Setting aside moral principle to serve a greater good means you have no moral principles.
Moral relativists love their hypotheticals: “What if you had a chance to travel back in time and kill baby Hitler?”
Once they can establish the answer as “yes” then pretty soon thereafter anyone who stands in their way is a Nazi. Or, in other words, the morality of “everyone I don’t like is literally Hitler” where you will basically become Hitler killing all of those baby Hitlers before they become Hitler—kill them all, you can’t be too careful!
It is ends justify the means morality that justifies, ultimately, the most heinous and horrible acts by one projecting a possible outcome as an excuse to violate another person—in some cases even before they drew a first breath.
For example, the Freakonomics case for abortion pointing to how inner-city crime rates dropped in correlation with black babies being killed—used as a moral justification.
Contrast this with Matthew 12:20, with Jesus: “He will not break a crushed blade of grass…”
This prejudice is behind every genocide or ethnic cleansing campaign. The excuse: “We don’t want to kill babies, but if we don’t ‘mow the grass‘ then they’ll grow up to kill us.” I mean, it’s not like that attitude will create a backlash or stir the anger of the population being cynically targeted for a trimming back, right?
Oh well, at least when you are starting at the very bottom, relying on self-defense by precrime judgment and a doctrine of preemption, there is no slippery slope to be concerned about: Morality becomes a race of who can eliminate their potential opponents most efficiently rather than a social contract between people trying to live peaceably with their neighbors.
(Im)Morality of the ‘God’s Plan’ Excuse…
One of the sidesteps of treating others with human decency is that it is all part of God’s plan. Biblical fundamentalists often use a similar kind of ends justify the means moral reasoning as the far-left—except they dress it up as faith and seeing the bigger perspective.
This is their excuse to be Biblical, but not Christian. The moment you raise a moral objection about anything they’ll find their loophole in Scripture: “Oh, yes, God said not to take innocent life, but He also told Israel to wipeout the Amalekites, so it is up to us to decide who gets slaughtered or saved.”
This is the God’s eye perspective Jesus addressed in Mark 7:10-12:
For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)—then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother.
What the Biblical experts were doing was using one command to nullify another by a greater good moral reasoning. Of course they, in their own minds, were the more spiritual. They had convinced themselves that—by neglecting their duty to parents—they were seeing things from God’s eyes and just better than everyone else. But, in reality, this is rationalization and an excuse to be immoral.
Morality isn’t about taking the God’s eye view, it is about our practically applying the Golden Rule or the law of reciprocity described in the passages below:
For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.
Matthew 6:14-15 NIV
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
Matthew 7:1-5 NIV
Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment.
James 2:12-13 NIV
See the pattern here?
What we put into the world is what we will receive back. If we do not show any mercy to those under our power, then we will not be shown mercy. And that’s the point behind the parable that Jesus told about a man forgiven a great debt—then goes out demanding repayment from the man who owed him.
Seeing things from God’s perspective—according to this—is to apply Micah 6:8:
He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.
There are no excuses to set aside normal morality for the sake of God’s plan.
There is no special exemption given for a chosen race of people either.
Throughout history the most evil of men have excused their atrocities using God’s will. It is the reasoning of the Crusader’s command, based on 2 Timothy 2:19, of “Kill them, for God knows his own.”
The ‘Christian’ West killed more innocent people in the Holy Lands than Islamists.
With that kind of thinking, everything will become justified as part of God’s plan if you zoom it out and, therefore, we can’t take a moral stand against anything. If it is God’s plan that babies are killed—then who are you to decry it as murder?
This is logic which can neutralize every moral stance or turn every evil deed into some kind of ultimate good—if you just see it from ‘God’s perspective’ it all becomes okay. Of course, at that point, accepting this, there is no morality—once everything is relative to God’s will or the outcome that we call good.
It essentially replaces the Golden Rule with: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you—except if you can explain away the abuse by some kind of greater good excuse.”
Act Justly, Love Mercy, That’s the Conclusion…
Moral relativism, whether cloaked in the guise of achieving a greater good or justified as part of God’s plan, erodes the foundation of true morality—the Golden Rule.
By excusing heinous acts through hypothetical necessities or our ‘divine’ rationalizations, we are becoming the very monsters we claim to oppose. True morality demands consistency: acting justly, loving mercy, and walking humbly, without excuses or every resorting to preemptive judgments or selective exemptions.
When we abandon moral principles for the sake of outcomes we desire or divine loopholes, we replace mutual respect or an opportunity for understanding with a race to eliminate every perceived threat, leaving no room for peace, forgiveness, or humanity.
The measure we use—whether it is mercy or judgment—will be measured back to us, and no appeal to a higher purpose can absolve us of that final reckoning.
When we cut someone off it is a mistake, when they do it to us—we go ballistic.
Post script: Morality is staying in our lane and abiding by the rules. Playing God is running someone off the road for daring to cross into our lane. It is about our keeping the law—not our enforcing of it. And when we start to justify the abuse of others, as Biblical, then we turn into a violator. James 4:11 explains: “When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it.” The end result of exemption of ourselves using God’s plan as cover is a cycle of violence where all see themselves as righteous—even while doing incredible evil.
Trump has been full of surprises in the first few weeks of his delayed second term, but this latest proposal was the least expected and one even the professional fault-finders won’t be able to oppose. He has just made a proposal that could change the world for a generation to come: A trilateral agreement between Russia, China and the US to reduce military spending by 50% and decrease our nuclear stockpiles.
But this isn’t out of character for Trump. He got started then before he officially entered the office. According to the Israelis, Trump, who told Netanyahu that the war must end, deserves full credit for the Gaza ceasefire deal. And this is just a pattern. Trump has no interest in wars. He is about business, not bombs, and it goes all the way back to his youth when he, rather the be beholden to phony patriotism, stayed out of Vietnam.
Avoiding War By Any Means
Back in 2016, when Trump was running for President against Hillary Clinton, there was a hearsay report that the MAGA candidate had avoided military service in Vietnam by using a diagnosis of a foot injury. There is yet to be documentation to prove this. But it has led to some ridiculing him as “Captain Bone Spurs” and alleging his cowardice.
To me, knowing what I do about Vietnam, I can’t see how avoiding that meat grinder is a reflection of poor character.
No, the war was an absolutely horrendous waste of life and resources, a quagmire, in defense of a dying colonial order. What the US government did to that country and it’s people is beyond the pale.
Over one million people died, bombed with napalm in their villages—scores of young American boys killed in the process—and nothing was gained besides an ecological disaster. Our veterans were left scarred and many of them (like the father of a friend of mine) suffering from debilitating illness—which is likely due to the widespread use of chemical defoliant agents.
It is easy to see the vanity now. In the end Vietnam did become a Communist nation. And yet this did not lead those dominoes falling across Southeast Asia, as ‘experts’ predicted (like they do now claiming Putin has ambition to take all of Europe) and we should be celebrating that anyone avoided this pointless conflict.
Trump may have avoided the Vietnam War for selfish reasons, nevertheless the moral reasoning was correct: Why kill thousands of Asians, at risk of your own life, when you can just do business instead and everyone wins?
Trump Angers Neo-cons
In his first term Trump did something even Obama didn’t do and despite being given a Nobel Peace Prize. Both Obama and Trump would continue the war in Afghanistan, but it was Obama who bombed Libya in pursuit of “regime change” and turned that country into the hellhole it is today. Trump, on the other hand, avoided war and even started negotiations for peace with a country we’ve been at odds with since 1953.
I recall being told by a die-hard Democrat friend that Trump, the terrible loose cannon and narcissist he was, would start WW3. It is quite interesting, to see how that this dire prediction compares to actual reality where the last administration had pushed us to the brink of a nuclear Armageddon. But in four years of Trump’s presidency, despite all the insane fear-mongering rhetoric from his opponents—nothing close to this happened.
Instead, what happened under Trump, but not Biden, was a slight thaw of relationship with North Korea. Yes, Trump engaged in a little rocket size comparison, but eventually would walk across the DMZ to shake hands and get some pictures with Kim Jong Un his counterpart. That is unprecedented. And is a legitimate reason to award a peace prize, but nobody recognized that moment and it has faded as Biden returned us to a status quo of use of threats and the proliferation of arms deals, rather than diplomacy, in an attempt to dictate terms.
