dehumanization

From Tribal Vengeance to Universal Justice: In Pursuit of One Higher Standard 

Standard

The default position for most people is some form of tribal ethic. If it is done to them or their own family by another tribe it is a horrendous and terrible crime. But, when only those in another tribe are hurt or if they are afraid that confronting the abuse will hurt their own tribal agenda—then suddenly the unforgivable becomes a “Who cares, everyone does it, why are you bringing that up again?”

Tribal ethics amount to doing only what is good for the tribe—usually sacrificing the rights of an individuals in the tribe and always denying the basic humanity of those outside of the tribe. Individual rights of those in the tribe are generally honored, but only so far as protecting them is useful to the collective and not as something that is absolute or immutable. If a few die for sake of the tribal order—are stoned to death for daring to pick up sticks on the Sabbath—that’s just how it is.

The Old Testament is full of this. Your own are completely free to enslave, rape or take from those outside the tribe and yet would be enraged if one of their own were treated in the same way—like when vengeance was taken by Dinah’s brothers who wiped out a whole city for sake of the family’s honor. If it were within the tribe the attitude would be quite a bit different. Under Moses law this was simply a matter of paying the price of the bride and not a death sentence. And it is clear that things morally abhorrent by a modern standard, like genocide, were done by the command of God.

Tribalism is a feature of politics, a natural or default condition, where we defend our own and demonize the other. To the left Charlie Kirk deserved to die for his sins of hate they claim were harmful to their woke collection of identities. The Evangeli-cons soak up the propaganda from Israel that paints children in Gaza as future terrorists. We protect the people most like us because and adjust our moral rules according to the situational and immediate needs of our tribe.

A Case For One Higher Universal Standard

But a Christian ethic is completely different from this. It says sin is sin.  Evil is evil no matter who is committing it or who it is against.

And, if anything, those who are in the church, who profess their faith in Jesus, should be held to a much higher standard. There is no room for favoritism (James 2:1, Romans 2:11) or carving out exemption for elites or even our friends and family. Jesus said to love our enemies (Matt 5:44, Luke 6:27) and even ‘hate’ our own family (Luke 14:26) if necessary to truly be his follower. Even our thoughts subjected to a standard of love and forbearance.

Jesus didn’t get hung on a cross for saying cutesy stuff that is easy to do. And I really do not expect anyone to live by that code. It requires actual faith and a true belief Jesus is what he said he was to make sacrificing ourselves for his ethic reasonable:

Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.  Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

(Romans 12:17-21 NIV)

But even if you don’t truly believe in a future eternal reward or God, there is a reason why universal morality is better than our default tribalism. And that is an idea of what goes around comes around. Sure, you might not care about someone else’s daughter being sexually exploited by wealthy and powerful men—most especially if they are furthering your partisan political agenda—and yet we want to have a society where there’s justice or the injustice will eventually spread to us.

This is the big difference between my own understanding and the one that is far more popular: Good and evil never change on the basis of who is doing it or if I benefit. If it is wrong for the neighbor to kill my dog under most circumstances it is wrong for me to kill theirs. And if I (or one my own) start to act with impunity—are continually forgiven for things others are always condemned for—eventually this will piss off enough of the ‘others’ that they’ll dish out their version of justice against their abusers.

The Fallacy of Judeo-Christian Values

Evangeli-cons want the world to forgive for all their infractions and yet never forget if a victim fights back against their aggression. It is the very opposite of what Christ taught and anti-Christ. Jesus would likely warn us that how we judge we will be judged and the measure we use will be measured back to us. Which should make us tremble when we consider the slaughter and razing to the ground of Gaza using bombs we provided—there will be no call for mercy on the behalf of those who claim that young children are terrorists so they can kill them:

We are imposing a complete siege on Gaza. There will be no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.

October 13, 2023, Isaac Herzog, President

Just as it is clear that the right wing was right, today everyone says it is clear all Gazans must be annihilated… There is no logic in differentiating between uniformed [Hamas] and the rest of the inhabitants there.

September 2025, Moshe Saada, Likud MK

Every child born in Gaza is already a terrorist, from the moment of his birth.

January 15, 2024, Nissim Vaturi, Likud Deputy Speaker

And they were stating their genocidal intent long before October 7th:

Huwara needs to be wiped out. I think the State of Israel should do it… Water, electricity, and food must be cut off from the Gaza Strip. Those who do not die by bullets will die of hunger.

