts in providing an ever expanding view of the global corruption and the lies masquerading as necessary measures and credible headlines4  – it’s a great day!

But in order to get to that “great day” idea, you first have to ask those questions that compel an answer that reveals both the truth and the nonsensical efforts to suppress it.

  • Do you prefer a higher poverty level?
  • Would you rather have more murders in this country?
  • If you support open borders, then I’m assuming you leave all your doors unlocked, correct?
  • Which option translates to a stronger economy: More jobs or less?
  • Which gas station would you buy your fuel from: The one that charges a dollar more per gallon, or the one that charges a dollar less?5
  • Would you be comfortable if someone you knew you couldn’t trust was pointing a gun at you just because somebody else said it wasn’t loaded?

Conclusion

The “third party audience” debate technique is an approach that you take where the person you’re arguing with isn’t necessarily your real target. The real target is the undecided or persuadable person watching the exchange. You want to keep that technique in mind when you’re feeling like withdrawing from the conversation, be it on social media or in person, believing you’re just wasting your time or, perhaps making a bad situation worse.

There are impressionable people listening to your voice and, provided you’re telling the truth, they need to hear what you have to say, even if your opponent refuses to listen.

At the end of the day, this is more than Politics. You’ll hear people sometimes saying that our country is engaged in an existential crisis.

We are.

It’s not so much about policies or personalities, or even two political parties.

It’s about two mottos.

Our currency says “In God We Trust.” That is the foundation upon which our founding fathers built the Declaration of Independence. It’s because there’s a God in Heaven and there are Absolutes that exist independently of the way a person thinks or feels that they were able to articulate a cause and not just a complaint.

You take God out of the equation and you no longer have rights, you have demands – demands that can only be met by surrounding yourself with like minded people and silencing those who think otherwise. But even then, you are subscribing to an approach that is a philosophical dead end because of the way you’ve declared yourself to be “right,” despite the fact that you want to simultaneously say that there is no definitive right or wrong.

The candidates we endorse do not have to be pastors, they only need to be able to lead in a way that lines up with what’s true. 3+2=5 regardless of how the number 5 makes you feel. Lead and live in a way that acknowledges the reality of standards and not just situations. Stop trying to reinvent the human experience by thinking you can speak into existence something that is fundamentally flawed and then defend that position by saying “You can’t force your beliefs on me.”

Truth isn’t created with a conviction. For a conviction to be valid, it has to be true and no amount of passion or persecution will ever change that.

Two mottos.

Which one is yours?

 

1. “The Singju Post”, “What Wikipedia Teaches Us About Balancing Truth and Beliefs: Katherine Maher (Transcript)” https://singjupost.com/what-wikipedia-teaches-us-about-balancing-truth-and-beliefs-katherine-maher-transcript/, accessed September 9, 2026

2. The JCPOA was an agreement put in place by the Obama Administration in 2015 that lifted certain sanctions in exchange for Iran’s commitment to restrict its nuclear program. The problem with that agreement is that it was based on inspections that proved less than credible.

If Iran’s leadership has demonstrated that it cannot simply be trusted to disclose its nuclear activities, and if international inspectors cannot obtain sufficiently comprehensive access to independently establish that Iran has disclosed all relevant nuclear activity, then no agreement can establish with certainty that Iran has abandoned its pursuit of a nuclear weapon. The agreement may constrain Iran’s known capabilities, but the underlying threat remains wherever undeclared activity cannot be ruled out.

3. In 2007, Chavez ordered that all foreign oil companies, including ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil be transformed into joint ventures and Venezuela would own 60% of the new organization. Both Companies refused, but were nevertheless forced to comply. This has also been the situation in Venezuela under Maduro who had a 25 million dollar bounty placed on his head by President Biden. President Trump’s actions in seizing Maduro were justified on several levels, given the evidence against Mr. Maduro that’s been collected over several years by investigators in Miami, New York, Houston, and Washington who have brought drug trafficking, foreign bribery, and money-laundering charges against several senior Venezuelan officials, members of the military and government-connected businessmen. Maduro’s removal also restores to the American companies that were ousted by Chavez the opportunity to resume operations.

4. There are several instances of fraud and corruption that President Trump has shined a light on that were operating in the shadows. One example is how the financial network that funds Iran’s terrorist operations are based in London. Billions of dollars of wasted and fraud was revealed by DOGE. President Trump introduced a new economic paradigm that put a halt to unfair trade agreements that hurt American manufacturing and positions the overall wellbeing of America as a priority.

5. There are several dynamics to consider when it comes to lowering fuel prices. #1) Destroy an international sponsor of terror’s ability to control the global energy market. This is being done most directly by preventing Iran from controlling the Strait of Hormuz. While the US doesn’t have complete control as of yet, the US Navy is now the agency that enforces maritime safety and control and not the Iranian government. In addition, by virtue of the US control of the Strait, Iran’s ability to export oil has been severely damaged. And that’s just part of a much broader strategy to cripple the current militant regime that governs Iran and create an environment that allows the Iranian people to institute a more democratic government. By destroying the militants that were in power and deploying Operation Economic Outcast, an economic campaign designed to cut off every income stream that is used to subsidize the IRGC, President Trump gives to the Iranians an opportunity to take control over their own country.

For more reading…

COEXIST

/in , , , , , /by

COEXIST. It sounds great and it’s a necessary and healthy thing to get peoples of different faiths to cooperate and to peaceably live alongside with one another and respect each other’s convictions. As an organization, it’s a powerful force for good. But there’s an underlying message being promoted that says every religion is fundamentally the same and we’re all just travelers opting for different paths to a common destination.

That’s not true.

And while those differences don’t have to be processed as justifications to war with one another, it is important to recognize the essence of each religious school of thought, especially in those instances where the creed in question is being used to support acts of violence and terror.

I) We’re All Different

Here’s the thing: Not everybody thinks the same way. Two well read and educated individuals can look at the same issue and come up with two completely different viewpoints. We are all different. Those differences can, and should, create a dynamic where, because we’re working together, our distinctive perspectives can compliment one another and the resulting effort is far more comprehensive and effective than it would be otherwise.

That’s the premise behind the “COEXIST” organization that you can read more about at coexist.org. You’ve probably seen the bumper sticker they publish and it truly is a noble effort. There’s one particular story about how one community, racked by violence as a result of religious differences, came together in the context of a cooperative effort to produce coffee. It’s hard to argue with success, it really is. A neighborhood, that was nothing short of a war zone, has been transformed into a situation where people of different faiths are working side by side and creating a successful product.

II) Slander No One

From a Christian’s perspective, this resonates with Titus 3. The idea is that we’ve got a great Truth that we want to communicate to people and we do that by living lives that draw people in. It says in verse 2 “…to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men.”

The process of going from a  spiritual corpse to someone with a spiritual pulse is not going to be facilitated through an argument or the tip of a sword. It’s God Who does that and our role is to be a witness to all that Solution entails and not a mere protester of all that is bad in the world. That’s not to say there isn’t a time to take up arms and defend what is right (Ecc 3:8; Lk 22:36-38; Rom 13:4), but when it comes to championing the gospel, that’s a spiritual war and we’re obligated to use spiritual weapons if we want to be both obedient and effective (2 Cor 10:3-5).

III) Be Vigilant

The fact that it’s a spiritual battle is a cue to be that much more vigilant, as far as popping the hood on spiritual issues and ensuring that what may appear harmless and even noble, doesn’t have a sinister dynamic as its basis. That’s not being overly critical or even pessimistic, rather it’s being wise (Matt 7:15; 1 Pet 5:8). The notion of being able to peaceably coexist with people of other faiths is biblical and therefore entirely appropriate, as seen in Titus 3. But many perceive the “coexist”campaign as an encouragement to process all faiths as fundamentally the same and that’s where you get into things that are not appropriate, let alone logical.

Let’s take a look at that for a minute.