No, Trump is not a peacenik or even a nice guy (depending on who you ask), but he did avoid a dangerous escalation with Iran over a down surveillance drone. With neo-cons salivating and only ten minutes from strikes, Trump—learning that 150 Iranians may die—called it off. This is likely why John Bolton turned on him. The warmongers wanted a violent confrontation, dead bodies, whereas Trump valued human life.
And maybe it was all just a cynical ploy and part of deal making strategy?
Nevertheless, those Iranian men got to go home to their families rather than die so a President could look like a tough guy. And, when all lives matter peace is possible. A President that is even doing a little bit of lip-service in concern for enemies will be even less likely to put US service members into harms way. Yes, he would retaliate against Qassem Soleimani, the Iranian General who was responsible for the deaths of American people, which shows Trump prefers to hold decision-makers accountable rather than subordinates.
Business, Not Bombs
What makes Trump unique, as a President, is his willingness to entertain different ideas in the open. Our tireless defenders of the status quo claim it is unpresidential, that he suggests alternatives, but this is how a true innovator works. Why not float a thought or start a conversation?
A prime example is his proposal for Gaza. I mean, certainly, the Palestinians have truly got the short end of the stick. They, being Semitic people themselves, get labeled as being anti-Semites, for fighting for their own deeded land, by the most powerful lobby in the world. Theirs is a legitimate grievance, if there is any, they were chased off of their land by a campaign of violence and terror—are now portrayed as the villains.
So when Trump proposed they walk away it seemed grotesque. Israel is the one country in the world that didn’t see their foreign aid disrupted by Trump’s America-first doctrine and clearly Netanyahu is in agreement with the plan or they would not be doing a joint press conference. Palestinians had nobody to represent them in this. How do you make a deal with only one party present?
However, upon some further thought, this could be the best deal Palestinian people can ever can expect to get. What really is the alternative?
They are in a war they can’t win. October 7th caught the IDF off guard and yet it was never a serious threat to the Isreali state nor a reason for the Israeli government to come to the negotiating table. Hamas may have hoped for a hostage exchange in order to get their own captives back. But hardliners, like Netanyahu, saw it as an opportunity and used it. Sure, many in the world do protest indiscriminate bombing that kills far more non-combatants and children than it does members of Hamas, but holding a sign or occupying buildings won’t stop this ethnic cleansing campaign.
Enter, “Riviera of the Middle East”
Trump reframed the conversation from one of fighting for soil, that has led to decades of suffering and death, to what is truly best for me and my children. Sure, Hamas may disagree, but many Palestinians will likely take a buy-out deal. Why stay in Gaza if you have a choice to relocate? There is no new real estate, the Saudis have a lot of money to invest, so why not redevelop Gaza into a modern vibrant city, like Dubai?
The reality is Palestinians aren’t only being kept walled in by the Israelis. They are truly caught between the two stubborn sides of a regional conflict, like Ukraine, and they (with their children) are paying the full price. The nations of this region have not forget about colonialism and obviously consider a nation of expansion-minded European settlers to be a thorn in their side. Add to this that the official policy of Israel is to destabilize their neighbors and you have a breeding ground of resentment. Palestinians are their way to return the favor—used as a tool to provoke and prove the evil of the Jewish state.
So, for my liberal friends, is this land really so important that we should, for perpetuity, continue to sacrifice more children. Or do we find a new and creative way to break the deadlock? And, for my conservative friends, is it better that we send Israel bombs, at the expense of taxpayers, when we could help to broker some kind of buy-out instead? It is time for a business deal, to give those in Gaza—who just want to live normal lives—a chance.
So, Trump, I realize this is at your “ridiculous first offer” stage, but I’m listening.
Tell me more.
The Status Quo Alternative
The political establishment has only known old divisions and escalation. It is one big area of bipartisan agreement. Republicans and Democrats in Congress may disagree on details, but nearly all support an endless war with Russia and China, through proxies or even direct threats. The goal is always to box their rivals in militarily or back then into a corner economically—as if this is the only way forward.
Diplomacy took a back seat. Instead of the slightest acknowledgement of Russian and Chinese security concerns, our government has made regime change the goal with even near-peers with a nuclear deterrence. And it is this attitude that led to the bloody conflict in Ukraine that has cost countless lives and billions upon billions of US taxpayer money, all after the US had orchestrated a coup on Russia’s doorstep, leading to a civil war in that country and—after eight years of Kiev’s regime lobbing shells at civilians—a direct intervention by Russia.
The problem is a combination of Cold War ideology and institutions. Endless war is where the big money is. Many, in the West, profit off conflict and chaos. That and they are old. They’ve become functionally fixed, see only one solution (to further humiliate or defeat those who stand in their way) and lack imagination or even the will to come up with win-win resolutions.
Truly, the only way to win any war is not to fight it. Wars cost both sides.
Trump, for better or worse, is disruptive of the status quo.
As for his proposal, I would consider 50% to be the “ridiculous first offer” stage of negotiations and do not expect China or Russia will go along with it. For them that would leave the US on top of the balance of power—given our tremendous head start in comparison—and this maintaining our advantage over them leaves their interests vulnerable. They will probably come back with an alternative proposal and the horse-trading will begin.
Nevertheless, it sure beats a strategy of endless escalation—that eventually ends in a nuclear war or our bankruptcy. Even a 10% reduction in defense spending would go a long way to slowing down inflation and give hardworking Americans more bang for their buck. Our sons not dying in Europe or in the East China Sea the biggest benefit of avoiding confrontation.
Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way
Like him, love him, or loath him, Trump is the President of the United States and has resolve to make his second term historic in ways nobody imagined.
Even if we disagree on some policies or we have a different understanding of his drive for government efficiency, we should agree with this aim to convince the great powers to beat their swords into plowshares.
There is just too much to lose (and also too much to gain) by this to not jump on this unique opportunity to challenge existing order and build a better one.
Business (and buy-outs) rather than bombs—that’s the Trump way of doing geopolitics.
Even his idea of buying Greenland, as part of a containment strategy for Russia and China, is far better than the alternative we see playing out in the steppes of Ukraine. There is no way to bomb and kill our way to world peace or at least not a kind of peace where humanity survives and thrives. We need to find a different approach, we need to dissolve the Cold War organizations and agencies that encourage military solutions or regime change. We need to double down on diplomacy and fair-trade agreements.
It is time to give peace a chance. We need to be disruptive, to change the conversation, and work with those who are willing to work towards a better future together. If Trump is a partner in this, then we should embrace this as his role and not hinder this with old partisan battle lines. Maybe he’s not pure or perfect, but at least he’s oriented right as far as war and avoiding the costs.
After reading a review of Gran Torino, a Clint Eastwood movie from 2008, that dismissed it as shallow in its exploration of racism, I’ve decided to explore some of the depth of the movie that was missed. It was a great story about finding common ground, that takes a bit of twist at the end from the typical Clint Eastwood film. My family (mixed race and culture) could appreciate the themes more than the average viewer—yet is a beautiful redemption story that all people can enjoy as well.
“Get off my lawn!'”
The story is about an angry old man who is not dealing well with change. Walter ‘Walt’ Kowalski, a Polish-American retired auto worker, Korean War veteran, and recent widower—his beloved wife passing right before the start of the narrative.
In the opening frame, he fits a stereotype of an elderly homeowner defending their patch of turf from an encroaching world. It seems every small town has one. That guy who trims his front lawn with scissors and does not deal well with the trespasses of the younger generation, the snarling “get off my lawn” line from the movie became an instant meme.
Why?
It is just too familiar.
The expression captures the essence of a fading dream. The American middle class values property ownership. A lawn, once a complete luxury and exclusively for wealthy estates, had become the mark of post-WW2 affluence. Walt was the beneficiary of this period of economic growth. He had lived a quintessential suburban life.
But now it had become a nightmare. It is not the same neighborhood anymore. The once tidy little homes, owned by people like him, had fallen into disrepair as a new group of immigrants took over. The woman who he built a home with was gone. His sons bought foreign brand vehicles and betrayed the legacy their father had built working at Ford. The world Walt had known was falling apart and he was bitter.
