Posts

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…

Why is American Christianity so Disgusting?

/in , , , , /by

That was the question on quora. com.

Sometimes, it’s hard not to speculate that those kinds of questions aren’t anything other than just an invitation for atheists and agnostics to spew their discontent with the Reality of Biblical Absolutes.

But this was my response…

It depends on what you mean by “American Christianity.”

There aren’t different versions. You’re either a Christian or you’re not (Rom 10:9–10).

And while there are a number of people who’ve got it in their head that just saying they believe in the empty tomb somehow qualifies them as a believer, the demons believed that Christ rose from the grave. So, a belief in the resurrection, from a biblical standpoint, goes beyond acknowledging Christ’s having risen from the grave as more than a historical truth. It’s a personal reality that’s represented by the Spirit of Christ living inside of you (Rom 8:9–10; 1 Cor 2:16).

One thing that often gets distorted is the idea of “love.” In the absence of Truth, love is nothing more than selfishness and neglect. In 1 Corinthian 13, it says, “Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.” So, when you’re breaking the law and justifying it by saying that you have the right to be happy, or when you’re attempting to defend something perverse by saying that love is stronger than hate, that’s just a coward wanting to be accommodated rather than evaluated.

You can’t disagree with “love,” so you make that your storefront in order to conceal what you’re actually selling.

It’s the same thing with the way people either claim to be a Christian, or criticize Christians in that they want to maintain themselves as their own moral bottom line while simultaneously sounding “godly.”

Just like the gospel says that you are more than your mistakes, the Truth is more than a personal preference. And when that “preference” is threatened, it’s then that some will try to reduce institutions to traditions, and an authentic relationship with Christ to a flawed opinion.

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.

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.

A Difficult Truth or a Convenient Lie?

/in , , , /by

 

When you’re talking with someone who sees themselves as their own absolute, they’re living in a manufactured reality where there’s no such thing as truth, only personal opinions. Truth only exists in the context of what they’re comfortable with – a preference that’s unique to every individual as opposed to an Absolute that applies to all individuals. That’s why when you try to tell them that they’re wrong, you’re heard as someone who’s just trying to force your beliefs on them.

All the boundaries represented by logic, common sense, morality, and even rational thought are now nonexistent because there’s no fixed point of reference. There are no Divine Absolutes, those are “your beliefs.” That isn’t irrevocable evidence, that’s just your perspective. Those aren’t indisputable facts, those are just your personal preferences. Truth is defined exclusively according to whether or not a person wants to believe it – there’s no kind of accuracy that exists independently of the way a person thinks or feels. If they’re not comfortable with what’s being said, it is automatically untrue. There are no principles, only preferences.

That is the key difference between a Conservative and a Liberal. The Liberal gauges everything according to whatever best reinforces their core assumption that they are the standard by which all things are measured. Every resource, be it a news outlet, a personality, a poll, a statistic, a picture, or a study – however credible they may be – none of it is considered as admissible evidence if it resonates as a threat to the way they want to see themselves and the world around them.

The Conservative, on the other hand, believes in something greater than themselves which means that they are focused on a Standard that doesn’t change and is coming from a Source that is morally and intellectually flawless (“In God We Trust”). That doesn’t mean that the Conservative is never beyond reproach. What it does mean is that they see themselves as being accountable to someone other than the one who stares back at them in the mirror every morning. The Liberal, on the other hand, because they see themselves as their own bottom line, they are never responsible for their actions as much as their oppressed by a system that is corrupt. They may be different, perhaps they’re damaged, but they’re never wrong.

What can make this exhausting is that when you accuse a Liberal of basing their convictions on preferences rather than principles, they will insist that you’re doing the same thing. They cannot process the concept of a transcendent reality that prevails over an individual’s desires and appetites. In fact, they see it as unhealthy distraction.

Katherine Maher, the CEO of NPR, captures that mentality in a presentation she made entitled, “What Wikipedia Teaches Us About Balancing Truth and Beliefs” featured on ted.com. At one point she says:

We all have different truths. They’re based on where we come from, how we were raised and how other people perceive us.

That perhaps for our most tricky disagreements, seeking the truth and seeking to convince others of the truth might not be the right place to start. In fact, our reverence for the truth might be a distraction that’s getting in the way of finding common ground and getting things done.1

The problem with Maher’s approach, and the Liberal perspective in general, is that it contradicts the very definition of what truth is. The dictionary definition of truth is, “…the body of real things, events, and facts.”2. Truth is an objective absolute and is not something that can be established simply by speaking it into reality anymore than you can change your gender simply by changing your pronouns.

To insist that truth is relative is a self-defeating statement because if truth is relative than even declaring it as such is relative and is therefore meaningless.

Yet, this is a necessary premise in order for the Liberal mentality to function. Once you introduce the idea that truth is nothing more than a word that’s used to elevate your personal disposition to the level of a universal given, then everything from your testimony in court to the way you evaluate the behavior and the credibility of other people depends solely on how that scenario either weakens or strengthens your ability to maintain the illusion that your definition of the human experience is the only definition that matters.

This is why the immorality of a particular individual is labeled as heinous and the same behavior in another individual doesn’t even justify a headline. It’s not a “double standard.” To the Liberal, there are no standards, only situations. The Liberal isn’t as concerned with the behavior as much as they are in demonizing anyone who represents a philosophy that promotes the practical existence of objective truth.

This is why they can lie in court because, again, there is no truth apart from whatever is preferred in that moment. You can’t be lying if you have eliminated the standard by which your statement would otherwise by measured.