IV) The Symbols of COEXIST

The “C” in COEXIST is the crescent moon that represents Islam. According to islam.about.com, the crescent moon was actually a symbol that had been adopted by the emperor of Constantinople to represent his empire. When the Seljuk Turks conquered the city in 1453, they adopted the city’s existing flag and symbol and, over time, the crescent moon became the symbol of Islam.
The “O” represents “peace.” In 1958, Gerald Holtom designed a symbol that was to be used as part of a march organized for the purpose of promoting nuclear disarmament. The letters “N” and “D,” which stood for “nuclear disarmament,” were superimposed on top of one another in the context of semaphore symbols. Holtom’s design would later be adopted by the anti-war movement and by the end of sixties, the “peace sign” had crossed several cultural and international boundaries and was widely recognized as an icon that stood for the promotion of a non-violent approach to conflict.
The “E” is an artistic embellishment of the letter “e” with the symbols that represent male and female. To the left, the first symbol is the female symbol which is derived from the astrological sign that represents Venus. Below that is the male symbol which, again derives from the astrological community. In this instance, it is the sign for Mars. This element symbolizes cooperation and peace between the sexes.
The “X” is the “Star of David” which represents “Judaism” The “Star of David” is not referenced in the Bible or any authoritative Jewish religious resource. But while its origins are unclear, it has been in use for centuries. Some were not especially keen on it being representative of Israel, let alone the Jewish faith, because of the way its shape has been associated with pagan religions. But its use has become cemented as a result of the things such as the Holocaust when Jews were required by their Nazi counterparts to wear a Star of David that identified them as Jews as well as the Zionist movement that established the design of the Israeli flag to be blue and white with the Star of David positioned in the middle.
The “I” is dotted with a pentagram which represents witchcraft. While the pentagram is used to represent more than just witchcraft (it’s also used as a symbol in Mormonism and the Bahai’ faith), it’s traditionally associated with magic and the occult. The five points of the star represent the five classical elements in Wicca; earth, wind, fire, air and spirit.
The “S” is the “yin-yang” symbol which comes from Chinese Philosophy that states that the universe consists of opposites that interact and compliment one another. This as opposed to the more base perception that says opposites conflict with one another. The symbol itself is difficult to define in terms of its origins in that no one has ever claimed to be the sole author. Still, there is substantial evidence that points to a classical approach to Chinese Philosophy that strove to create visual representations of fundamental patterns that govern the phenomena of the universe. It was this 15th century effort that produced the graphic that we now know as the “yin yang” symbol.
The “T” is the cross of Christ which represents Christianity. Because the cross was recognized as a gruesome form of execution and not the the sort of visual symbol that inspired pleasant thoughts, there was a fair amount of hesitation on the part of early Christians to adopt the crucifix as an icon. But by the second century the symbol of the cross was so associated with followers of Christ that Clement of Alexandria, an early Christian theologian, could use the phrase “the sign of the cross” without fear of ambiguity.

The “O,” the “E” and the “S” are not necessarily religions per se. While Chinese Philosophy does include Buddhism, the “yin-yang” dynamic isn’t really emphasized as something that is central to their doctrine. So, for the most part, those three letters are symbolic of different types of cooperation and coexisting peaceably. Islam, Judaism, Witchcraft and Christianity, however, are religions and when you pop the hood on these three doctrines you have three very different ideologies serving as the foundation for each of these creeds. Getting the followers of these different religious schools of thought to cooperate with one another is one thing, but it’s another thing entirely to suggest that the fundamentals of what they believe are the same.

V) Islam    

 A) Unstable Eternity – the Nature of Allah

What separates these three religions right away is the nature of the “god” that serves as the principle deity. At the core of Islam is the doctrine of tawhid. It is documented in Quran 112:1-4 and basically means that Allah is one. He is one, central god that cannot be known and is completely distinct from all that’s been created. That in and of itself is distinct from Christianity where God is a personal God and desires a personal relationship with His creation (Is 43:1; Rev 3:20).

Allah is just (Quran 4:40) but it’s here where things get a little confusing. While Allah is just and is therefore obligated to punish all sin, he is also forgiving, but his forgiveness is reserved for those who ask (Quran 4:110). On the surface that doesn’t sound so bad, but should you die before you’ve sought forgiveness for all your sins, you have a potential problem on your hands. In addition, Christianity doesn’t simply advocate an increased effort being put forth on the part of the believer in order to avoid wrongful behavior. Instead, God offers His Holy Spirit to teach and to guide (Jn 14:26). You are made new when you accept His gift of Redemption and it is through the Strength He provides that you’re able to think and perform in a manner that’s pleasing to Him (Jn 14:26; 2 Cor 5:17; Phil 2:13)

In short, your status in the eyes of Allah fluctuates according to your behavior. You’re responsible for seeking the grace of Allah. Should you have anything outstanding at the moment of your death, your eternal security is unstable. In addition, your earthly existence is unassisted. It’s not Allah working in and through you, as is the case with a follower of Christ. Rather, it’s you laboring to please Allah according to your own sense of resolve and discipline.      

B) Who is Christ?

A good Muslim is going to discipline himself to be moral by keeping the Quran on his lips and and his behavior in check. It’s entirely up to him, as far as how he appears before Allah. Christianity, on the other hand, is based on God sending His Son to atone for the shortcomings of humanity and making available His Holy Spirit to strengthen an otherwise weak and uninformed resolve (Is 41:10; Jn 14:26; Phil 4:13; 2 Tim 1:7; 1 Jn 4:4).

It’s not so much you working to get to God, rather it’s God pursing you and equipping you with what you need to access Him. This is all represented in the Person and the Ministry of Christ. It is the Identity of Christ that defines Christianity and if any religion claims to be similar than it will follow that their regard for Jesus will be the same. If, on the other hand, they deny Christ as being God Incarnate, than you have all that you need in order to conclude that their doctrine is distinct from a Christian creed (1 Jn 4:3).

Islam regards Jesus as a good Muslim and nothing more. The Qur’an doesn’t record the words of acts of Christ, it simply attempts to assert that Scripture is corrupted by saying that: Jesus was never crucified…

And [for] their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.” And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain. (sura 4:157)

Jesus was / is not the Son of God…

The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded. (sura 5:75)

The Jews call ‘Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! (sura 9:30)

The Identity of Christ, as far as Him being the Son of God, is central to the Christian faith and it is the resurrection that Christ Himself identified as proof of Who He was.

He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (Matt 12:39-41)

H.P. Liddon, an accomplished British theologian who lived during the 19th century said:

Faith in the resurrection is the very keystone of the arch of Christian faith, and, when it is removed, all must inevitably crumble into ruin.1

Should you deny the resurrection, then you’re denying the fact of Christ’s deity and you’re reducing Him to a mere teacher that died a tragic death. By doing so, you categorize yourself under the heading of 1 John 2:22 where the apostle John says:

Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son.     (1 Jn 2:22)

In other words, you can’t be more at odds with the Christian doctrine than by declaring that Jesus didn’t rise from the grave. It’s not a matter of simply questioning a historical occurrence as much as it’s denouncing His being God Incarnate.

VI) Judaism

While Jews and Christians share a great deal in terms of the Old Testament, the similarities cease after the book of Malachi. The deal breaking issue is the Identity of Jesus as being the Messiah. Jews do not subscribe to the Truth that Christ is the “Anointed One.”

The reasons behind the Jewish platform for not believing in Jesus as the Son of God are varied, but the one thing they conveniently sidestep is the Resurrection of Christ. This is, and always will be, the bottom line as far as whether or not Christ was all that He claimed to be.

Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:19-20:

If we hoped in Messiah in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied. But now Messiah has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. (1 Cor 15:19-20)

In effect, what he’s saying is that if Christ didn’t rise from the grave, all Christians are pathetically deluded and are clinging to a school of thought that’s more trouble than it’s worth.

Jews and Christians have disagreed since the very beginning, starting with Christ Himself who infuriated the Jewish religions authorities with His claim to be God Incarnate (Jn 10:33). In Acts 4, Peter and John are brought before some of the same authorities that had condemned Christ to death (Annas and Caiaphas [Matt:26:57; John 18:13; | Acts 4:5-6]) and with several threats demanded that they stop speaking about Jesus despite the fact that they themselves could not deny that Jesus had risen from the grave (Acts 4:16).

The resolve of the Hebrew nation continues to this day, as far as insisting that the Messiah has yet to arrive. It’s because of their unwillingness to accept Jesus as the Son of God that they fall under the heading of 1 John 2:22 and their doctrine is totally different from that of the Christian creed where it matters most.

VII) Wicca

Thus far we’ve been able to determine that, despite some harmless sounding similarities, Islam and Judaism differs dramatically from Christianity in that their view of Christ falls short of His being Divine.

The same thing applies with Wicca. While Wicca doesn’t claim to be a religion, it references religious ceremonies in its “13 Principles of Wiccan Belief.” Their ceremonies and rites involve a poly-theistic approach in that there’s not one God, but rather multiple gods.