That patch of land, other than the ghosts of his past, was all Walt really had left. To set foot on it was to violate his sacred space. It was a shrine. And his 1972 Gran Torino in the garage likely represented the pinnacle of his productive career. Since the Korean War ended in 1953, this would put this car purchase around two decades into civilian life with a young family and point when the future looked bright. So he was clinging to what was left of his identity and willing to defend it with deadly force.
Demons of the Past
Early on we see Walt, the tough guy, who is playing a part. His racist language is a part of the facade—a barrier he puts up—because the alternative is to be vulnerable—or a victim. He is still haunted by his war experience, in the beginning using it as a threat, saying he could kill without remorse:
“Yeah? I blow a hole in your face and then I go in the house… and I sleep like a baby. You can count on that. We used to stack fucks like you five feet high in Korea… use ya for sandbags.”
However, later, when it comes to stopping the neighbor boy from taking revenge, we see the reality under the surface:
“You wanna know what it’s like to kill a man? Well, it’s goddamn awful, that’s what it is. The only thing worse is getting a medal… for killing some poor kid that wanted to just give up, that’s all. Yeah, some scared little gook just like you. I shot him in the face with that rifle you were holding in there a while ago. Not a day goes by that I don’t think about it, and you don’t want that on your soul.“
Just like today, where Russians are called “Orcs” and portrayed as subhuman by propagandists, racial and ethnic slurs were used against various Asian enemies of US policy in the region. But for Walt, he knew better, he knew that it was not a demon at the receiving end of his rifle. He had murdered a human child and he felt immense regret. Note how he says “poor kid” rather than all of the racist terms he used freely throughout his conversations. It is almost as if, up to this point, he had to reinforce the dehumanizing descriptions to keep ahead of his shame. The truth is Walt didn’t sleep like a baby. No, he was running his sins his entire life and exhausted.
War propaganda then and now. Enemies are always portrayed as evil and subhuman.
Walt’s racism was part of his pretty much equal-opportunity disdain for other people, including the young parish priest, and his own family. He was a broken and hurting man, who had driven away his children and was hiding his own terminal illness. What he needed was some compassion, a safe place where he could finally let his guard down, and it was the persistent effort of a young Hmong neighbor that finally broke through his wall of insults.
Finding Common Ground
The review, that sparked my response, tried to overlay a “white savior” trope on the story and completely missed that it was Walt who was being saved!
*spoiler alert*
Yes, ultimately, Walt sacrificed himself for the sake of the Asian family next door. But this only after Sue, played by an actual Hmong actress (some critics panned the amateurism, others praised), went above and beyond to disrupt his dismal world.
She was his savior.
It was by her effort that he would face the demons of his past and could be at peace with his Creator. It was a redemption story, a story of an old man who had lost his wife, lost his children, lost his religion and even lost his neighborhood, but finds life again by learning to love his enemies.
I can feel this character. My own life didn’t go as planned. I had to leave the religious culture where my hopes had been built. I had a beautiful Asian woman who was patient with me while I was still lost in delusion and did not give up when times were difficult. Now we have a blended-culture home. Yes, my Filipino wife and son are different from me in many regards. However, after seven years of knowing each other and now over a year of being married, our love has only continued to grow. Some of my happiest moments were with her family in the Philippines and recently while visiting her relatives in Canada.
I am Walt.
My ‘Sue’ did save me.
The real story of Gran Torino is an old man who finds more common ground with those he had thought were strange than he does with his own children. Once Walt had got past the superficial differences he realized he had more connection to these Hmong people than many who looked like him. Unlike the war, he was now defending real people and not political ideologies. He was fighting for the local community, against those within who are destroying it, and not gunning down random boys thrown into a conflict not truly their own. The storyline is a comparison between perspectives and shows us what really matters in the end.
It is about relationships, not race.
It is about building bridges.
The ongoing dialogue between Walt and his priest demonstrates this. The priest, who is of European descent based on appearance, is at first scoffed at by the grizzled military veteran for his youthfulness. The baby-faced “Padre” is bluntly rejected by him:
“I think you’re an overeducated 27-year-old virgin who likes to hold the hands of superstitious old ladies and promise them everlasting life.“
But, despite this insult, Father Janovich will not go away. And eventually, with his persistence, he does earn the respect of Walt. The bond, built over a few beers, culminates with Confession and Walt is finally able to have the guilt that had plagued him since Korea absolved. Now he is free and at peace, ready for a last act that goes contrary to expectations and confirms the redemptive arc.
It was faith that saved Walt, both that of the young woman who withheld judgment and didn’t allow his wall of nastiness to stop her and finally of the persistent outreach of the Church. And it is only because of this concerted effort that we get to see the protagonist do what is right. By the end of the film, Walt has overcome those demons driving his anti-social behavior and also has gained a son worthy of his prized Gran Torino.
Now To Review the Reviewer…
Why did the critic miss the obvious?
The reviewer who inspired me to write my own was projecting their own worldview onto the script. Eastwood is a rare conservative Hollywood producer. In fact, so conservative he spoke at a Republican National Convention and gave a mock interview with an empty chair, used to represent Obama, and he calls Biden “a grin with a body behind it.” Perhaps it is this that the review is responding to? But I think it goes a bit deeper than that.
The Marxist left sees the world as being a zero-sum game, or that for some people to gain others must lose, and thus everything is a competition for power. But, not only this, but everything is divided up into strictly bounded categories based on their skin color, financial status, or sexual classification. If someone cooperates across these lines then they are an “Uncle Tom” or traitor. So the themes of Gran Torino just do not compute. Asians are collaborators. Walt is an irredeemable privileged white man, he needs to be canceled—not humanized.
So, since we can’t have everyone come out as a winner, the only thing the woke reviewer has left is to hallucinate something color-coded and negative. Thus they see a movie that tells us to reach across lines of age, culture, and race as just another “white savior” trope. It is bizarre, such a narrow and distorted perspective, to entirely miss everything and then to insert what is not actually there. Yes, Walt saves, but in the context of others saving him, and that’s not even the point. The point of is that color (or age) doesn’t matter, finding our common ground and community does.
Gran Torino isn’t a perfect movie. It may go a bit overboard with ethnic slurs at times. But, then again, the comedic relief of the barber and Walt exchanging these insults as terms of endearment is also great commentary. Why do we let words be “violence” when the same utterances can be laughed at in another context? It is because these words have the power we give them. What this is suggesting is that we can go further when we reframe the conversation.
The left wants to believe that our behavior is determined by what others have done to us—Eastwood says we can be free to live above their rules.
Politics may be all about power, in-group and out-group, but love overcomes all.
I feel the need to preface this once again with a trigger warning for those who won’t read through and will miss my point. No, I’m not saying what Hamas did was justified. Nor am I saying that Israel should not respond. But I am trying to confront a bias, motivated by a misuse of Scripture, that is leading our side to look the other way at what amounts to dumping white phosphorous on innocent children and then pretending this is a just response to the death of Israelis. I am addressing what clouds the moral judgment here and not saying that one side or the other should just take the abuse.
I’m addressing the false dichotomy exposed in this letter from Albert Einstein (Jewish) in his opposition to the terrorism that was taking place. He wrote this right after a massacre carried out by Zionist extremists and warning of what would eventually become the horrendous reality of the Nakba and why Palestinians today are reluctant to leave their homes today. They know the history even if you’re ignorant. Read what Einstein wrote and then study what happened next…
To be clear, Einstein was not against a Jewish homeland. He was simply against the violent means being employed that have led to the current hatred. Had more followed his advice then we wouldn’t be facing yet another bloody war today. When will we learn?
Framing Issues
Had the British managed to put down the bloodthirsty terrorists who fought to “water the tree of liberty” by violently taking over their American colonies, does that mean they never existed? No, they (along with their weird pagan offshoot religion that required regular human sacrifice to keep their tree nourished) did exist and they existed as a distinct entity the moment that they declared themselves to be independent. And to say otherwise would be dumb.