February 2023, Bezalel Smotrich, Finance Minister

This shows the absurdity of what is called Judeo-Christian values. Tribal logic says it is okay to kill man, woman and child of the rival so we can take the land for ourselves. Whereas Christian morality calls for all to be saved (1 Tim 2:4, 1 Pet 3:9) and erases the boundaries of tribal identities based on gender, race or social status. It is the polar opposite of having a chosen people with a license to take and kill. Jesus offended his ‘righteous’ ethnic audience by saying that a pagan had greater faith than all of Israel. To embrace this radical ethic is to reject the tribalism that fuels division and violence, choosing instead a universal justice that holds all accountable and protects all, not just the chosen few. Only by abandoning the hypocrisy of tribal loyalty can we hope to build a world where the measure of our judgment does not return to condemn us, but instead fosters a shared humanity that is grounded in love of Jesus.

A Fundamentally New Way of Thinking

The Christian ethic really is a total reversal of fundamental attribution error. It is easy to attribute what others do to us to a matter of their immutable character, they’re just evil and irredeemable, therefore do not need to be heard or understood. But for our own or ourselves we tend to blame only the circumstances and call it a mistake—one of those forgivable offenses. The reverse is to never make excuses for our own while also showing grace to those who offend us.

When someone cuts us off in traffic is it because they are a terrible driver? Or did they just have a bad moment? Or if we do the same, is it truly just an isolated incident or is our confirmation bias simply forgetting all of those times we transgressed with an “oops, sorry!” Reversing our fundamental attribution error is simply to apply grace we give to ourselves to others. It is, at the very least, to apply the same standard we do for ourselves as we do to others.

When a person of our own tribe does some kind of horrific deed, do we dismiss this as not representing us as a whole? Maybe we justify it? When the US Navy shot down Iran Air Flight 655 flying a routine route over the Strait of Hormuz, back in 1988, and killed all 290 on board—the US didn’t even apologize and, adding insult to injury, gave medals to the crew that did it! That is tribalism and is how fundamental attribution error works. If Iran did the same the US population would be calling for our military to turn the whole country into a smoldering ruin.

But the Gospel of Jesus Christ starts with a call for repentance. Repentance being an inward turn where we identify and confess our own faults rather than hide them behind rationalization or claims that our hand was forced by the other side. And, finally, after this deep introspection, we show the fruits of a changed spirit by showing the grace we have been shown to even those who we feel are most underserving. A true Christian will strive to love their worst enemies while also holding their own to a high standard.

If we want forgiveness of our sins we must show mercy and forgive others.

Evangeli-cons want all grace for themselves and yet give none to the enemies of their ‘Christian’ empire. They don’t want sins of some in their midst to count against them, they will deny the inconvenient violence of those on their side politically, but then make the whole left or all of Islam responsible for everything ever done by one of their own. It is a tribal ethic that has nothing to do with a Jesus of repentance. Or a spirit of grace to others that exists in those who understand their place before God.

The Moral Hypocrisy of Justifying Child Killing: Abortion, Gaza, and the Danger of Playing God

Standard

The deliberate killing of children—whether through abortion or in conflict zones like Gaza—is often defended by opposing ideological camps using eerily similar logic.

Both sides, whether progressives celebrating abortion or conservatives excusing the civilian deaths in Gaza, rely on hiding their atrocities under a thick blanket of dehumanizing language, while using speculative reasoning to justify their positions.

I’ve walked away from online friendships over this hypocrisy: “progressive” friends who are vegetarian and biology-savvy yet loudly cheer for abortion, or those self-proclaimed Christians who shrug off thousands deaths of Palestinian kids as mere “collateral damage” and a normal part of war.

This blog dives into how both sides use the same flawed reasoning, spotlighting the Freakonomics future peace case for abortion, and argues why it’s always wrong to kill a child—no matter the excuse—and why we must stop playing God.

Dehumanizing Through Words

Words are powerful, and both groups wield them to hide the truth. Abortion advocates use terms like “fetus” or “reproductive choice” to make the act sound clinical, distancing themselves from the reality of ending a human life. I’ve seen friends who’d cry over a harmed insects dismiss a fetus as a “clump of cells,” despite knowing it’s a developing human.

Pro-abortion folks may do as the pro-genocide folks do and say that this is AI-generated.  But their denial doesn’t change the truth.

Similarly, those defending the killing of kids in Gaza call it “counter-terrorism” or frame it as a response to October 7th, glossing over decades of Zionist violence against those who are indigenous to Palestine.  This linguistic sleight-of-hand—whether medical jargon or military euphemisms—strips away the humanity of the victims, making it easier to stomach the brutality.