Portraying them as sinister looking people dressed in black clothing with pointy hats is neither appropriate nor accurate. Their “Rule of Three” encourages the idea of reciprocity. In other words, what you contribute, be it positive or negative, will be returned to you three fold. Hence, being kind and friendly is encouraged.

Where Wicca differs from Christianity is in the way Jesus is marginalized as a great teacher and an extraordinary human being. He is not the “Son of God” and any notion that He represents the only way to God is dismissed as absolutely wrong.

Here again, you see a dramatic fork in the road as far as two religions being revealed as very distinct from one another. While you can compare and contrast the details of Christianity with different religions to the point of mental exhaustion, the bottom line is and always will be, “Who is Jesus?” If the answer to that question is anything other than God Incarnate, you’ve got something that is totally distinct from the Christian doctrine.

VIII) Sanctified Violence?

Depending on what resource you reference, Islam is touted as being the fastest growing religion in the USA. Given the Islamic foundation for the acts of terror that have been perpetuated around the world for last three decades, it’s difficult to understand how a creed that is apparently so supportive of violence against “infidels” can resonate so strongly among so many.

A) Is Islam a Peaceful Religion? Yes?

Some will say that Islam is generally a peaceful religion that doesn’t seek to promote violence and they’re correct as long as they restrict their intake of the Quran to specific verses, such as:

There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing. (sura 2:256)

…and sura 15:94:

Then declare what you are commanded and turn away from the polytheists. (sura 15:94)

B) Is Islam a Peaceful Religion? Not So Much…

The problem is that these verses were written before other texts which, in the minds of some Muslims, nullify their relevance. In other words, the texts you need to revere are the ones that were “revealed” most recently. That being the case, you how have a different approach to violence as seen in verses from the Quran such as:

And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. (sura 2:191)

and..

And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and Faith in Allah; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression. (sura 2:193)

So while some Muslims can accurately say that Islam is a religion of peace, they can only say that if they ignore other verses in the Quran which are passionately embraced as justification for the outrageous acts of terror  perpetuated by organizations such as Al Qaeda and ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria).

These organizations are not having to engage in a series of theological calisthenics in order to arrive at a “holy” foundation upon which to build their zeal and depravity.

C) The Reality of “Abrogation”

Muhammad ash-Shawkani was a respected Islamic cleric who lived from 1759 to 1834 who is considered an authority on Islamic doctrine and law. Among his writings is a book entitled, “Alsaylu Jarar” which states:

Islam is unanimous about fighting the unbelievers and forcing them to Islam or submitting and paying Jiziah (special tax paid only by Christians or Jews) or being killed.   [The verses] about forgiving them are abrogated unanimously by the obligation of fighting in any case. (“Beyond Jihad: Critical Voices from Inside Islam” [p63])

Jihad Against Jews and Crusader
World Islamic Front Statement
February 28, 1998
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, “and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,” and “fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah.” (click here to view entire text)v

Given that sort of disposition, the directive authored by Osama bin Laden and endorsed by five Islamic caliphates which ordered the killing of all Americans, is not a nonsensical interpretation of Islamic thought. It’s simply a practical application of the Quran.

D) The Violence of Christianity

Some critics will assert that Christianity is just as violent as Islam as demonstrated by the Crusades and the military campaigns of Charlemagne.

Rome was not very accommodating when it came to Christianity prior to February 313 when Emperor Constantine issued the “Edict of Milan” which ordered all of Rome to treat Christians benevolently. Up to that point, Christians were viewed as enemies of the state because of the way their creed directed worship towards God as opposed to Caesar. Under Constantine, that dynamic was eliminated and while it allowed Christians to practice their faith without fear of persecution, it introduced the idea that heads of state were also leaders in the church and were responsible for the spiritual health of their subjects.

1) Wealth and Power Over Truth and Worship

This deteriorated into a situation where an accurate interpretation of Christian doctrine gave way to political agendas and economic strategies. In 392 Emperor Theodosius I made Christianity the only “legal” religion. In 785, Charlemagne issued a decree that dealt with the way in which his administration was to handle the conquered Saxons by saying:

If any one of the race of the Saxons hereafter concealed among them shall have wished to hide himself unbaptized, and shall have scorned to come to baptism and shall have wished to remain a pagan, let him be punished by death.2

And then of course, was the Crusades. The thing that’s significant about the Crusades is that while you had knights brandishing shields emblazoned with the symbol of the cross, it’s wrong to assume that their inspiration was nothing other than the liberation of the Holy Land in that it ignores the fact that the Muslims had occupied Jerusalem for almost 400 years prior to the first Crusade.

Consider this: In 638, Omar took Jerusalem from the Jews. It wouldn’t be until 1096 that the Pope would call upon the people of Europe to liberate the Holy Land. If it was the Islamic control of Jerusalem that was the central reason behind the Crusades, then it follows that a military effort would’ve been launched well before Urban II declared that Christ had commanded it. But the Muslims’ control of the Holy Land was never an issue to the Pope until the Seljuk Turks made it clear that they were planning on expanding their influence to include Constantinople. At that point, Alexis I, the emperor of the Byzantine Empire humbled himself before the Pope and offers him the opportunity to assume control over the Greek Orthodox Church (the respective popes of the Roman Catholic church and the Eastern Greek Orthodox church had excommunicated each other).3

This was an unprecedented act of submission and demonstrates the sense of urgency Alexis I felt as he looked over the horizon and saw the coming of the Turks. But it was the way they threatened his kingdom and not his worship that drove him to seek help from Rome, and it was Pope Urban’s quest for power that drove him to respond to Alexis’ request for a band of mercenaries with an immense host of  European soldiers.

The Babylonian Talmud

I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ’s heralds to publish this everywhere and to perse all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it is meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.

(Fulcher of Chartres recollection of Pope Urban II’s call to arms)

In order to accurately determine what the true Christian disposition is towards combat, it’s not the way Scripture has been abused that needs to be considered as much as it’s Scripture itself. In other words, before you take up arms against an enemy because a church leader states that “Christ commands it,” you need to be able to locate the verse in the Bible that says as much.

The Old Testament contains a number of military campaigns, the most notable being the conquest of the Promised Land and the battles fought by King David. The question on the table is whether or not these scenarios constitute a biblical justification for the way in which certain historical figures have exacted acts of violence on their fellow man. The short answer is “No.” Whether the personality in question is Charlemagne, Pope Urban II, Alexis the First or Emperor Theodosius, the common denominator is a quest for control and power. The wars fought in Scripture were founded on God’s Purpose and were manifestations of His Justice.          

2) The Difference Between a Cause and an Excuse

The land of Canaan was promised to Abraham in Genesis 17:8. The Canaanites were a vile people and engaged in the kind of idolatry that was nothing short of heinous and profoundly offensive in the eyes of God (Dt 18:9-12). It was because of the Canaanites’ outrageous immorality that they were singled out for punishment and it was that verdict that translated to the Israelites being empowered to utterly destroy them (Dt 9:5).

David’s exploits were similar. In his day, it was the Philistines that represented Israel’s most significant threat. The Philistines were descendants of Ham, one of Noah’s three sons who distinguished himself by being especially disgraceful (Gen 9:18-25). Throughout the Philistines’ history, they were enemies of Israel and thus enemies of God. Jeremiah 47 details God’s final interaction with them in the form of total and complete destruction. David’s successes were not merely the triumphs of a military tactitian. Rather, they were the manifestation of God’s Justice facilitated through a man who was humble and courageous enough to be obedient in the face of overwhelming odds (1 Sam 17:45-47; 23:1-6).

2 Samuel 8:6 sums it up best by saying “The Lord gave David victory wherever he went.” The point is that the victories that the Israelites won were not merely military triumphs as much as they were Divine Judgments exacted on those who chose to oppose God. That is the litmus test for truly sanctified violence and unless an individual’s or a nation’s actions can line up with said test, theirs is an enterprise that cannot be categorized as holy let alone right.

And that is the difference between a legitimate cause worth fighting for as opposed to a mere excuse to justify a violent pursuit of a self-serving agenda. So, all that to say, that a proper interpretation of God’s Word does not result in a creed that’s even remotely similar to the Islamic deployment of violence and prejudice. Islam is very distinct in that way and while it is our Christian duty to accommodate those of differing beliefs as articulated in Titus 3, it is just as important to be discerning and recognize what is true as opposed to what is false (1 Chron 12:32; 2 Pet 5:8; 1 Jn 4:1).