One of the stupidest arguments ever made is “tHeRe Is nO PaLeStINe” as if the millions of people pushed into Gaza and West Bank simply do not exist. By that sort of semantic and legal argument, there was never a state of Israel prior to May 14, 1948. Sure, there were a people called the children of Israel and a kingdom of David, but never a STATE by that name, and certainly not one that was a Western-style democracy, prior to a bunch of Europeans moving to British-controlled Mandatory Palestine (which is what it was called) and most certainly a nation with the world’s strongest standing army is not the same one as found in the Scriptures. No, that doesn’t mean they should be run into the sea or not recognized as a legitimate nation (although many do not) and yet we must deal with the reality that the land was occupied before European settlers arrived to claim it. Historical claims may make a nice romantic script, for those with no skin in the game, but telling people that their grievance of being displaced doesn’t exist because you don’t like the name is asinine. It is reasoning that may get you likes in your echo chamber but suggests you are silly and should not be taken seriously by those with a modicum of intelligence. It’s not like the Palestinians are going to stop their fight against those who took their deeded land because you claim they don’t exist.
Furthermore, legal recognition does not change what something is. By now we all should know this. The governments of the world can call black white or white black and it doesn’t change the nature of color. Calling a man a woman or your affinity for your pet a marriage doesn’t make it true. We have the absolute right to question legal precedent or to hold to whatever existed in our minds prior to their changes. Maybe your modern definitions are simply ignorant of the original meaning and the other side is right. You might eventually be blotted off from the face of the Earth and forgotten. But it doesn’t mean you or the perspectives you held don’t exist. A person’s perspective still exists even if opposed by the powerful who have better propaganda and denying it exists is plain dumb.
Palestinians exist even if they are erased from the land or never officially recognized by many in the United States. That’s not a statement that will suit many from my fundamentalist religious background. But they’re simply not dealing with reality, it is denial, and ridiculous. Einstein called it Palestine. It was Palestine. The modern-day Israeli state came after.
Who were the Samaritans?
They were people deemed illegitimate by the pure-blooded religious elites. They made a counterclaim to what the other descendants of Abraham Jesus mingled with saw as their own exclusive property. The Samaritans had their own priests (apparently descendants of Aaron directly) and, contrary to the belief of their Jewish rivals, also continuously occupied the land like their Semitic cousins.
This is what makes how Jesus recognized these people so significant. We learn, in his conversation with a Samaritan woman, that true worship wasn’t about location, including Jerusalem, but about Spirit and truth. If this wasn’t clear enough, the parable of the good Samaritan was a slap in the face of those whom Jesus addressed. A Samaritan more righteous than their own best? Jesus was intentionally antagonizing. He intended to offend and insult them.
The point, however, remains that salvation is not a birthright. It is not about your claim to be or ethnic inheritance. The Christian truth is about what we do, and how we love, and never a matter of our worship ritual or genetics. The measure of Christian pedigree is faith, pure and simple, like that of Abraham—which is what makes a person a son or daughter of Abraham.
Jesus didn’t mince words when addressing those who believed they would be saved by their ethnicity or Abrahamic bloodline:
Abraham is our father,” they answered. “If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do what Abraham did. As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the works of your own father.” “We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.” Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
(John 8:39-44 NIV)
There are not multiple paths, according to Jesus, but only one way, truth, and life for all to come to the Father. Galatians makes it clear that Abraham’s seed is fulfilled fully in Christ and all who believe in Him:
The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. […] So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
(Galatians 3:16, 26-28 NIV)
Romans affirms what St Paul said above in Galatians:
So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. […] What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened…
(Romans 11:5, 7 NIV)
The “remnant” is those who believed in Jesus. While the “hardened” are those who rejected Him and, in their unbelief and ignorance, crucified the one who was called their King. And, for those who contort and turn the Gospels inside out trying to revert to a Covenant that passed away, Hebrews 8:13, I despise your bastardization of truth. Those who would replace His Kingdom “not of this world” with a modern secular state are not legitimate scholars or Christians.
I reject your ignorant religion.
I reject your indifferent religion.
I reject your false religion.
The true Christ isn’t an ethno-nationalist or waiting on yet another stone temple to be built. And I don’t really care what your Scofield reference or some random guy on YouTube says. Christian Zionism is a contradiction of terms. I’m perfectly fine with European Jews finding a homeland and defending it. But it should never be confused with the fulfillment of anything more than that. We should instead be looking for the new Jerusalem. So stone me like Stephen for repeating what he said: “The Most High does not live in houses made by human hands.”
Count me with the Samaritans.
A blessing or a curse?
Since the 1950s, no other nation has shown more perfect loyalty or full allegiance to the state of Israel than the United States. The Biden administration is no exception and doubling down on what Trump started. For this have accumulated a mountain of debt, a decay of our institutions, and sharp moral decline as more and more Americans fall away from faith. Sure, we are materially wealthy, for now, but churches are empty and those that remain are temples to consumerism rather than self-sacrificial love. If support for this country is a blessing then I guess we’ll need to redefine that word like we have been with everything else lately. Or maybe consider we’ve gotten things wrong?
The direction of the US doesn’t look good right now and maybe that is because we’re like the Jeruselum condemned by Ezekiel:
“‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. Samaria did not commit half the sins you did. You have done more detestable things than they, and have made your sisters seem righteous by all these things you have done. Bear your disgrace, for you have furnished some justification for your sisters. Because your sins were more vile than theirs, they appear more righteous than you. So then, be ashamed and bear your disgrace, for you have made your sisters appear righteous.
(Ezekiel 16:49-52 NIV)
Maybe it is time to stop focusing on the sins of Samaria and consider our own. Sure, maybe IsRaEl hAs ThE rIgHt To DeFeND iTsElF, but then so do the other Semitic people in that region. Consider that we are Haman, from the book of Esther, unwittingly building our own gallows as we justify our unjust vengeance against undeserving people. We’re not a righteous judge. The children of Gaza did not attack Israel. It is not anti-Semitic to stand with Einstein or recognize the unjust suffering of the Semitic people in Gaza. It is not our allegiance to the state of Israel that will bring us blessings, only allegiance to the king of the true Israel can do that and we must all repent of our delusions otherwise.
“The propagandist’s purpose is to make one set of people forget that certain other sets of people are human.”
Aldous Huxley
Most on one side of this issue likely will not even get this far into reading this. For daring to question the narrative they’ve swallowed I’ll probably be quickly dismissed by some as a “terror apologist” or worse. Nevertheless, for those who know that I don’t take positions lightly or without due diligence, this post will help explain my position on the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. But more important than that this blog is aimed at addressing the brazen dishonesty of the fundamentalist cheerleaders.
First of all, for anyone conservative who has come through the past few years and is still lacking skepticism about what the political establishment is saying really deserves to be exploited. Now that Hamas has attacked we can now trust the same media that saw riots as “mostly peaceful protests” and then calls MAGA supporters “insurrectionists” for their questioning the election results??? Are you really that dumb?!? Why don’t you at least consider that the same people who distort the truth here, who seize upon the parts of the evidence that support their own agenda on domestic issues, might also do the same thing there?
Second, okay, so you never heard ‘our side’ chanting “death to Gazans” and yet let’s not be cute about this. Both sides are dedicated to the destruction of the other. Israel slowly but surely takes all of Palestine. Hamas is fully committed to ending Israel. How genocidal that would end up being is anyone’s guess—but these stories from a couple Israeli Defense Force veterans can give us some idea, they burned people alive and shot school children—watch them talk about it and then moralize to me about how only one side is barbaric or evil.
No, this horrendous history of atrocities on both sides certainly does not justify anything that Hamas did in the past week. But what should we expect to happen when that boy crying when an air strike killed his entire family grows up? Is it a surprise when he’s angry and blames the nation that dropped the bomb? Are we just going to gloss over the fact that the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu, is in a leaked video saying to make it painful for the Palestinians and that basically anything is a military target? What does that mean? Are we going to play ignorant?