The Freakonomics Trap: Justifying Death with What-Ifs

The Freakonomics argument, laid out by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, is a prime example of how this reasoning works.

They claimed legalizing abortion after Roe v. Wade cut crime rates in the ‘90s by reducing “unwanted” kids who might’ve grown up to be criminals. It’s a cold, numbers-driven pitch: kill now to prevent hypothetical future problems. This mirrors the logic of those who justify dead kids in Gaza as a necessary cost to stop future terrorists.

Zionist voices have taken this to extremes, with figures like Moshe Feiglin, leader of the Zehut party, declaring, “Every child in Gaza is an enemy. We must occupy Gaza until not a single child remains there.”

Others, like US Senator Lindsey Graham, have suggested nuking Gaza, stating, “Give Israel the bombs they need to end the war that they can’t afford to lose.” Israeli leaders on i24NEWS have echoed this, calling for the extermination of everyone in Gaza, including babies, as “every child, every baby in Gaza is an enemy.” These statements reveal a chilling willingness to annihilate children based on speculative fears, just as Freakonomics justifies abortion by imagining future criminals.

They’re not sleeping.  They were targeted for elimination.

Both hinge on a false dilemma: either kill now or face catastrophic consequences later. This binary ignores alternatives, like the IRA peace process in Northern Ireland, where dialogue and systemic change brought decades of conflict to a halt without resorting to mass killing. Peacebuilding, not extermination, addressed the root causes while preserving lives.

Why Consequentialism Fails

This kind of thinking—called consequentialism—puts outcomes over principles. It assumes a kid in the womb or a warzone is a potential threat, not a person with potential. But life doesn’t work that way.

Plenty of people born into poverty or conflict grow up to do great things. The Freakonomics logic ignores that, just like the idea that a Gaza kid will inevitably become a terrorist. 

Plus, it’s unfair to punish a child for what they might do or for what adults—like their parents or community leaders—have done. A fetus isn’t responsible for its mom’s situation, just as a Palestinian kid isn’t to blame for Hamas. Killing them shifts the burden of adult failures onto the innocent.

Do we truly want to live in a Minority Report world where governments choose who lives or dies based on predictive algorithms?

The Sanctity of Life Over Playing God

Every major ethical tradition, religious or secular, values human life, especially the most vulnerable. Kids, born or unborn, embody that vulnerability.

When we justify their deaths with fancy words or stats, we’re opening a dangerous door. History shows where this leads—think Holocaust or Rwanda, where dehumanization fueled mass killing.

The Freakonomics case and Gaza justifications risk the same moral rot, treating some lives as disposable.

Our job isn’t to play God, deciding who’s worthy of life based on our fears or predictions. It’s to act with justice and protect the defenseless, not to end their lives to fix society’s problems.

Wrapping It Up

The hypocrisy of cheering abortion while mourning other forms of life, or calling yourself Christian while excusing dead kids in Gaza, reveals a shared flaw—believing their creative semantics or future self-defense reasoning can remove the stain of their sin.

The Freakonomics argument and genocidal rhetoric from figures like Feiglin and Graham both reduce children to pawns in a bigger game, ignoring their inherent dignity. It’s always wrong to kill a child—whether for an adult’s choices or a fear of what they might become.

Instead of playing God with false dilemmas, we need to follow examples of taking a third option—like the IRA peace process—and focus on real solutions: respect for a legitimate grievance over stolen land and diplomacy, in support of moms and investment in communities. 

Only by valuing every life can we build a world that’s just and safe for future generations.

Naboth’s Vineyard: A Biblical Mirror to the Injustice of Land Theft in Palestine

Standard

A disturbing Penn State poll conducted in 2024 revealed that 83% of Israelis support ethnic cleansing, with nearly half expressing approval for the complete killing of Palestinians in Gaza.

This level of consensus is chilling, arguably surpassing the public support for such policies in Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1945. The roots of this sentiment can be traced to the founding of Israel itself, where Zionist militias employed tactics of rape, murder, and terrorism to expel Palestinians from land they had inhabited for centuries. This violent dispossession undermines any claim to respect for property rights—a principle often championed by those who defend Israel’s actions.

The hypocrisy is particularly stark among American conservatives, who in one breath decry property taxes and champion the sanctity of life—down to the frozen embryo—yet in the next, justify the deaths of Palestinian women and children as “deserved” because 2% of Gaza’s men resisted occupation. This contradiction mirrors the selective outrage of a nation founded on the cry of “no taxation without representation,” yet which now supports a cruel occupying colonial power denying Palestinians self-determination and basic human rights.