IX) Conclusion: The Bottom Line

Coexist? Absolutely! But do so beneath the umbrella of Truth. Otherwise, it’s not coexisting as much as it’s compromising things that cannot and should not be ignored let alone diluted.

1. “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”, Here’s Life Publishers, San Bernardino, CA, 1972 1979, Josh McDowell, p181
2. Munro, Dana Carleton (Trans.) (2004). Selections from the Laws of Charles the Great
3. Williams, Paul (2002), Idiot’s Guide to the Crusades (Kindle DX Version) retrieved from amazon.com

Because of the Constitution, Not in Spite of It

/in , , /by

Ain’t it amazing when you hear people talk about the US as those who have something real to compare it to? Whether by default or design, they are embracing all the freedoms that go along with our spiritual / moral heritage. This is the very thing that the Left wants to retool, believing it to be antiquated and even sinister.

There are some who believe the Constitution to be toxic in that it was written and ratified by a group of men, many of whom were slave owners. What’s ironic about their perspective is that they’re demonizing the very paradigm that gives them the right to be critical.

The Bill of Rights was written by James Madison. On June 8, 1789, he addressed the Congress and insisted that the Constitution would not be complete unless amendments were added that explicitly protected individual rights. These would be the first ten amendments made to the Constitution and among them were the Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of the Press.

James Madison was a slave owner. Granted, the irony is obvious. How can a man who views an entire race of human beings as nothing more than pieces of property to be bought and sold not recognize how that view compromises the declared scope of the Constitution as well as the Declaration of Independence? But in the end, the quality and durability of the Constitution is not measure by the moral flaws of the men that wrote it. Rather, it’s gauged according to the substance of the document itself.

For those who want to dismiss the Constitution as racist, it’s not just the Bill of Rights they should be considering. It’s also the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments that were made by the Republican party1 in the aftermath of the Civil War – the only war that was fought in the history of our planet that was waged for the sake of eliminating the sin of slavery.

The 13th amendment banned slavery, the 14th amendment defined a citizen as anyone born in the US which overturned an earlier ruling that prohibited Black people from voting, and the 15th amendment was an expansion of the 14th amendment. It prohibited governments from denying US citizens the right to vote based on race, color or past servitude. Like so many on the Left who labor to promote convictions based on a very judiciously selected collection of facts in a way to muffle the truth, is not only flawed, it’s downright belligerent. 360,000 Caucasians died to ensure the end of slavery as well as create the political environment that would allow for the aforementioned amendments.

By condemning the Constitution, they sneer at the very laws that give them the right to mock their government without fear of punishment. It’s this same legal foundation that provides all of us the opportunity to succeed and grow. And none of this came about without the blood and sacrifice of millions of people in the context of wars that were fought to protect those freedoms.

In short, the Oath of Allegiance that an immigrant has to state in order to become a citizen is something they embrace as a privilege. It includes supporting and defending the Constitution. They joyfully swear their allegiance to our country and its laws because they appreciate the profound rights guaranteed by the philosophical and legislative foundation crafted by flawed men, no doubt, but based on Divine Absolutes that prevent the corruption of power from restricting an individual’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The video clip featured on the right is more than just an inspiring scene of individuals realizing their dream of citizenship in the US. It’s a reminder that we are still a beacon of hope and opportunity for much of the civilized world. And we are that because of the Constitution, not in spite of it.

1. 13th Amendment – James Mitchell Ashley of Ohio (Republican), 14th Amendment – John A Bingham of Ohio (Republican), 15th Amendment – John A Bingham of Ohio (Republican)

Senator Van Hollen and Secretary Rubio

/in , , /by

Senator Van Hollen recently spoke before a committee where he confronted Secretary Rubio and said that he regretted having voted for him for Secretary of State. His comments were insulting, but, at the same time, they reveal the underlying problem that serves as the source for the tension that exists in our society today.

The problem is the way in which you define truth.

If you see yourself as the gauge by which all things are measured, then truth is whatever it is you want to believe in that moment. Should someone disagree with you, they’re not speaking the “truth,” so they can then be logically labeled a “liar.”

If they’re a “liar,” then they’re not merely mistaken, they’re immoral. If that person is a politician, they’re not a leader, they’re a tyrant. And those that support a tyrant aren’t voters, they’re Nazis.

This is the source of all the tension that exists in our society today. It’s not about USAID or Illegal Immigration or the Oval Office. Those are topics, but the tension is the way in which you define truth.

If you are you own bottom line, then you can dismiss the evidence that conclusively proves you to be wrong simply by declaring it to be irrelevant. Not because it’s anything less than conclusive, but simply because it makes you feel uncomfortable.

You have that power because you’ve authorized yourself to replace principles with preferences and reduced every incontrovertible fact to a situation where someone is forcing their beliefs on you.

You don’t want people to be fair, you want people to be quiet. You have to talk over your opponent because you don’t want the audience to hear what you can’t dispute. The great thing about the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is that it can be verified. Your corrupted version can only be allowed.

In this clip, Senator Van Hollen begins by declaring himself a victim. He’s disappointed and feels betrayed. By positioning yourself as someone who’s wounded, you’re able to get people to feel sorry for you which helps distract from the fact that you’re never going to get people to agree with you.

When Secretary Rubio referenced gang members being deported to El Salvador, Van Hollen did his best to talk over the Secretary insisting that what was being said was “unsubstantiated.” This goes back to the way in which you define truth. If you’re determined to force the world to function according to the way you feel as opposed to what is real, you will refer to anything you don’t want to hear as a lie, or, in this case, “unsubstantiated.”

Same sex marriage, Socialism, Abortion, Illegal Immigration…

These are not controversial issues. The “controversy” is embedded in the way you define you define truth.

To read more about the legal bottom lines that characterize the deportation of Albrego Garcia, click here.

SCiPP (pronounced “Skip!”)

/in , , , /by

SCiPP

It’s difficult not to notice a common thread amongst all of the criticisms leveled at President Trump. Regardless of the subject matter, it seems to come down to one thing that’s far more profound than mere Politics.

It’s the extent to which you’re willing to acknowledge a bottom line that exists independently of the way an individual thinks or feels.

There are two ways in which a person is going to process themselves and the world around them.

They’ll see things either in the context of Standards and Consequences or…

Preferences and Power.

Think of it as “SCiPP” (pronounced as “Skip”).

This simple acrostic captures the tension that exists in our society today, regardless of the topic or the parties involved.

On one hand, you have a standard that functions either as a boundary or a benchmark. It can be a situation where if you cross that line, you’re responsible for your actions and you have to suffer the consequences. Or, it can be a standard of excellence that if you meet or exceed that standard, you’re able to enjoy the benefits.

Standards and Consequences.

On the other hand…

You have a perspective that’s determined to dismiss any concept of having to answer to something other than what you might prefer in that moment. And because you can’t logically defend what you believe and why you believe it without sounding either selfish or foolish, you instead work to secure the power necessary to ensure your preferences  are prioritized above any standard that might otherwise apply.

Preferences and Power.

Again, it doesn’t matter what you’re talking about.

You’re either looking at what’s real or the way you feel.

Standards and Consequences. Preferences and Power.

SCiPP.

Whatever the Topic May Be

Whether the topic is Illegal Immigration, Transgenderism, Abortion, Voter Fraud, the Separation of Church and State, or Militant Islam, the schools of thought that argue back and forth will inevitably fall into one of those two camps.

Standards and Consequences Preferences and Power
Illegal Immigration
National sovereignty is acknowledged and due process is applied accordingly both to those who have no criminal record as well as those who are engaged in criminal activity and / or are categorized as international terrorists. Border security is ignored and any criminal activity that would qualify an illegal immigrant for immediate deportment is overlooked.
Does the Attorney General have the legal authority to deport illegal immigrants engaged in criminal activity?
Transgender
You can’t change the way the human species is designed just because you’re not happy with who you are. I can change who and what I am by changing my pronouns.
Question: Can a person change their gender by changing their pronouns?
Racism
I can’t shoot myself in the foot and then blame all my pain on the person or the principle that told me not to pull the trigger to begin with. As long as I can successfully position myself as a victim, I don’t have to answer any questions or take responsibility for my actions.
Question: Do you base the way a person is evaluated on their color or their conduct?
Abortion
If you have an abortion, your baby doesn’t get a chance to live. It’s not a baby until I decide it is.
Question: If you have an abortion, does your baby get the opportunity to live?
Voter Fraud
Fraud is defined according to the lack of integrity in the way votes are cast. Fraud is defined according to whether or not I win the election.
Question: Is voter fraud defined according to the person being elected or the votes being cast?
Separation of Church and State
The separation of church and state was designed to limit government’s influence on Christianity, not the other way around. I don’t have to pay attention to anything I’m not comfortable with.
Question: What is our national motto?
Militant Islam
You can’t take what doesn’t belong to you. Whether it’s a life or a piece of property, I can take whatever I want.
Question: What’s the difference between a thief and religious zealot if they’re both taking what doesn’t belong to them?