This is why I can’t take seriously people who only condemn one side and never the other, this selective moral outrage is not about true care for children. Those who quickly share unverified accounts of beheaded babies and then never even acknowledge those thousands of innocent Palestinians who have died in the indiscriminate and brutal bombing campaigns are being dishonest. No, not saying that there must be complete equivalency or proportionality in a war. but let’s not pretend that only one side is a victim of terrorism. It just looks really disingenuous to only care about the children of one side.
Getting this out of the way…
My point is not to convert you from one side to the other. My point is that the common presentation of this conflict is a false dichotomy and we have the option of choosing none of the above. We can stand with the true victims, those innocent people caught in the crossfire, and oppose all of the militant parties. That is where I stand. Furthermore, I will mostly address the propaganda and war crimes of one side. Why? It is because my typical audience is completely biased toward the West’s narrative and certainly not because I am unaware of what the other side has done. We don’t need to be partisans.
The big lie is that this conflict is not about ethnic cleansing on both sides. Israel has systematically, since May 14, 1948, pushed the native inhabitants out of their land and then played the role of victim when their militarily weaker opponents employed asymmetrical warfare tactics against the occupation. Israel has turned Gaza into an open-air prison, but we only care when Hamas strikes back. American Evangeli-cons believe every claim without skepticism when it is made by Israel (burned babies) as if a party in the conflict has reason to be truthful—why are we such fools?
It Is Okay To Bomb Nazi Children!
Maybe you do not know what Jewish neo-con Ben Shapiro (as well as Isreal’s Prime Minister) meant when he pronounced the people of Gaza to be Amalek?
But I do:
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. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’
So let’s just be honest about it! Let’s not say that this is about human rights or preventing ethnic cleansing when it is all about clearing the place for a Jewish ethnic state. Stop being a coward, and say that you’re okay with babies being killed (as long as it is their babies) and with millions of people who are being displaced from their land—all because you have stupidly embraced an errant eschatology that replaces the Church, which was established by Christ, with reemergent nation of those who have fully rejected Him.
Or you could just join me in agreement with St Paul:
Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. […] The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ.
(Galatians 3:7-9, 16 NIV)
Understand yet?
Support for a modern ethno-nationalist state has no connection to the promises given to Abraham. Sure, many have been made into useful idiots for this cause, by the twisting of Scripture, but Jesus didn’t promise a patch of land along the Mediterranean coast and the Jews do not share Christian values any more than Muslims do. Both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have chanted for the death of the other. One sees us as being Infidels and the other calls us Goyim. When has Israel, a country declared ‘our greatest ally’ according to many of our greasy-haired politicians, ever defended our borders? The blessing is they get a ton of US aid and send propaganda pictures of their most attractive women in uniform in return.
There’s no denying the tragedy of what has been unfolding over the past few days. We have seen the pictures and videos, very real, of terrified young people. One moment they were enjoying a music festival, the next they were being mercilessly gunned down. And yet I did not see the same level of concern from fundamentalists for the victims of the Pulse nightclub attack. These same people overwhelmed with concern about Israel do not think twice about collective punishment and forcing Gazans into the desert before there is provision for them—this isn’t about protecting innocents or looking out for the most vulnerable, it is about wiping Gazans off the map by wherever means available at this time.
Christian compassion is that none should perish and all will be saved. It isn’t about a political entity called Israel or any kingdom of this world. Our battle, if we were indeed servants of Christ as we claim, should not be against flesh and blood. Jesus commanded us to love our enemies and do good to those who mistreat us. That’s coming from a man who was tortured, unjustly nailed to a cross, and killed by an occupying power. So why again do we support the death of Palestinian children simply for living in the wrong place at the wrong time?
As Grady’s ears laid back and he launched, I knew it was already too late. CJ had thrown the ball not thinking about the cable that we had attached to the harness on the German Shepherd. The words slipped “you idiot,” as the slack very quickly disappeared with each eager bound, none of this could be reversed as the K-9 finally reached the end of the line and was abruptly jerked off his feet.
As the bewildered pooch collected himself, my choice of words continued to reverberate in my mind. I had just pronounced a serious epithet against my son. I’m doubtful he had weighed my use of that language as heavily as I did. However, when I later apologized to him, he also admitted that he doesn’t always think things through. My own impulse a few days earlier, upon seeing the picture of this handsome pup, had led to this moment and now I was wondering if we were truly ready for this kind of responsibility?
Disruptive Force
Despite my being warned about the breed by several friends, we decided to drive the four hours to meet Grady and basically planned to take him if there were no glaring issues to convince us otherwise. I wanted a dog that would offer protection to my family when I was away from home and also could match the energy of an eleven-year-old boy. I knew it would be disruptive. I had long avoided pet ownership because I did not feel that I could ever provide enough attention. But now this care and training obligation would be spread out to the three of us, right?
Grady was indeed very energetic and friendly too, or at least he was once we got past his initial trepidation. But was also bigger than I had imagined. His nose and eyes were level with the kitchen countertop. And could do a lot of damage fast, as we soon learned after we had left him tied (rather than crated) and in a bout of separation anxiety he decided to lay waste to the cucumber plants. That was a definitive moment, in his short time with us, that left a dilemma. What do we do with him when we leave the house since he can’t be trusted not to go into tornado mode?
The Real Costs
Dogs are a time-consuming liability and we knew this going in. For us, we had avoided the purchase price and yet still had to drive the four hours to pick Grady up and then stock up on items he would need. Dog food isn’t cheap. We needed a good crate, the cable, a water dish, a food dispenser, and a couple of toys as well. But the real costs of having a large pet would be much greater. He would need to be licensed. And heaven forbid that they ever get sick or injured. Someone has to pay for that beautiful veterinary clinic!
It is no wonder many Americans struggle to survive. The family pet, while it does provide companionship and therapy to some, rivals boats and race cars as far as endless money pits go. And, unlike fishing or hunting gear, is also a threat to your leather couch. You’ll pay a premium for rent. But the real problem is that every suggestion people gave us for correcting Grady’s undesirable habits would take more of our money. Don’t want him in a crate? Get a kennel. Oh, obedience school is great for discipline issues and keep the dog sitter on speed dial!
I couldn’t afford the additional expense right now. But the cost I really could not afford is the time it was taking from my family to give the dog attention. Grady paced from one of us to the next, wanting to be played with and we would rather be left to our own devices. I felt guilty about this neglect. My son was already overwhelmed (to the point of tears) cleaning mounds of manure and Charlotte is ready to start working soon this won’t have time to spend with the dog either. So what happens when we’re all at work or school during the day? Is it fair to leave a large animal penned in a small cage?
Anxiety Embodied
I’m sure, over a period of weeks or months some kind of routine would emerge. Grady would learn some rules and calm down as he became a little more comfortable in his surroundings. However, there was still that undeniable reality that this creature, lovely as he is, was going to bring a level of disorder and chaos. He was an embodiment of the anxiety that runs around in my brain, and a source of additional stress that outweighed the benefits. We would need to plan the rest of our lives around him, worried about what he was doing at home, finding a caregiver if we wanted to travel, and my plate is already full enough.
All this had been anticipated. And, after the flower pot incident, the honeymoon period was already over. It’s just one thing to think about possibilities and another to wonder if it is wrong to leave a howling dog crated all night downstairs. This only really added to my problems, he created more work for my wife and son, and every dollar I spent on him is another that isn’t available for those more pressing needs. And his rescuer, who had stipulated he be indoors most of the time, had offered to take him back if need be.
Sunday morning brought the last straw that finally broke the camel’s back. I had gotten out of bed early and took Grady out to the yard to give him an opportunity to relieve his bowels and bladder. After he did, and I considered the light drizzle, I decided he should come in with me. I was just thinking about how this would be in the wintertime, preparing some coffee, when a commotion erupted from the front room. CJ announced, “Grady pooped on the carpet again!” That was a third strike, the third time he took a dump inside the house in the four days with us, and I finally had enough.
“The Dog Days Are Over”
There was a lot to love about Grady. Those hilarious heavy sighs after he would give up on us and flop on the floor. The way he laid his ears back and tugged us down the sidewalk out on walks. I wish I could have seen him at the park with CJ when they both played together in the creek. We all liked the oaf, all except the family cat which was banished to the front porch for her own safety, and it was sad to have to return him.