The erasure of Palestinian identity is a key tool in this moral failure, with many Zionists claiming Palestinians “never existed” despite historical evidence to the contrary. Palestine is referenced as far back as Shakespeare’s Othello (1603): “I know a lady in Venice would have walked barefoot to Palestine for a touch of his nether lip.” Early Zionist cookbooks, from the 1920s (to teach European settlers how to use local spices and oils unfamiliar to them) have “Palestine” in the title acknowledging the region’s distinct cultural heritage.

https://blog.nli.org.il/en/hoi_cooking_in_palestine/

This ongoing effort to remove inhabitants echoes a biblical story of greed and injustice:

Some time later there was an incident involving a vineyard belonging to Naboth the Jezreelite. The vineyard was in Jezreel, close to the palace of Ahab king of Samaria. Ahab said to Naboth, ‘Let me have your vineyard to use for a vegetable garden, since it is close to my palace. In exchange I will give you a better vineyard or, if you prefer, I will pay you whatever it is worth.’ But Naboth replied, ‘The Lord forbid that I should give you the inheritance of my ancestors.’ So Ahab went home, sullen and angry because Naboth the Jezreelite had said, ‘I will not give you the inheritance of my ancestors.’ He lay on his bed sulking and refused to eat. His wife Jezebel came in and asked him, ‘Why are you so sullen? Why won’t you eat?’ He answered her, ‘Because I said to Naboth the Jezreelite, “Sell me your vineyard; or if you prefer, I will give you another vineyard in its place.” But he said, “I will not give you my vineyard.”’ Jezebel his wife said, ‘Is this how you act as king over Israel? Get up and eat! Cheer up. I’ll get you the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite.’ So she wrote letters in Ahab’s name, placed his seal on them, and sent them to the elders and nobles who lived in Naboth’s city with him. In those letters she wrote: ‘Proclaim a day of fasting and seat Naboth in a prominent place among the people. But seat two scoundrels opposite him and have them bring charges that he has cursed both God and the king. Then take him out and stone him to death.’

1 Kings 21:1-10 NIV

This evil plan succeeded, and Naboth was murdered for his land with the complicity of a manipulated mob. The parallels to modern times are striking: Palestinians are dehumanized as “wild,” “barbaric,” or “terrorists,” just as Naboth was falsely accused to justify his execution.  In the West Bank unarmed Palestinians are being driven off their land—even a US citizen was recently beaten to death by settlers.  Jezebel and Ahab eventually faced divine judgment, but not before their treachery destroyed an innocent man.  Today’s leaders, spurred by similar greed and power, rely on a complicit public—modern “useful idiots”—to enable ethnic cleansing and cultural erasure.

Suspicion surrounds the events of October 7, 2023, when Hamas launched a devastating attack on Israel. Reports indicate that IDF guards were ordered to stand down from their normal patrols an hour before the incursion, despite Gaza being one of the most heavily surveilled regions in the world. This raises questions about whether the attack was truly a surprise. Historical parallels, like the shorting of airline stocks days before the September 11 attacks, suggest insider knowledge rather than direct orchestration. While there’s no concrete evidence that intelligence agencies planned the October 7 attack, circumstantial factors—such as the “dancing Israelis” linked to Mossad during 9/11—fuel speculation that Israel’s intelligence may have known of Hamas’s plans and allowed them to proceed. Unlike conspiracy theories that overcomplicate events, the simpler explanation is that the attack was permitted to serve as a pretext for escalating military action.

This pattern of exploiting crises is not new. The 9/11 attacks, carried out primarily by Saudi nationals, were used to justify the invasion of Iraq, despite no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the plot. The invasion served special interests seeking to eliminate a regional rival, much as Israel’s current actions align with the Likud party’s long-standing goal of a “final solution” for Palestinian territories. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who had covertly supported Hamas to weaken Palestinian unity, likely saw the October 7 attack as an opportunity to galvanize public support for extreme measures. By allowing Hamas’s unprecedented success, he manufactured consent for policies that would otherwise be unthinkable.

The world’s leaders rarely let a crisis go to waste. Through propaganda, they direct public anger to serve their agendas, erasing the humanity of the oppressed in the process. Just as Naboth was slandered and killed for his land, Palestinians face cultural erasure and violence, enabled by a global audience too quick to accept the narrative of their dehumanization. To learn from history, we must discern the truth and reject the lies that justify such atrocities.