 

In order to have a double standard, you have to have a standard to begin with. This is why it can be so exasperating to talk with someone whose disposition is based on Preferences and Power. There are no standards, only situations.

All the boundaries otherwise established by logic, common sense, the rule of law, and historical truths are now subordinated to the idea that there are no realities apart from what the individual is willing to acknowledge. Evidence to the contrary is dismissed as either unreliable or irrelevant and truth isn’t an objective reality, as much as it’s a matter of opinion.

Facts Don’t Matter

Confronted with this scenario, you can’t hope to successfully champion what’s true simply by enumerating a list of facts.

The only facts they’re willing to acknowledge are those that can be manipulated to reinforce their bias, and their “fact checkers” evaluate what’s being said using only the criteria that translates to their desired conclusion. Nothing is “true,” in the context of being an absolute. There’s only what an individual is willing to acknowledge according to their personal preferences.

Everyone’s capable of ignoring what’s true in favor of what’s preferred. It’s human nature to protect yourself from either getting hurt or even corrected. No one wants to admit they’re wrong. But there’s a difference between someone who’s not convinced and the person who simply wants to be in control.

You can see that distinction in the way a person responds to something that’s being said. The person who wants to be in control can’t defend their perspective without being revealed as both selfish and nonsensical. So, instead of attempting to refute the substance of what’s being said, they assault the character of the one who’s speaking. By casting those they can’t refute as being ignorant villains, they are now perceived as sophisticated victims, and you can’t criticize someone who’s in pain.

This is the signature tactic of the person who sees themselves as their own bottom line. I can’t get you to agree with me, so I get you to feel sorry for me by insisting that the only people who criticize me are either stupid or sinister, and this is how they obtain the power necessary to force society to adopt their insanity all in the name of being “sensitive.”

But you can reveal the flawed nature of their approach by asking the right questions.

Bottom Lines…

33 as it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.” (Rom 9:33)

Bottom lines – absolute truth – isn’t welcome in the bind of the person who sees themselves as the gauge by which all things are measured. This is why there’s so much animosity in our culture today when it comes to anything that implies a Standard that exists independently of the way a person wants to process themselves and the world around them.

The Right Questions

When you ask a question, you control the conversation. A question requires an answer and a weak response is impossible to conceal. While it may not change the mind of the person you’re talking to, those who are listening are impacted and for that reason you want to always be ready to defend what’s True, not only with the data that reinforces the substance of your platform, but with the questions that can’t be answered apart from acknowledging a reality greater than the manufactured world you prefer.

Every one of the perspectives listed in the “Standards and Consequences” column in the chart above can be stated as a question. That’s what you see documented in the row beneath each issue. By asking the right question, it can be a game changer in the way it compels an answer that must recognize an empirical standard in order for it to make any sense.

Conclusion: These Are Spiritual Contests

Divisions (1 Cor 1:10) and Darkness (2 Cor 4:4) are spiritual contests (Eph 6:12) that aren’t won by reason alone. Wisdom is available (Jas 1:5), but it has to be chosen and it is not an option to the person who refuses to consider anything other than what they want to see.

You can’t convince someone of the truth if they’re philosophically invested in a lie. You’re not challenging their logic as much as you’re challenging their authority to define what’s right according to what they prefer.

But you can nevertheless be effective in the way you champion what’s true by first of all recognizing the way people define truth.

Standards and Consequences vs Preferences and Power.

By identifying their mindset, you can be better prepared to ask the right questions and not just present all the relevant evidence.

 

What is Truth?

/in , , , , , /by

Truth, according to the dictionary, is “that which is in accordance with fact or reality.” But if the world you live in is a manufactured reality where you are the gauge by which all things are measured than all the boundaries that are otherwise established by logic, the rule of law, and even common sense are completely abolished and the only thing that remains is what best promotes the idea that no one can tell you what to do.

Bear in mind, the question isn’t whether or not you have a choice, as much as it’s whether or not you have the authority to redefine the difference between right and wrong. Your “right to be happy” is now the clause you use to justify stripping the concept of Truth of all its original meaning and power and reducing it to nothing more than a word you use to certify yourself as your own absolute.

Listen to the way a Liberal attempts to defend the way they think.

You can’t force your beliefs on me

If there is no fixed point of reference, then the Truth is nothing more than what you want to believe. You can’t point out the flaws in a Liberal’s argument because, in the absence of a standard that exists independently of a way you want to think or behave, there is nothing to correct.

You have no evidence

However irrefutable your proof may be, it can be dismissed simply by declaring it to be either unreliable or irrelevant. Not because of its lacking in substance, but because of the way a Liberal has empowered themselves with the ability to acknowledge only what they want to see.

White Supremacist / Nazi / Right Wing Extremism / Fascist

When a Liberal is confronted with a platform that threatens to reveal both the philosophical and practical dead ends represented by the way they think, they attack the character of the one who is speaking in order to distract from the substance of what’s being said.

Constitutional Crisis / Rule of Law

The law is only as good as the truth and a court is only as good as the law. If the Truth has been drained of all of its meaning and objectivity, than a crime doesn’t have to be committed, it can simply be spoken into existence. And what is illegal can be exonerated simply by changing the way in which it’s evaluated.

You can’t change the way a Liberal thinks in the context of a debate, because there is a philosophical investment represented by the way they process themselves and the world around them. That investment is not something you overcome with an argument. That’s not to suggest you shouldn’t be prepared to defend what you believe, but you want to be aware of the territory that you’re in because there’s more to this than statistics and subject matter experts.

You can always find someone to tell you what you want to hear and a Liberal can rightfully accuse you of being no different than those you would criticize if you come across as someone whose principles are nothing more than personal preferences.

The key is to focus on the authentic definition of Truth.

“…that which is in accordance with fact or reality.”

The Greek word for Truth as it’s used in Scripture is alethia (uh-LEH-thee-uh) which means “…cannot be hidden.”

The Truth can’t be hidden. Regardless of how it either resonates with your preferences or irritates your sensibilities, the Truth simply “is.”

You ask those questions that can only be answered in a way that acknowledges the Truth.

  • If you have an abortion, does your baby get a chance to live?
  • Do you have the right to give away other people’s money?
  • Can you enter the US legally without going through Customs?

That’s the way Christ did it in the New Testament and it’s an effective way of circumventing all the tactics that are otherwise deployed for the sake of keeping the conversation focused on what’s what’s preferred as opposed to what’s True.

It’s not what you think, it’s not how you feel, and it’s not necessarily what you heard.

What’s the Truth?

And before you try to answer that question, how to you define Truth?

Start there and then you’ll have a better idea of who you’re talking to and what’s going to make an impact.

The Star Spangled Banner

/in , , /by

Ft McHenry – guardian of the Baltimore Port

It’s common knowledge that Francis Scott Key wrote the words to the “Star Spangled Banner.” But what might surprise some is the fact that while it’s normally performed in a very stately fashion, the words come from the mind of someone who was outrageously elated and relieved after seeing the flag of United States still flying over Fort McHenry.

It was 1814. Key was on a diplomatic mission in an effort to secure the release of an elderly physician who had been taken prisoner by the British in the aftermath of them having burned Washington D.C.

This was the War of 1812. Despite having won her independence, America was still be harassed by the British and things came to head after Britain refused to honor America’s maritime rights and cut into her trade as part of supporting its war with France.

It was now two years later and while Key was able to successfully negotiate the release of Dr. William Beanes, he was nevertheless detained in part to ensure that anything he and his colleagues might’ve heard pertaining to the attack on Fort McHenry would not get back to the American military.

For 25 hours the British bombarded the Fort. Had they succeeded, they would’ve been able to secure Baltimore’s harbor which was both a thriving port and a strategic location. While Key wasn’t a prisoner of war, he was still under guard which made the outcome of the battle all the more significant given the way both his fate and the future of his country was tied to what would be visible once the early morning sunrise revealed the status of the fort.