But, as if to confirm the decision, as we sat in the restaurant free of an obligation having cut our losses an hour prior, the song came on “the dog days are over.”
We weren’t ready, or at least not for a Grady, and at least I’m relieved to have the routine return to normal. Once the vomit is cleaned off the back seat of my car life can go on as it did. I knew the moment I used the words “you idiot,” my frontal lobe was too overwhelmed to restrain this bark, that I was probably in over my head. My son is owed my care and focus, and my wife and I need our quality alone time as well, it just does not make sense to divide my attention in more directions.
I suppose one is only an idiot if they can’t admit their mistakes and make necessary changes?
Elon Musk did what he does best and that is he disrupted the status quo. This time he took on the conventional argument that the war over Donbas must be fought to the very last Ukrainian.
His Tweets:
If you thought Trump was a mean Tweeter, you should see some of the nastiness in response to these polls.
Of course, social media midwits everywhere, full of sanctimony and rage, took to their usual easy explanation of any perspective that challenges their own: Musk is an idiot or Putin’s puppet and certainly doesn’t have the credentials to comment on geopolitics!
And yet Musk’s own call for resolution very closely mirrors that of Henry Kissinger from months ago who called for the government of Ukraine to come to the negotiating table and be willing to cede territory for sake of peace.
This is from an editorial written back in 2014:
The West must understand that, to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country. Russian history began in what was called Kievan-Rus. The Russian religion spread from there. Ukraine has been part of Russia for centuries, and their histories were intertwined before then. Some of the most important battles for Russian freedom, starting with the Battle of Poltava in 1709, were fought on Ukrainian soil.
Kissinger, a diplomat of diplomats, former Secretary of State, and a renowned foreign policy expert, is no slouch when it comes to geopolitics, and that his sage advice was so quickly dismissed says more about the true lack of understanding and blind fanaticism of the hardliners.
It seems that some are plain vengeance driven and would rather punish Russia than find a way to peace that would end the destruction and save countless lives.
The Boomer warmongers, the hawks like neocon Lindsey Graham or imperial-lib Joe Biden, are still very much stuck in the Cold War and would not think twice about sacrificing your sons or daughters for their latest power trip.
The United States has meddled in all parts of the world, both in form of covert CIA destabilization efforts to the too numerous to list overt brutal military invasions and occupations. The political establishment and military leaders of the West have never thought twice about bombing those who do not submit back to the Stone Age:
The racial dehumanization of the Vietnamese found its classic expression in the words of General Curtis LeMay, head of the Strategic Air Command, who said that America’s aim must be to “bomb the Vietnamese back to the stone age.” And Washington tried to do just that: From 1965 to 1969, the U.S. military dropped 70 tons of bombs for every square mile of North and South Vietnam — or 500 pounds for each man, woman, and child.
Of course, this was done in the name of “democracy” and “freedom,” which justifies all violence, right?
Anything said about Putin is a projection. The war in Ukraine is not completely unprovoked, as our own propaganda says. No, it is the direct result of the US and NATO interfering in Ukrainian’s domestic politics. Back in 2014, the late Senator John “bomb bomb Iran” McCain, along with our current Under Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, planned who would replace Ukraine’s President *before* he was overthrown in a coup.
The US only like democracy so much as the votes are counted our way and freedom so long as it benefits our current political establishment or their sponsoring banks and big corporations—that’s just the truth.
Like the jeering of our American hypocrisy by Serbian soccer fans—who saw their own country partitioned after NATO took the other side of the conflict, that of the separatists—holding a banner listing the dozens of places the US has attacked, invaded and occupied since the 1950s: “All we’re saying is give peace a chance.“
Composite materials are stronger than their component parts. When two or more materials of unique strengths are blended together the result can be a composite that has the ideal characteristics of all the parts. This is what makes concrete and rebar a formidable pair. The combination gives both the compressive strength of concrete and also the tensile strength of the steel. It is inarguable that diversity is not strength or at least when it comes to material science.
However, as all topics go, it does not end there. Boeing, like all builders of commercial airliners, has two primary goals (besides safety) in their designs: Lightweight and reducing costs. One of their innovations is the use of carbon fiber in their aircraft. The problem with carbon fiber is that it reacts with or is corrosive of aluminum. For this reason, they must use a separating layer of expensive titanium as the solution to this bad material pairing. It works in this case, but diversity is also a source of conflict and potential systemic failure.
Diversity: Good and Bad
First, the good. We’re all unique. I go to work with a group of people with slightly different abilities and backgrounds from my own. It is what allows us to specialize and thus be stronger as a team than if we tried to do it all by ourselves. I would rather Patty do the bookwork, the members of our sales team talk to our customers and stick to my role of designing trusses. This is where diversity is a great strength.
Furthermore, men and women are different, both physically and otherwise, which can make them an ideal pair. Only a male and female can produce offspring together. We can argue over the particulars or against sexist generalities, but there is something special about any diversity of characteristics that can lead to the creation of new life. It is ideal in other ways as well. One of this special partnership can provide and protect from outside threats, the other can nurture their children and organize their shared space. It can be the best of human arrangements.
Unfortunately, with the good comes the bad, and what can be the best of things can also be the worst. The gender wars, that endless battle for control between abusive men and their feminist counterparts, is how the most wonderful kind of diversity can go very badly and be anything but strength. Diversity is, therefore, also a source of deep division and strife. What can make a strong composite can also lead to corrosive interactions and unwanted drama. Sparks flying.
Homogeneity is our strength?
While the West, the ‘woke’ Anglosphere in particular, is obsessed with “diversity and inclusion” as the highest order of priority, not all in the world do.
Japan, for example, is very happy to remain Japanese and feels no need to host foreign refugees on their own ancestral lands. This homogeneity of their culture and ethnicity does seem to help to reduce the friction in their society. Crime is extremely low. During the disaster at Fukushima older engineers were willing to sacrifice themselves for sake of their younger kinfolk. And there’s just a sort of harmony that exists with everyone pulling in basically the same direction.
This has never really been the case in the United States There were wars between the natives and new arrivals. With every new immigrant wave arriving there was mistrust and contempt between these groups. It is what led to sentiments like this:
Only a damn fool can expect the people of one tradition to feel at ease when their country is flooded with hordes of foreigners who — whether equal, superior, or inferior biologically — are so antipodal in physical, emotional, and intellectual makeup that harmonious coalescence is virtually impossible. Such an immigration is death to all endurable existence and pollution and decay to all art and culture. To permit or encourage it is suicide.
H.P. Lovecraft
It is notable that Lovecraft, the famed atheist writer of existential horror, had his strong opinions about various races, including Italians and Jews. His racism, xenophobia, disgust over the intermixing of people or fear of contamination, has the markings of an obsessive-compulsive disorder. And yet he was not entirely wrong about the “melting pot” being chaotic and creating a place that’s lacking social cohesion.
It is no big surprise that after a decades long assault on policing and national symbols that, with the ‘woke’ takeover, military and law enforcement recruitment is falling off a cliff. Nobody, in their right mind, would ever sacrifice themselves for a country or cause that doesn’t represent them and their own values. Participation requires buying into the common vision and is not possible when there’s competition for that spot. Nobody wants to die for those who lack appreciation or are completely divorced from what matters to them.
Unequally Yoked: Understanding Biblical Warnings
There is a sort of distain, even amongst professing Christians, towards the Old Testament law. The various cleansing rituals, dietary prohibitions and other restrictions can seem to be quiet arbitrary our modern ears. Why does it matter if we mix several materials in our clothing, plant diverse seeds or crossbreed different animals?
First, I believe this was more about teaching a concept of Holiness or being set apart for good.
Second, it is a completely practical point about our greater potential when being of the same mind or spirit:
Can two walk together, except they be agreed?
(Amos 3:3 KJV)
Third, this principal didn’t end in the Old Testament:
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
(2 Corinthians 6:14-16 KJV)
The whole point of Old Testament law was to reinforce the things that St Paul explains above, we cannot expect good results when we are paired with those who are pulling in a completely different direction. It’s simply reality, we need to have a boundary between ourselves and those who have nothing in common and want to destroy us.