Inevitably, this is more than just a self-serving philosophy. This is a spiritual condition.

There are only two religions in the world: Either God is God or you are. Every religion on the planet empowers the individual with the ability to facilitate their own salvation. You can do something or abstain from something to the point where you can merit the favor of your preferred deity. This is the lie that satan fed Eve in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 3:5:

“For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Gen 3:5)

Christianity, on the other hand, says you’re a spiritual corpse. The only thing you contribute to your salvation is the sin that makes it necessary. The gospel is the only religious doctrine that positions mankind as absolutely subordinate to his God.

That doesn’t work in the mind of a Liberal.

You can’t be your own absolute and be subordinate to a holy God at the same time. It’s one or the other and that’s why the separation of church and state is such a volatile issue.

It’s not just American History, nor is it a Sunday morning tradition. It is toxic in the mind of the person who is determined to be their own bottom line.

However unsustainable or nonsensical that approach may be, it can nevertheless be championed very effectively by insisting that, as Katherine Maher said, “We all have different truths,” and that it is ultimately a “distraction.”

But it’s not distracting, it’s stabilizing. And when that stability is in place, it’s liberating.

The death and resurrection of Christ aren’t certified as actual calendar events simply because I find the notion of a loving and forgiving God appealing. It either happened or it didn’t. However I “feel” about the empty tomb doesn’t validate its authenticity one way or the other.

The question isn’t, “How do you feel?” Rather, you need to ask, “Is it real?”

The question isn’t whether or not I can force my beliefs on you. The question should be, “Is what I’m saying…”

…true?

The word “truth” is used frequently in our society. Even in the context of swearing to, “…tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God.”

But when truth is nothing more than one’s personal version of reality as opposed to that which is genuinely real, then you are attempting to function in a manner that is not only completely inconsistent with the way the universe operates, but you have cast off every reliable metric that would otherwise guide you in your pursuit of happiness, and redefined rights, not as gifts given to you by God to guard your way, but as weapons you use to get your way.

As long as you’re determined to ignore principles in favor of your preferences, you are missing the life and freedom afforded to you by what is, at times, a difficult truth, and exchanged it for the frustrated existence supplied by a convenient lie.

 

 

1. “What Wikipedia teaches us about balancing truth and beliefs”, ted.com, https://www.ted.com/talks/katherine_maher_what_wikipedia_teaches_us_about_balancing_truth_and_beliefs, accessed March 30, 2025

2. “truth”, “Merriam Webster Dictionary”, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/truth, accessed March 30, 2025

The Truth | Part One: Ask the Right Questions

/1 Comment/in , /by

That’s Your Opinion

You can’t expect someone to admit that they’re wrong if they’re unwilling to acknowledge a standard beyond themselves. And because they see themselves as their own absolute, they don’t hear your corrections or criticisms as anything other than a form of oppression. To their way of thinking, you’re not questioning their logic as much as you’re challenging their authority to dictate the difference between right and wrong.

You’re not championing what’s true as much as you’re promoting what you prefer. Should you be a politician,  you’re not a leader as much as you are a fascist and a dictator.

Regardless of how many facts you’ve compiled or however compelling the evidence may be, when there are no standards and only situations in the mind of the person you’re conversing with, your entire platform can be dismissed simply by them saying, “That’s your opinion.”

Christ Asked Them the Right Questions

When confronted with that kind of approach, you want to use the same tactic that Christ used when He was talking with the Pharisees in the way He asked them questions.

  • “Whose image is this…?” (Mk 12:16)
  • “Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, take your mat and walk’?” (Mk 2:9)
  • “If I’m telling you the truth, why don’t you believe me?” (Jn 8:46)

When you ask a question, in that moment, you control the conversation and you compel an answer that prevents certain assumptions from going unchallenged. At the same time, you’re able to ensure certain realities are acknowledged that might otherwise be intentionally ignored. With the right question, you can reveal the Truth as well as those who are opposed to it because of how the only logical answer forces them to admit that they’re wrong.

What qualifies my belief system as both logical and accurate is the extent to which my thought process is consistent with reality. I demonstrate my perspective’s consistency with reality by producing evidence that proves what I believe is correct. That’s how you distinguish a preference from a principle and that is how you reveal someone who doesn’t want to know what’s true as much as they simply want to be told they’re right.

But you can’t always introduce evidence into a conversation because of the way some will try to categorize even the most compelling proof as subjective and therefore no more significant than an irrelevant observation.

But when you ask the right question…

You’re able to proceed directly to that place where there’s either an answer or an excuse.

Conclusion: A Reality Greater Than Themselves

When Jesus asked the Pharisees whose image was inscribed on Roman currency, He was forcing the Pharisees to acknowledge how God commands obedience to the authorities that He Himself has instituted, while simultaneously articulating the greater Truth of how we are to render obedience and surrender our lives to the the One Whose Image we bear. (Jer 29:4-10; Rom 13:1-14; 1 Pet 2:13-17 [see also Acts 5:29]).

That’s the approach you want to use when it comes to defending your convictions about the Reality of the empty tomb, moral absolutes, the spiritual heritage of our country, and even your political convictions.

1 Peter 3:15 says:

But in your hearts revere 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

Your “answer” needs to include questions that you can ask should you be confronted with someone who doesn’t want to listen as much as they want to be confirmed as their own judge and jury. As long as they maintain themselves as the gauge by which the accuracy of all things are measured, the only thing that will allow for the truth to be revealed is a question that cannot be answered apart from acknowledging a reality greater than themselves.