Upon seeing the American flag, “…by the dawn’s early light,” Key was thrilled and inspired. The fort had endured, his country was in tact and he would be released two days later after the British departed.

When you consider the words of the Star Spangled Banner in that context, the lyrics resonate as a real celebration. And not just in the context of a fortunate victory, but as a posture of gratitude for the number of times God has been willing to protect and preserve our nation.

You see that in the fourth verse of Key’s composition:

O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand
Between their lov’d home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with vict’ry and peace may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the power that hath made and preserv’d us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto – “In God is our trust,”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

It’s from that stanza that we get our National Motto.

The National Anthem has been performed in a variety of ways. But regardless of the tempo or the style, it’s the words and their meaning that make it a special piece of music. It’s a reminder that we are more than a secular experiment in politics. We’re a government based on the idea that we are made in the image of God and our future is based on His Blessing and His Protection. Provided we keep that in mind, we will continue to be, “…the land of the free and the home of the brave.”

Sanctified Violence

/in , , , /by

In the Old Testament, you’ve got men of renown – warrior kings and fighting prophets that trusted God and defeated their enemies with the Power and Perspective He provided. Battlefield prowess was commended, an individual’s skill with a weapon was applauded.

As a young man hearing these stories, you couldn’t help but be inspired by these real life champions and their accomplishments. You wanted be like them and be able to defeat your Goliath and stare down the lions in your world.

In the New Testament, you’ve got something quite different. Your principal characters are blue collar workers who quit their jobs to become full time missionaries – most of whom die a martyr’s death, presumably alone and penniless when they meet their end. Jesus Christ, the King of kings and Lord of lords doesn’t lead a military attack. He submits Himself to a very public and painful execution. And while the significance of His having defeated the power of sin and death can’t be overstated, it can be confusing for an individual who’s trying to understand the way in which the Bible would have a man overcome his enemy.

Does he use a sling and a sword or a kind word and a hot meal?

Does he defeat his enemy with the Strength that God provides or does he love his enemy and turn the other cheek?

The short answer is: Both.

A godly man, at the very least, is a diligent student of Scripture and studies the Bible as a whole, recognizing that all Scripture is god-breathed (2 Tim 2:15). To insist that the New Testament condemns violence of any sort or that the Old Testament is a collection of battlefield sins that God merely tolerated rather than acts of holy heroism that He empowered, is to read into the text dynamics and personal preferences that are simply not there.

This essay was written as way to demonstrate the fact that there is such a thing as “sanctified violence” and this is a part of one’s masculinity that can be embraced as both holy and righteous when it’s being deployed in a manner that promotes and protects His Truth.

I) Introduction

Alvin York was awarded the Medal of Honor for his heroism during the battle during the battle of Chatel-Chehery on October 8, 1918. Initially he hesitated when he received word that he was being drafted into the Army due to his belief that Christians should abstain from warfare and violence. Thankfully, he was convinced otherwise and his efforts at Chatel-Chehery saved the lives of the seven men he led in the engagement as well a the Germans he took prisoner.

His struggle with the Scriptures pertaining to violence bring up an interesting question: Does the Bible command that we are not to ever take up arms against our enemies? Does Scipture say that we are to never fight against those who would do us harm?

Passionate interpretations abound, but those who would insist on a pacifist disposition often leave out the way in which God obviously endorsed and empowered the violence done by the Israelites in the context of various military operations. Here we want to examine the whole of Scripture in an effort to determine what God’s take is on the use of force, not only for the nation contemplating military action, but also for the individual wrestling with the idea of using physical force to stop his opponent.

II) Scripture as a Whole

In Matthew 26:47-68 when Jesus said that those who live by the sword, die by the sword, it’s important to take into consideration Scripture in its entirety and not only bits and pieces to ensure a proper interpretation.

A) God Doesn’t’ Change His Mind

God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? (Num 23:19)

God does not change. Some read the New Testament and insist that God is against any kind of violence and they cite Scriptures like Matthew 26:52-54 as evidence that we are to never take up arms to defend ourselves or to champion that which is right. But there are other Scriptures that point very definitively to God’s endorsement of violence when it is He who is wielding the sword through the capable hands of a godly warrior. And those scenarios must be considered along with verses such as Matthew 26:52-24 in order to properly understand God’s Perspective and direction. For example:

B) Old Testament Examples of God’s Endorsement of Violence

The Conquest of the Promised Land

20 When the trumpets sounded, the people shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the people gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so every man charged straight in, and they took the city. 21 They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys. (Josh 6:20-21)

Ai

1 Then the LORD said to Joshua, “Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged. Take the whole army with you, and go up and attack Ai. For I have delivered into your hands the king of Ai, his people, his city and his land. 2 You shall do to Ai and its king as you did to Jericho and its king, except that you may carry off their plunder and livestock for yourselves. Set an ambush behind the city.” (Josh 8:1-2)

24When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the desert where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it. 25 Twelve thousand men and women fell that day—all the people of Ai. 26 For Joshua did not draw back the hand that held out his javelin until he had destroyed all who lived in Ai. 27 But Israel did carry off for themselves the livestock and plunder of this city, as the LORD had instructed Joshua. (Josh 8:24-27)

Five Amorite Kings

For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, to meet Israel in battle in order that he might utterly destroy them, that they might receive no mercy, but that he might destroy them, just as the LORD had commanded Moses. (Josh 11:20)

List of Defeated Kings

Joshua 12 lists all of those kings who were defeated by the Israelites. These victories were accomplished as a result of combat and not diplomacy.

In Psalm 44:3, the Psalmist praises God for His having worked through the hands of the Israelites to secure their military victories…

It was not by their sword that they won the land, nor did their arm bring them victory; it was your right hand, your arm, and the light of your face, for you loved them. (Psalm 44:3)

You see the same kind of sentiment in Psalm 18…

He trains my hands for battle; my arms can bend a bow of bronze. You armed me with strength for battle; you made my adversaries bow at my feet. (Psalm 18:34, 39)

It is God’s Strength and Spirit that is credited for the military victories enjoyed by the Israelites. In addition to the conquest of the Promised Land, you have other examples such as…

Building the Wall

Therefore I stationed some of the people behind the lowest points of the wall at the exposed places, posting them by families, with their swords, spears and bows. (Neh 4:13)

Skilled With a Sling

Among all these soldiers there were seven hundred chosen men who were left-handed, each of whom could sling a stone at a hair and not miss. (Judges 20:16)

Combat Training

These are the nations the LORD left in order to test Israel, since none of these Israelites had fought in any of the wars with Canaan. 2This was to teach the future generations of the Israelites [how to fight in] battle, especially those who had not fought before. (Judges 3:1-2)

David’s defense of the Israelites at Keilah

1When David was told, “Look, the Philistines are fighting against Keilah and are looting the threshing floors,” 2 he inquired of the LORD, saying, “Shall I go and attack these Philistines?” The LORD answered him, “Go, attack the Philistines and save Keilah.” (1 Sam 23:1-2)

Saul commanded by God to attack the Amalekites>

1Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. 2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [a] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’ (1 Sam 15:1-3)

The fact of the matter is, “violence” is like fire. It can be used to cook your food, or it can burn your house down. Violence is defined as either heroism or criminal activity depending on the motive.

C) The New Testament – A Different Dynamic

In the New Testament, you have a different dynamic. Jesus did not come to conquer the Roman government; rather He came to conquer the power of sin. Given the nature of His mission, “violence” was not going to be needed. That does not mean that the kind of violence that God supported and empowered in the Old Testament is now no longer necessary or noble. The fact of the matter is, just like the Character of God didn’t change, neither did the need for “sanctified” violence.

When Jesus told the disciples to put their swords away in Matthew 26:52-24, He was:

  • Ensuring that prophecy would be fulfilled and that His voluntary death and miraculous resurrection would be allowed to proceed.
  • Protecting them. Two swords between 11 apostles was no match for a band of armed soldiers.
  • Setting a precedent. Christianity is to be communicated with gentleness and respect and not at the tip of a sword. He was not issuing a new command to abstain from any kind of violence.

In the New Testament, Christ’s Mission, as has been stated before, was to reconcile man to God and in that vein, would not require or use violence to get the job done.

1) You’re Going to Need a Sword

But while Jesus would not use force to accomplish His Mandate, as God He cannot be anything other than consistent in all things, which includes His previously stated disposition towards sanctified violence. That disposition is revealed in the Old Testament in the context of the various battles that God won through the Israelites. In Luke, you can see it implied when He encourages His disciples to get a sword. He goes as far as to say that if they don’t, have one, to sell their cloak and go buy one.