Is Diversity Our Strength?
It depends.
I don’t think complete segregation of sexes or making all people androgynous is a good solution to gender difference. Nor should we erase subcultures in the name of unity either. We want diversity, we want people of different strengths. But there needs to be some kind of common identity or bonding agent, otherwise we end up with a bunch of competing identities and a fight for the supreme position. It takes a powerful adhesive to make composites work and this can mean a national identity that overrides all others.
Christ: The Ultimate Bonding Agent
All composite materials rely on some kind of bonding agent to work. And early Christians, likewise, were also trying to bridge some vast cultural differences. In fact, much of the struggle, in the early church, came down to the difference between the Jewish born and Gentile coverts. Should those newly converted, from non-Jewish background, be required to follow same requirements of faith or be exempted?
Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)— remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.
(Ephesians 2:11-18 NIV)
It is Christ who eliminates old social barriers:
So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
(Galatians 3:26-29 NIV)
So, diversity, if bonded in Christian love, can be an amazing strength. But, when lacking any kind of joint identity it is a horror show, it is corrosive. It leads to a bloody and violent competition for supremacy between rival groups. Without Christ it becomes man versus woman, black versus white, class versus class, and there is no strength in this kind of arrangement. The ‘strength’ of diversity is only possible when all, despite differences, are seeking after the exact same overall goal.
It is okay to have our own separate identities, even to celebrate our own cultural or ethnic heritage. But, when are being black or white, male or female, rich or poor, puts us at enmity with each other, when it is corrosive and causes is to react with hostility to those of a different perspective, then it must be brought under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and repented of rather than to be a source of pride. This is the higher order priority: “Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.” (Romans 14:19 NIV) And, “over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.” (Colossians 3:14 NIV)
Jesus was an extremely divisive figure. He said insulting things, routinely called out the religious elites, and was ultimately nailed to the cross for the inflammatory things that he said. Some of what Jesus said, if taken in context, would make Donald J Trump blush. And, lest someone say that this role was reserved for him, as son of God, Saint Stephen was cancelled by an enraged mob for doubling down on what Jesus said and St Paul literally told his religious rivals to emasculate themselves in one of his rebukes.
When someone uses “unChrist-like” to describe something another person did that offended them, it immediately flags that person as an unthoughtful and reactionary person. It is a favorite term of Mennonite religious snobs, with an extremely black and white perspective on everything, and seem to think that Jesus was some kind of Marxist hipster douche, like them, rather than a man who could throw a rhetorical punch, call people out for their hypocrisy and made many enemies within the ranks of the self-righteous religious elites.
If Jesus were in the flesh today he would enrage the ‘woke’ social justice left like he did the Pharisees. He would violate their speech codes, intentionally, like he did by healing on the Sabbath and allowing his disciples to ignore the cleansing rituals:
“Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!” Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: “‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.’”
(Matthew 15:2-9 NIV)
These studious religious experts, looked up to within their own religious circles, point out that the disciples of Jesus are not behaving correctly according to their standards. But Jesus, rather than apologize, instead uses what would now be called a “whataboutism” by those trying to deflect legitimate criticism. He goes after their own crafty violation of the law, their legalistic approach that neglected the spirit or intention of the law, and then attacks them personally, calling them hypocrites, with empty words, who merely follow after human rules.
Ouch!
However, what is most interesting about the Gospel account is that those who loathed Jesus couldn’t condemn him on the basis of his inflammatory rhetoric alone. No, they still had to connive to misrepresent the actual intent of his words to paint him as violent and a threat to the powers that be. They maliciously twisted his words to suggest that he was planning to lead a violent insurrection and should therefore be condemned:
The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death, but they did not find any. Many testified falsely against him, but their statements did not agree. Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with human hands and in three days will build another, not made with hands.’ ” Yet even then their testimony did not agree.
(Mark 14:55-59 NIV)
That passage (above) would, if they had social media then, would likely be rated as being false by the fact-checkers. Why? Well, Jesus did indeed say that the temple would be destroyed:
“Destroy this temple…”
(John 2:19 NIV)
See! Right there it is! Incitement to violence! Jesus, speaking to the crowd, with his followers listen and willing to obey, says “destroy this temple.” Clearly a madman, speaking in a fit of rage after assaulting money changers on sacred ground, attacking established institutions, and a man clearly leading an insurrection, right? No wonder the frenzied mobs wanted him dead, permanently removed, his followers purged from polite society, they were being misled and used as pawns by the powers that be who saw Jesus as a threat to their own religious/political racket.
Follow the Real Jesus—Reject the Leaven of the Pharisees
Christianity, real Christianity, did not parrot the popular narrative. It was extremely divisive, although not along lines of gender, race or superficial difference, and it was those with the blessing of the established institutions who pursued and persecuted his followers. The followers of Jesus, for their part, were defiant like Him, they refused to stop speaking the truth even against the orders of governing authorities. These weren’t no limp-wristed mealy-mouthed educated folk, trying to position themselves for the approval of others.
The followers of Jesus today, as simple blue collar workers, would be called ‘deplorables’ by the elites who despised them. Some of them, as Romans or former collaborators with Rome, would be hated “fascists” or any other of a long list of names used by social justice activists to silence, marginalize or dehumanize their political opposition.
And, yes, the hypocritical religious elites of our day will use “unChrist-like” in an attempt to discredit and shame legitimate critics. They see themselves as being the pure and undefiled arbiters of truth. And you? Well, you’re the unwashed masses, those not privileged with their superior intelligence or education. No, they are, in their own minds, more truly compassionate, those who listen to and represent the downtrodden, while you are too dumb or hard-hearted to comprehend. Of course, it is all hogwash. Nevertheless, they do have a power to lead silly women and weak men astray with their nonsense.
Ultimately, contrary to the myths of the sanctimonious Mennonite progressives, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is a divisive message. It calls all to repentance, it stands in opposition to all tribalism and identity politics, and offends the elites who are not accustomed to being put in their place. It is not all kumbaya, linking hands singing “praise and worship” around a fire while shaking a tambourine, or unity around the lowest common denominator. No, sometimes it is harsh, raw and divisive truth, like this:
“Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
(Matthew 16:6 NIV)
Meanwhile, when a crowd of many thousands had gathered, so that they were trampling on one another, Jesus began to speak first to his disciples, saying: “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.
(Luke 12:1 NIV)
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn “‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’
(Matthew 10:34-36 NIV)
Those of the prideful social justice mindset, like those of any other errant ideology, the Pharisaical “leaven” of our own time, should be called to repentance. They, themselves, are not arbiters of truth, who can declare a person as not Christian for belonging to a group not their own. No, they are like the self-righteous religious elites who confronted Jesus for his incorrect, according to their own rules of conduct, teachings and example. The religious ‘progressive’ today would imagine themselves on the “right side of history” the same as Jesus sarcastically and very caustically condemned:
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started!
(Matthew 23:29-32 NIV)
And continued…
“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
(Matthew 23:33-35 NIV)
Religious elites today never understand that the words of Jesus address them, personally, as much as anyone else nor are capable of understanding that those who were called “you brood of vipers” were the polished, the educated, those of correct pedigree and how dare this uncouth uneducated man tell them otherwise! They were completely justified in their own minds and this man had no business name calling! I mean, how unChrist-like can you be? The real Christ, according to their own experts and expectations, would be a religious bigot like them, would talk down to those lacking sophistication, and endorse them as rulers.
Let My People Go!
The sanctimonious never mind their own business. No, they’re always out to prove themselves more righteous, thus must pursue and destroy anyone who stands in their way, points out their egregious doublestandards or otherwise triggers the privileged religious elites. They are entitled, they have the credentials, who are you to stand up to their bullying and abuse?
They need a captive audience.
They need to have you around, as their whipping boys, to feel better about themselves.
Cutting to the chase, after years of seeing good rural people belittled and falsely accused, having their grievances ignored by the coastal elites, I decided to start a Facebook group to highlight this growing divide. It was a semi-serious solution, where urban and rural people, with their vastly different needs, would be governed separately and in a way better matched to their own needs. The key operant words words being “peaceful partitioning” of the two divergent Americas as a means to avoid violence.
Unfortunately, and predictably, while enjoyed with light-hearted amusement by the rural folks invited, it was soon met with an extremely vicious response. As aggressive as those men in Sodom knocking on Lot’s door, demanding access to his angelic guests, and not taking “no” for an answer, the assault was on. By the direction of a few agitators mischaracterizing the group according to their own blinding prejudice, many in the social justice mob (or sympathetic) began to stalk the group and harass me. How dare rural people seek to be separate and safe from them! [Insert popular false accusations here.]
“You’re unChrist-like!”
It was “unChrist-like,” they cried, with a collective banshee howl, and heaped condemnation.
And yet, those who tell you that there is no Christian precedent for peaceful separation between disagreeing parties are either ignorant or liars. In Scripture there are multiple times when conflict between parties led to separation, as a means to keep the peace, starting with Lot and Abraham who went their different ways to end conflict between their parties. And, even in the New Testament, there was a time when St Paul and St Barnabas, had a severe disagreement and decided to go their separate ways.
The only time where this sort of separation did not go smoothly was when Moses asked Pharaoh, “let my people go!” Evil Pharaoh had initially balked, he didn’t want to lose his source of cheap labor and felt he had all of the power on his side. But Moses persisted, and God assisted by visiting Egypt with a series of plagues, until the tyrant was forced to loosen his grip. Finally, only when the cost became too high, the beleaguered abuser of the children of Israel allowed them to go—only to go against his own word later and pursue them to his own peril.
Maybe Pharaoh is the Christ of the social justice Mennonite?
I’m sure he was polished and prestigious.
Whatever the case, insisting that every American be under the same national flag has nothing to do with Christ or his teachings. I have worshipped in foreign nations, amongst those who didn’t share my political affiliation, and it never ever took away from unity in Christ. No, only when Christianity is corrupted, turned into a political ideology, does this difference in national identity become an issue. And it is not coincidence that those influenced by Marxist political ideology cannot see the vast difference between the two kingdoms. They profess faith, they condemn us as nationalists, yet are the ones who are truly blending religion and politics.
Lastly, there’s something deliciously ironic about a bunch of religious separatists, proud of their Anabaptist heritage, lecturing peaceable folks about keeping unity in the church.
You’re joking, right?
These are people who have no desire to reconsider and reunite with the historic church, that transcends nations, is timeless and complete.
No, they see themselves as superior-minded, able to discern for themselves what is correct ‘Christ-like’ teachings. There is zero self-awareness or introspection as they parrot popular leftist slogans and copy cancel culture against those who dissent to their rule. They are always looking outward, at the Publican over there, praying in his unsophisticated humble manner, trying to justify themselves. They see themselves as the gatekeepers of the kingdom and yet, if they do not repent, they too will be shut out and condemned to outer darkness.
Some day Jesus will divide the sheep from the goats. I ask everyone to consider what side they want to be on in that final judgment. Rural or urban, none of us are in a position to decide who belongs in the church or does not. Those suggesting that being a part of a Facebook group they disapprove of are any less Christian than them? They are delusional. Full of themselves. It is cultural imperialism at best (no surprise some of these are in that special self-congratulatory ‘missionary’ class, who travel over land in sea like those addressed in Matthew 23:15) and is an attitude that will only drive the wedge deeper.
Nobody wants to stay in a toxic relationship. Nobody wants to share a home with their unrepentant abusers. If these elites want to be heard by those of us who have listened to them lecture and condemn year after year, then it is time for them to start listening to our grievances too. If not, if they are incapable, then the most Christ-like thing they can do is let us go our separate ways. It is not peaceable to demand that others see things your own way, there is no reason why Christians can’t go their separate ways, and being in two different nations doesn’t mean we should be at war with each other.
The word “gentleman” once described someone of noble birth, a man of the gentry, and thus one of good manners. Today the term is used for any man who is courteous, especially to women, and generally conducts himself well.
The alternative to gentleman?
I suppose it could be feral masculinity, an undomesticated man, a man who uses his superior strength only to his own personal advantage and is unconcerned about the good others?
But then again, a gentleman is not a man who is lacking in animal strength or incapable of doing selfish or violent and evil things. Rather, a gentleman is someone who decided not to be governed by their animal instincts and despite being strong enough to acquire what they want through force.
A young André the Giant
A gentleman is not someone without animal instincts and strength. Rather, a gentleman is a man of inner strength, one who uses this spiritual fortitude to hold back those urges to use his physical, intellectual or other carnal strength to dominate others.
The Dominion of the Weak
We live in absurd times, cartoonish actually, where self-designated victims use shame to leverage a social advantage and yet are not called out for this bullying behavior. The victimhood narrative, ironically, has become a tool of oppression and only works because most of the ‘privileged’ people are too polite to stand up to it.
In fact, gentlemanly behavior, like opening a door for someone else, can lead to accusations of oppression.
Umm, no?
And, that’s not to say that some gentlemanly behavior is inauthentic and merely a means of some men to manipulate women. Many have learned to “play nice” simply as a method of gaining advantage for themselves. Their polite public behavior is a social tool and their true colors come out when they finally get what they want. These are not true gentlemen, but are weak-minded opportunists in a gentlemanly guise.
It would be better that the fakers would dispense with the pretense. And, with the rise of feminism, many of these weak men do the same thing, giving up the mask of traditional gentlemanly behavior, and use the new guise of ‘woke’ politics instead. This “wokefishing” enables them to get in the pants of unsuspecting ‘progressive’ counterparts and has been the subject of some online outrage.
It is quite similar to those who use a false minority status, like Rachel Dolezal, Jessica Krug, and Elizabeth Warren, as a means to gain an economic or social advantage. Being oppressed is not what it once was. Identity politics is extremely lucrative for those able to exploit it. It actually means special treatment, a fast-tracked educational or political career without the normal merit based requirements.
In the current paradigm women and minorities enjoy both the benefits of traditional Christian cultural values, of care for the poor and protection of the week, while also browbeating those who provide those things. The odd part is that true toxic masculinity, cultures that objectify women and give them a decidedly second tier status, is now given a free pass by also claiming for themselves that coveted victimhood status.
President Trump can be cast as the victim. As can Vice-Presidential candidate, Kamala Harris, by those turning normal debate interruptions into some kind of affront to minority women. In both cases, by traditional standards, these personalities would be proving themselves unworthy of a leadership role. But when the oppressed rule a person can play victim and still exercise dominion over others.
Politics is a domain for the weak and shortsighted, not the meek and eternally minded…
The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth
For years my understanding of meekness was off a little. I may have taken it to be a sort of spiritualized synonym to weakness. In other words, a weak person who keeps their head low and accepts their place of inferior status. The word, in my religious upbringing, was often used in reference to women by those quoting Saint Peter:
Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
(1 Peter 3:1-4 KJV)
To many in my past that passage is roughly translated as “do not stand up to patriarchal abuse or we will brand you as a Jezebel.” To them it is a woman’s place to accept a sort of secondary status and these truly weak men, like the first Adam, are constantly blaming woman for their own moral failures. They want the respect of a leader while simultaneously being unwilling to take responsibility or sacrifice themselves.
However, these phony self-serving patriarchs should have continued reading, meekness and falling under authority is not only for women, this is addressed to all:
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.
(1 Peter 3:15-16 KJV)
A man who does not fall under authority, who does not lead with a meek and respectful spirit, no matter what he claims to be, is not a Christian leader. A Christian leader follows after the example of Christ Jesus who, in meekness, took the sins of the world on his own shoulders, suffered and died. He was willing to be mistreated and humiliated, not only for sake of his disciples, but also (and perhaps especially) for his abusers.
John Coffey (Michael Clarke Duncan), in “Green Mile,” a picture of meekness?
Only the truly strong can be meek. A weak person uses all means to gain political or social advantage, including a claimed inferior victim status, whereas the meek subject themselves willingly to the good of the other. A weak person uses their strength to dominate, the meek person uses their strength to serve and protect. In other words, to be meek means having strength or something to give. Meekness is a synonym for gentleness, not weakness, and a posture that one of strong faith chooses to take:
“Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.”
Irregular Ideation 