36-37He said, “This is different. Get ready for trouble. Look to what you’ll need; there are difficult times ahead. Pawn your coat and get a sword. What was written in Scripture, ‘He was lumped in with the criminals,’ gets its final meaning in me. Everything written about me is now coming to a conclusion.” (Luke 22:36-37 [MSG])

The NIV Text Note reads:

buy one An extreme figure of speech used to warn them of the perilous times about to come. They could need defense and protection, as Paul did when he appealed to Caesar (Acts 25:11) as the one who “bears the sword” (Rom 13:4 )

There are several schools of thought reinforced with compelling sounding commentaries that insist that God is a Pacifist and that Jesus was a nice guy who would never think of picking up a sword. The Intervarsity Press has this commentary on the passage in Luke where Jesus refers to swords:

They must now expect that their enemies would be more fierce than they had been, and they would need weapons. At the time the apostles understood Christ to mean real weapons, but he spake only of the weapons of the spiritual warfare. The sword of the Spirit is the sword with which the disciples of Christ must furnish themselves. (Lu 22:39-46)

But Jesus said to sell your cloak and go buy a sword if you didn’t have one. He’s referring to a weapon – something tangible that can be purchased. The Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God, is not “bought,” as much as it is read and obeyed. The context of Christ’s Words do not allow for an interpretation other than His saying that the disciples would need weapons.

2) Turn the Other Cheek

Another common argument against the use of force would be the way in which Christ’s directions to “turn the other cheek” are interpreted to mean that you respond to an attack by simply giving your attacker yet another opportunity to harm you, perhaps even destroy you. You have the passage in Matthew…

38“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. (Matt 5:39)

…and in Luke:

27“But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. 30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you. (Luke 6:27-31)

Both passages begin by establishing the context of Jesus’ words by referring to the statute in the law of Moses where the punishment was to fit the crime. Centuries later, additional stipulations had been added making it seemingly correct to counter any indignity or offense to be countered with something in kind. In many ways, Jesus is saying to take the high road. Should someone offend you or insult you, He’s saying to get over it. However, He is not saying to not defend yourself or to never fight. In this passage, He’s referring to an assault on your dignity and not an attack on your person. A slap on the cheek was considered an insult, not a physical attack.

Consider Lamentations 3:30:

30 Let him offer his cheek to one who would strike him, and let him be filled with disgrace. (Lam 3:30 [see also 1 Kings 22:24; Is 50:6])

The commentary provided by the InterVarsity Press reinforces the point of a slap in the face was considered an indignity, not an assault:

As in much of Jesus’ teaching, pressing his illustration the wrong way may obscure his point. In fact, this would read Scripture the very way he was warning against: if someone hits us in the nose, or has already struck us on both cheeks, are we finally free to hit back? Jesus gives us a radical example so we will avoid retaliation, not so we will explore the limits of his example (see Tannehill 1975:73). A backhanded blow to the right cheek did not imply shattered teeth (tooth for tooth was a separate statement); it was an insult, the severest public affront to a person’s dignity (Lam 3:30; Jeremias 1963:28 and 1971:239). God’s prophets sometimes suffered such ill-treatment (1 Kings 22:24; Is 50:6). Yet though this was more an affront to honor, a challenge, than a physical injury, ancient societies typically provided legal recourse for this offense within the lex talionis regulations (Pritchard 1955:163, 175; see also Gaius Inst. 3.220). (“Avoid Retribution and Resistance”, IVP Commentary, accessed April, 2 2009)

The bottom line is that this passage has Jesus not changing the Law or issuing a new Divine Perspective on violence, rather He was repairing the damage done that had been done to the Law. “An eye for an eye” had been perverted into something beyond ensuring that the punishment fit the crime, now it was being used to justify getting even, however insignificant the infraction may be. Again, the context this passage, both culturally and theologically, is dealing with attacks on one’s character and pride, not physical abuses.

Two things Christ teaches us here:1. We must not be revengeful (v. 39); I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; —the evil person that is injurious to you. The resisting of any ill attempt upon us, is here as generally and expressly forbidden, as the resisting of the higher powers is (Rom. 13:2); and yet this does not repeal the law of self-preservation, and the care we are to take of our families; we may avoid evil, and may resist it, so far as is necessary to our own security; but we must not render evil for evil, must not bear a grudge, nor avenge ourselves, nor study to be even with those that have treated us unkindly, but we must go beyond them by forgiving them, Prov. 20:22; 24:29; 25:21, 22; Rom. 12:7. (Matthew Henry)

So while turning the other cheek is very much a part of the Christian approach to confrontation, it is not to be confused with the notion that God frowns on defending yourself.

3) Love Your Enemies and Bless Those Who Persecute You

The first part of the Matthew and Luke passages talk about treating your enemy with love and compassion. The Message offers a great paraphrase of the Matthew text:

43-47“You’re familiar with the old written law, ‘Love your friend,’ and its unwritten companion, ‘Hate your enemy.’ I’m challenging that. I’m telling you to love your enemies. Let them bring out the best in you, not the worst. When someone gives you a hard time, respond with the energies of prayer, for then you are working out of your true selves, your God-created selves. This is what God does. He gives his best—the sun to warm and the rain to nourish—to everyone, regardless: the good and bad, the nice and nasty. If all you do is love the lovable, do you expect a bonus? Anybody can do that. If you simply say hello to those who greet you, do you expect a medal? Any run-of-the-mill sinner does that. 48“In a word, what I’m saying is, Grow up. You’re kingdom subjects. Now live like it. Live out your God-created identity. Live generously and graciously toward others, the way God lives toward you.” (Matt 5:43-48)

Some will walk away from this passage and take it to mean that you are to never defend yourself or to never take up arms against a warring nation. Again, it’s crucial to consider Scripture as a whole and dispatch a perspective that is comprehensive as opposed to exclusive when attempting to mine the meaning of Christ’s words. First off, this isn’t the first time God has admonished His people to treat their enemies with kindness and consideration.

“If you come across your enemy’s stray ox or donkey, you must return it to him. (Ex 23:4)

Do not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. Do not abhor an Egyptian, because you lived as an alien in his country. (Dt 23:7)

But while God has said, for example, not to abhor an Edomite, in 1 Chronicles you have David triumphing over 18,000 Edomites:

12 Abishai son of Zeruiah struck down eighteen thousand Edomites in the Valley of Salt. 13 He put garrisons in Edom, and all the Edomites became subject to David. The LORD gave David victory everywhere he went. (1 Chron 18:12-13)

And while God tells the Israelites not to abhor an Egyptian, 2 Samuel relays the exploits of Benaiah:

20 Benaiah son of Jehoiada was a valiant fighter from Kabzeel, who performed great exploits. He struck down two of Moab’s best men. He also went down into a pit on a snowy day and killed a lion. 21 And he struck down a huge Egyptian. Although the Egyptian had a spear in his hand, Benaiah went against him with a club. He snatched the spear from the Egyptian’s hand and killed him with his own spear. 22 Such were the exploits of Benaiah son of Jehoiada; he too was as famous as the three mighty men. (2 Sam 23:20-22)

Benaiah (pronounced bee –NIGH –uh) would be distinctive, not only in his military prowess, but also in the way he supported Solomon’s succession to the throne (1 Kings 1-2) and his ultimately replacing Joab as commander of Israel’s armies (1 Kings 2:35). As has been mentioned before, God works through the swords and shields of his people to do his bidding in the context of sanctified violence. And just like turning the other cheek doesn’t mean that we are allow an intruder to harm our family, loving your enemy and blessing those who persecute you does not negate the appropriate use of force when your enemy is engaged in something that goes beyond insulting rhetoric or offensive gestures. The question then is, “How do you profess to treat your enemy as a ‘child of God’ when you’re actively engaged in killing him?” The same question could be raised in the context of capital punishment: How is mercy being manifested in the execution of a criminal?

The answer lies in two main ideas:

  • Remembering that your enemy is a child of God
  • You treat your enemy humanely. Since we are all made in God’s image, it is then possible to find something good in everyone. That’s at least some of what lies behind God’s command to not abhor an Edomite or an Egyptian. In the instance of the Egyptians, they were the host country of the Israelites for centuries. In the case of the Edomites, they were related (Edom was Esau, brother the Jacob).

However heinous your enemy may be, they are nevertheless a “creation” of God and are therefore entitled to being handled as such. Matthew Henry:

Note, it is the great duty of Christians to love their enemies; we cannot have complacency in one that is openly wicked and profane, nor put a confidence in one that we know to be deceitful; nor are we to love all alike; but we must pay respect to the human nature, and so far honour all men: we must take notice, with pleasure, of that even in our enemies which is amiable and commendable; ingenuousness, good temper, learning, and moral virtue, kindness to others, profession of religion, etc., and love that, though they are our enemies. (commentary on Matthew 5)

As a child of God, a person is deserving of humane treatment. However compelling the temptation may be to make your adversary suffer, you don’t see any trace of Israel exacting tortuous tactics on their enemy, and that is the template that we must follow. Bear in mind, however, that once an enemy had proved themselves to be worthy of death, rarely did you see that enemy spared.

While you don’t see Israel ever torturing their enemy, Israel nevertheless decimated their foes.

They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it – men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys. (Jos 6:21)

When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the desert where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those where were in it. Twelve thousand men and women fell that day – all the people of Ai. (Josh 8:24-25)

Then Joshua struck and killed the kings and hung them on five trees, and they were left hanging on the trees until evening…That day Joshua took Makkedah. He put the city and its king to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it. He left not survivors. And he did to the king of Makkedah as he had done to the king of Jericho. (Josh 10:26, 28)

The Lord also gave that city and it s king into Israel’s hand. The city and everyone in it Joshua put to the sword. He left no survivors there. And he did to its king as he had done to the king of Jericho. (Josh 10:30)

32 The LORD handed Lachish over to Israel, and Joshua took it on the second day. The city and everyone in it he put to the sword, just as he had done to Libnah. 33 Meanwhile, Horam king of Gezer had come up to help Lachish, but Joshua defeated him and his army—until no survivors were left. 34 Then Joshua and all Israel with him moved on from Lachish to Eglon; they took up positions against it and attacked it. 35 They captured it that same day and put it to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it, just as they had done to Lachish. 36 Then Joshua and all Israel with him went up from Eglon to Hebron and attacked it. 37 They took the city and put it to the sword, together with its king, its villages and everyone in it. They left no survivors. Just as at Eglon, they totally destroyed it and everyone in it. 38 Then Joshua and all Israel with him turned around and attacked Debir. 39 They took the city, its king and its villages, and put them to the sword. Everyone in it they totally destroyed. They left no survivors. They did to Debir and its king as they had done to Libnah and its king and to Hebron. (Josh 10:32-39)

12 Joshua took all these royal cities and their kings and put them to the sword. He totally destroyed them, as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded. 13 Yet Israel did not burn any of the cities built on their mounds—except Hazor, which Joshua burned. 14 The Israelites carried off for themselves all the plunder and livestock of these cities, but all the people they put to the sword until they completely destroyed them, not sparing anyone that breathed. 15 As the LORD commanded his servant Moses, so Moses commanded Joshua, and Joshua did it; he left nothing undone of all that the LORD commanded Moses. (Josh 11:12-15)

It should be noted that the battles Israel engaged in were not about the acquisition of wealth and plunder, as much as it was about God’s wrath being poured out on the Canaanites for their idolatry and rebellious acts:

4 After the LORD your God has driven them out before you, do not say to yourself, “The LORD has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness.” No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is going to drive them out before you. 5 It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations, the LORD your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. (Dt 9:4-5 [see also Dt 7:16; Josh 1:20])

The Canaanites were created by God as were all of the other peoples that He slated for destruction. While His love for them remained constant, so did His sense of Justice. While His Love is represented in His not wanting anyone to perish (2 Pet 3:9), His Justice was made manifest in the guilty being punished. You can see the same dynamic in the New Testament. While God’s Love and Mercy knows no limitations, His Justice remains Perfect and Immutable.

But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish. (2 Pet 2:12)

These men being referred to in 2 Peter are the same people being referred to in chapter 3, as far as God not wanting anyone to perish. But, the man who has willfully turned his back on God and gone on to commit rebellious acts will be punished. The punishment he receives is due to the fact that he chose not to accept God’s Mercy, not because God’s Love do not apply or was withheld. If “loving my enemy” results in a disposition that excuses any and all wrongdoing, that its no longer love. While love keeps no record of wrongs, it does not “delight in evil” (1 Cor 13:6), nor does it attempt to re-define wrongful behavior as a noble act or something that don’t merit punishment. God is love (1 Jn 4:16), but He is also just (Nah 1:3; 2 Thess 1:8-10). Insisting that His Love can somehow be perverted into a disposition that overlooks any and all wrongdoing is to lessen His Just nature and to cheapen His Grace. A.W. Tozer in his book, “That Incredible Christian” says this:

Truth is like a bird; it cannot fly on one wing. Yet we are forever trying to take off with one wing flapping furiously and the other tucked neatly out of sight.

I believe it was Dr. G. Campbell Morgan who said that the whole truth does not lie in “It is written,” but in “It is written” and “Again it is written.” The second text must be placed over against the first to balance it and give it symmetry, just as the right wing must work along with the left to balance the bird and enable it to fly.

Many of the doctrinal divisions among the churches are the result of a blind and stubborn insistence that truth has but one wing. Each side holds tenaciously to one text, refusing grimly to acknowledge the validity of the other. This error is an evil among churches, but it is a real tragedy when it gets into the hearts of individual Christians ad begins to affect their devotional lives.

Lack of balance in the Christian life is often the direct consequence of overemphasis on certain texts, with a corresponding underemphasis on other related ones. For it is not denial only that makes a truth void; failure to emphasize it will in the long run be equally damaging. And this puts us in the odd position of holding a truth theoretically while we make it of no effect by neglecting it in practice. Unused truth become as useless as an unused muscle. (“That Incredible Christian”, A.W. Tozer, p59, Christian Publications,Inc. Harrisburg, PA, 1964)

The same kind of thing is being referred to in the book of Ecclesiastes:

16 Do not be overrighteous, be overwise— why destroy yourself? 17 Do not be overwicked, and do not be a fool— why die before your time? 18 It is good to grasp the one and not let go of the other. The man who fears God will avoid all extremes. (Ecc 7:16-18)

To “love your enemy” in a way that ignores Justice and accommodates whatever wrongdoing they would exact upon the world around them, is to substitute God’s Love with a human license to engage in any kind of criminal or unethical behavior without fear of punishment. The person who dispatches that kind of love is, as A.W. Tozer described, “…flying on one wing.” It is not either / or, rather it is both / and. To love my enemy the way Jesus commanded and the way which God demonstrated means that I love them as one who has been created in the image of my Heavenly Father and therefore deserving of any and all godly considerations. It also means that when their behavior places them in the category of a criminal or a threat, I take whatever steps are necessary to protect the innocent and ensure the proper dispatch of justice. That approach accommodates the whole of Scripture as opposed to that perspective that emphasizes only a portion of the Bible and ignores the rest.

III) Conclusion – A Balanced Approach

The balanced approach (see Ecc 7:16-18) to all this seems to point to two definitive Truths:

  • Christianity is communicated and proliferated through one’s witness and not one’s weapons.

The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. (2 Cor 10:4)

15But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. (1 Peter 3:15-16 [emphasis added])

  • Violence has been and can be used by God to accomplish His Purposes. That being the case, it is wrong to say that all violence is sinful and has no place in a Christian mindset. Championing and defending God’s Agenda is both noble and a manifestation of being obedient to God’s Directions.

In conclusion then, Judges 3:1-2 makes it clear that God placed a premium on making sure that the Israelites knew how to fight. It makes sense given the number of times Israel was called upon to strap on their swords and do battle with the enemies of God. In the New Testament, while Jesus does make it clear that to be reckless and hasty in resolving to remedy any and all disputes with a weapon is foolish (Those who live by the sword, die by the sword [Matt 26:52]), and He encourages believers to respond to insults and offenses by “turning the other cheek,” the context and verbiage of His admonishing the disciples to arm themselves taken along with God’s obvious endorsement of military force in the Old Testament compellingly demonstrates the Truth and Biblical place of “sanctified violence.” Know how to fight, understand and practice the difference between justice and revenge and seek God’s Direction in all things so that however your enemy may confront you, whether with words or weapons, your response is indicative of Who you serve. That’s the difference between the violence that is done out of fear and pride as opposed to the violence that is truly sanctified. For further reading, refer to the links below: