Parliament and government agencies were identified as the efficient part. Bagehot argued that if the British people ever saw Parliament at work, they would be appalled. A modern government must be efficient, Bagehot recognized, and the making of laws is not a tidy process. As a matter of fact, the entire enterprise of politics can be downright tawdry. In Britain, the monarch is the head of state, while the prime minister is the head of government. If you get a chance to watch the British parliament at work, you will see the contrast. I must admit that I enjoy sitting in the gallery at Westminster as prime ministers and others debate. Decades ago, I had the rich experience of watching Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher at work during various parliamentary debates. Her wit and eloquence, matched with rare courage, made every argument an event. Mrs. Thatcher (later Lady Thatcher) also had a temper, and she gladly revealed it in hot debate. As her enemies discovered, she could be elegant, but she was devastatingly efficient.

Queen Elizabeth II, however was exceedingly dignified. She understood her role in the monarchy and her role in history. During her long reign, she embodied the nation and she felt it, lived it, and bore it all with nearly unbreakable serenity and grace. She was the essence of dignity, as was her father, King George VI, and his father, King George V. All three understood that the monarchy would be fatally wounded if the monarch lacked dignity and respect. The crisis of King Edward VIII’s immorality and abdication early in the 20th century was a major turning point for the British crown.

The current monarch, King Charles III, now makes a serious attempt to be dignified, but the royal scandals of his decades as Prince of Wales are impossible to forget. The breakdown of his marriage to Princess Diana and his long-term adulterous affair with Lady Camilla Parker-Bowles (including the release of grotesque pornographic exchanges) seriously undermined his dignity. Now, of course, Camilla is queen. The scandal, however, is always there.

Now, of course, the scandal surrounding the monarchy is hotter than ever, with the former Prince Andrew, Duke of York going down in a horrifying involvement with Jeffrey Epstein and a succession of women. By late last year the situation had reached the point that King Charles understood that Andrew, his brother, had to go. He was stripped of his princely title and his ducal status, becoming for the first time in his life, merely Andrew Albert Christian Edward Mountbatten-Windsor. But, if the king thought the scandal would go away, it has only grown hotter with the release of new material. It’s not going to stop. Honestly, it’s now hard to imagine how the monarchy can allow Andrew to remain in the country. The king knows that dignity is running out fast, as is the patience of the public.

In Norway, the crown faces a series of challenges and scandals. The release of recent materials related to criminal pedophile Jeffrey Epstein reveals that Crown Princess Mette-Marit had a long friendship with Epstein, who was already known as a criminal sex offender. In an unrelated scandal, the princess’s own son (who is not the son of the crown prince) is now facing trial on multiple charges of criminal sexual activity. The crown princess was known to have had a succession of relationships with convicted criminals when she married the heir to the Norwegian throne.

Once again, a crisis of dignity, and the subversion of any sense of moral order. To put the matter bluntly, multiple monarchies now face a royal mess, which is rolling into a crisis. There is no reason to spend millions of dollars supporting an essentially dignified part of government that refuses to live dignified lives. Do the people want their national identity to be represented by this behavior? In the modern age, how can royals get away with scandal on this scale? The answer is simple—monarchy cannot survive if it is not dignified.

That brings us home to the United States, where President Donald Trump seems not to care that the presidency is, in our constitutional order, the union of the dignified and the efficient. The presidency, and individual presidents, cannot lead without moral authority and presidential dignity. We now know that a good many presidents committed scandalous and immoral acts, even in the White House. I will not attempt to offer a comprehensive list, but just think of the loss of dignity experienced by President Bill Clinton after his sexual escapades were exposed.

The appearance of disgusting images of former President Barack Obama and Michelle Obama in a recent video posted on Truth Social is the latest evidence of a White House losing dignity fast. I am thankful for so much of what President Trump has done. Furthermore, I want to see him successful in reaching so many of his stated aims. Does he not understand that undermining his own dignity simultaneously undermines his personal political authority? Even the president’s most ardent supporters know that the racist images (drawing on Darwinian tropes) were a horrible mistake—no matter how they got posted.

President Trump needs to understand that efficiency in the White House cannot long survive the loss of dignity. Those of us who want the president to be successfully efficient, need to be the very people who call on President Trump to recover the dignified part of leadership—and fast.

Editor’s note: This column has been corrected to reflect that Crown Princess Mette-Marit is from Norway. This article originally appeared at WORLD Opinions on February 9, 2026.

The post Our tragic crisis of dignity: We had better recover dignity fast—starting in the White House appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

As the protesters shouted down the service, it became clear that the congregation was targeted because one of its elder/pastors is the acting field director for ICE in the region. One of the protesters declared that the pastor is “a wolf in sheep’s clothing, masquerading as a pastor.” That woman was identified by the local paper as “a local attorney, activist and reverend.”

Former CNN host Don Lemon was there with microphone and full video coverage, revealing once again the activist/journalist confusion that has been part of contemporary media and politics. Lemon defended the invasion of the church and acknowledged the trauma the invasion brought to congregants, especially the young, but went on to say “that’s what protesting is about.” Well, that’s certainly what Don Lemon and the leftist activists were about.

Christians need to recognize that this latest activist tactic is unprecedented in modern American history. Just think seriously about what happened, and imagine it happening in your church.

But, you say, we don’t have an acting field director of ICE in our congregation. There is no current culture war in the streets of our community. We are safe.

If you think that, you are wrong—sadly wrong and dangerously wrong. What happened in the Twin Cities may not be happening in your community, but there is no reason to believe it will not happen, right where you live and right where you worship.

A critical boundary has been crossed. The left has long prized its agenda of “transgression,” and now it has pressed transgression to church invasion. No one was physically hurt, and the congregation will continue its work and witness, but make no mistake: At moments like this, Christians have to understand that nothing has happened and, at the same time, that something seismic has happened.

In the long span of Christian history, this is not the equivalent of martyrdom. What that Minnesota congregation experienced was not suffering unto death. Christians have endured long centuries of Roman persecution and bloody persecutions since, including persecuted Christians in dangerous places even today. At times the faithful church has been forced underground and truly persecuted. What happened in St. Paul is not martyrdom.

And yet, the great danger for American evangelicals is that we will minimize among ourselves the reality of what happened. A signal has been sent. The left is now willing and some comments indicate even eager to invade and intimidate Christian congregations that violate their progressivist agenda. In an increasingly secular America, with cultural tensions running high, a church service is no longer off limits to political disturbance or demonstration. This time it was over immigration policy, but next time it could be over abortion or LGBTQ issues or just about anything else.

Church historians have long noted the transformation of liberal Protestantism into social activism. This just represents a continued trajectory. That activism has taken a dark turn. You would not think of Cities Church as a particularly political congregation. That no longer matters.

Understand that the protesters meant to intimidate this faithful congregation. There is no denying that this was a central aim of the invasion. It sent a signal, loud and clear, to all who have eyes to see. Look to a federal law enforcement agent as an elder and you had better look out for an invading mob. Your congregation gathered for biblical worship is not sacrosanct and is fair game for protest. Your congregational leadership is now a matter for public scrutiny from the political left.

This is new territory for American Christians. It is also new territory for the United States government and, in particular, for federal law enforcement. Thankfully, the Department of Justice has indicated that it plans to investigate the action against this church, which clearly violates federal law, specifically the 1994 FACE act.

Fear-mongering is not a faithful option, but denial is not an honest strategy. It is very distressing to see that some figures on the left have already declared that the action of the protesters was justified and understandable. In other words, look for more such actions. You have been warned.

Again, let’s take stock of what happened. An evangelical church, gathered for Christian worship, was subjected to what the media called an “ICE protest” that entered its space, shouted down its pastors, traumatized children, and demanded a change in church leadership. That happened in St. Paul, Minn., just last Sunday. Don’t allow yourself to think that it doesn’t matter to you and your church.

Editor’s note: WORLD has corrected this column to reflect that a protester called a pastor a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.” This article originally appeared at WORLD Opinions on January 20, 2026.

The post A church invaded: A darkening moment for American culture, and a wake-up call for the church appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

If you have been paying attention to our continuing cultural breakdown, perhaps you can imagine such astounding nonsense. But, thanks to a U.S. Senate hearing yesterday, you don’t even have to use your imagination. You can just watch the insanity unfold.

In a hearing held by the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on the safety of chemical abortion drugs, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., asked Dr. Nisha Verma, an obstetrician, a very simple question: “Can men get pregnant?” But, astoundingly, Dr. Verma would not answer the senator’s question. Sen. Hawley pressed again and again, asking the same straightforward question. Dr. Verma just stonewalled, and stonewalled, and stonewalled.

The exchange is riveting. No work of fiction could match the intensity of the insanity. “Can men get pregnant?,” Hawley asked repeatedly. Dr. Verma responded with a carefully planned obstructionism. “I’m not really sure what the goal of the question” is, she asserted. Sen. Hawley just stated: “The goal is just to establish a biological reality.”

The exchange unfolded over minutes, but the event signals nothing less than the fall of a great civilization. Dr. Verma is a physician, a board-certified obstetrician-gynecologist, and an adjunct associate professor at Emory University. She is also a fellow of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and a practicing physician. She is also an abortionist, working with Planned Parenthood, and she appeared before the Senate committee as a fellow of Physicians for Reproductive Health, which is straightforwardly pro-abortion.

Dr. Verma was determined not to answer Sen. Hawley’s question, which could easily have been answered by a first-grader. The exchange between the senator and the physician reveals the utter corruption of modern medicine that has been driven by two horrifying agendas—abortion rights and the LGBTQ revolution. In this single exchange, both of these agendas, mutually driven by the Culture of Death, combine into one agonizing lesson in modern insanity. An obstetrician-gynecologist, highly qualified and associated with a major medical school, refused to say whether men can get pregnant. None of this makes the slightest sense until you insert the issues of abortion and transgender ideologies.

The entire abortion rights movement wants to insist that an unborn baby isn’t a baby and the transgender revolution now wants to insist that a man can have a baby. When Dr. Verma referred to “the complex experiences of my patients” and patients “that don’t identify as women,” she was just parroting the transgender and non-binary line.

We do need to take notice of one interesting dimension to the physician’s gynecological and moral insanity: She did not have the courage to come out and answer Sen. Hawley’s question directly. If Dr. Verma is so committed to the new gender ideologies that she would make herself look like an absolute idiot before a national audience, why didn’t she just come out and answer Sen. Hawley directly by saying, “Yes, Senator, men can get pregnant.”

The answer is simple and important. The gender ideologies are absolute insanity, and even those who push them know it. Thus, the doctor made herself appear clueless about basic biology because she is committed to a radical worldview, driven by personal autonomy, individual liberation, and identity politics—and now by the cowardly corruption of the medical profession. But there is something far more basic than ideology, whatever its form, and that is reality—biological reality. A human baby is never going to pass through a male pelvis. Never. Not a chance. A man is never going to develop eggs and a woman is never going to develop sperm. Not a chance.

This hearing came just one day after the Supreme Court held oral arguments in two cases about transgender youth and athletics. In cases coming from Idaho and West Virginia, the court is now asked to determine if states have the right to prohibit boys from participating in girls’ athletic events and teams. So far, 27 states have adopted such legislation, protecting the integrity of athletic competitions and team sports for girls. Given the course of the proceedings on Tuesday, it seems likely that a majority of justices will uphold the right of states to adopt such measures. If the Supreme Court rules against the states, female-designated athletics and teams will just disappear.

Both sides recognize that a clear majority of Americans now sees the transgender ideology as nonsense—at least when it comes to putting boys on girls’ teams, sending them into girls’ locker rooms, and having them compete against girls in female-designated events.

The Senate hearing yesterday should serve as an alarm that we are now reaching terminal cultural insanity. We now have some of the nation’s smartest people saying some of the stupidest things ever spoken. We need leaders who will follow the example of Sen. Hawley and press the questions, unceasingly. We need to reveal the insanity for what it is—a determined effort to subvert creation order, biological fact, and moral sanity. We are a culture on the brink of disaster, and in just two days the issues have been made undeniably clear. If this kind of insanity goes on, America is doomed.

This article originally appeared at WORLD Opinions on February 15, 2026.

The post Can men get pregnant? Is our society going insane? In a Senate hearing yesterday, a display of leftist insanity revealed a culture on the brink of disaster appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

It’s far too early to see the post-Trump Republican figure who can redefine the party for generations, but on the Democratic side, betting types should put their money on Mayor Mamdani. Born outside the United States, Mamdani can’t be president, but the fact that he can’t aspire to the Oval Office doesn’t change the fact that Mamdani is now set to redefine the Democratic Party and the political left. Leftist voters see Mamdani as a savior figure, predestined to redefine the Democrats and to bring in a new age of collectivization, high taxes, ever-expanding government, a gargantuan welfare state, and, just to make the picture perfect, government-run grocery stores. What could go wrong?

Mamdani has made so many promises that even the left can’t keep them straight. There is universal free child care, free bus rides, increased rent controls, higher taxes on the wealthy, peace on earth, and good will among men (or, in Mandani’s fever dream, whatever gender you choose at the moment).

Of course, the last time Gotham tried this was with the election of John Lindsey, who served as NYC mayor from 1966 to 1973. Lindsey’s attempt to enact a leftist dream left the city in a financial disaster that was nearly its ruin. The central ideas of Mamdani’s political dream come right out of the Marxist nightmare. It’s not that they haven’t been tried, it’s that they have produced immeasurable human misery wherever they have been adopted.

In his inaugural address, Mamdani hit the themes openly and boldly, claiming the virtue of audacity. “We will govern without shame and insecurity, making no apology for what we believe,” he boasted. “I was elected as a Democratic Socialist and I will govern as a Democratic Socialist. I will not abandon my principles for fear of being deemed radical.” Well, indeed he is radical. He got that much right.

Mandani openly promised collectivism. He came right out and said it: “We will replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism.” The warmth of collectivism? That phrase was intentional, honest, and spectacularly scary. Just ask the average Soviet citizen during the age of the USSR. All they collected was bone-crushing poverty and soul-crushing totalitarianism.

The inaugural ceremony was a parable (or parody?) of leftist dreams. Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., offered the ceremonial oath of office and ranted as usual. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., also took part, and the picture was nearly complete. Together, AOC, Bernie, and Mayor Mamdani intend to redefine the Democratic Party in light of their own democratic socialism, and younger Democratic voters are lining up to join the revolution.

The ironies were thick, as were the symbolic acts. Mayor Mamdani took the oath of office with his hand on a Qur’an, and the event was declared to be a sign of burgeoning Muslim influence in mainstream culture. Of course, they would not want you to actually read the Qur’an, for that would pour cold water on Mamdani’s ardent social liberalism, right down to radical positions in devotion to the LGBTQ cause. A civilization truly founded on Qur’anic principles would be radically incompatible with Western civilization, but a Muslim who smilingly advocates leftist ideologies is too good to pass up. The new mayor has declared that he will not visit Israel. He is unlikely to visit most of the Muslim world as well, where Muslims who actually follow the Qur’an, to state the matter delicately, would be unlikely to welcome a mayor committed to transgender ideologies.

Mamdani is an anti-Semite even as he insists that he is not. His hatred of Israel as a Jewish state was clear long before he immediately signed executive orders, including one that withdrew a widely respected international definition of anti-Semitism. He was raised by leftist parents and grew up around Palestinian ideologues, and it shows.

At the national level, Republicans have to see Mamdani as an undeserved gift. His election, and the genuflection of national Democratic leaders to him, indicate that younger Democratic voters are done with the likes of old liberals like Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and maybe even California Gov. Gavin Newsom. At the very least, their party is veering to the left and even Newsom is in danger of being left behind. The Democrats are running into a socialist dream, and that simply can’t go well. That doesn’t mean that Republicans won’t find a way to lose, but it does mean that “the warmth of collectivism” is an impending catastrophe at the national level.

But, for now, Democratic Party leaders are all smiles. Don’t be fooled. Those smiling Democrats have to know they have just been handed a grinning socialist disaster.

This article originally appeared at WORLD Opinions on January 6, 2026.

The post The Age of Mamdani: He’s young, charismatic, Muslim, a Democratic Socialist—and the future of the Democratic Party appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Of course, there are big questions to be faced. Nothing like this action goes without endless review, second-guessing, and political opposition. Removing Maduro from Venezuela was necessary, but his arrest, removal, prosecution, and (we hope) eventual conviction and sentencing will not be sufficient to resolve the issue. Venezuela, like much of Latin America, is a political and economic mess, to put it mildly.

Nicolas Maduro was a gangster disguised as a politician, and President Trump is right to call him a backer of world mayhem and a kingpin in the world’s narcotics trade. Maduro seized power in 2013, having been handpicked by Venezuela’s infamous leftist strongman Hugo Chavez, just before the dictator died of cancer. Even Chavez’s fellow leftists questioned the choice. Maduro was a former bus driver who entered politics and rose quickly through the ranks. He would later steal multiple elections, declare the equivalent of martial law, and go on to rule by decree. He followed in the leftist path set by Chavez, and cozied up to all the predictable centers of mayhem in the world, particularly China, Cuba, Russia, and Iran.

Meanwhile, the people of Venezuela went hungry and poor, even as the nation claims the largest oil supply on the planet. Like Chavez, Maduro was a virulent anti-American who sought to buy friends among the worst bad actors around the world, using oil as leverage. He was widely known to be guilty of supporting the narcotics traffic, engaging in mass murder, and stripping Venezuela of political legitimacy and national security.

Successive U.S. presidents had denied his legitimacy and openly accused him of leading a criminal organization. Groups like the Organization of American States knew full well that Maduro was a dictator, as did other international bodies. Back in 2017, while serving in his first term, President Trump threatened Maduro with removal and prosecution. In return, Maduro taunted America.

In one sense, action against Maduro was guaranteed when Donald Trump was elected to a second term in 2024. In another sense, Maduro’s fate was also sealed with the appointment of Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., as U.S. Secretary of State. Secretary Rubio came to hatred of communism and corruption in Cuba the hard way—through his own family’s experience. Maduro was openly in cahoots with Cuba’s communist government and for a long time propped it up with Venezuela’s income from oil. Both Trump and Rubio wanted action against Maduro, and they were not subtle.

A U.S. Navy task force led by the USS Gerald R. Ford—the world’s largest aircraft carrier—was deployed just off Venezuela’s coast. Boats identified as involved in drug smuggling were blown out of the water and Trump openly demanded that Maduro leave Venezuela, suggesting that he find a comfortable retirement among the criminal class far, far away. Maduro responded by taunting the U.S. president, quoting rock lyrics. In that sense, President Trump had to act or look weak and foolish—and he no doubt found that option unappealing. The military action was incredibly successful, and not a single American life was lost. Within hours, the Maduros were in hand, under arrest, and headed for arraignment in New York. Trump tweeted the triumph Saturday morning at 4:23 a.m. Mission accomplished.

Of course, it’s not that easy. The hard part is what comes next. Removing Maduro was absolutely necessary and fully justified. While the rest of the world demanded year after year that Maduro resign, Trump effectively resigned him. Democrats in Congress and globalists at the United Nations will cry foul, but to no avail. Congress could act, but it won’t. The Constitution puts awesome responsibility in the hands of the president of the United States, and President Trump used that authority. In a world of dangerous split-second developments and endless congressional square-dancing, military action is sometimes necessary. It is always questioned, and should be, but the last time Congress officially declared war was in 1941. This is not what the founders intended, but they never knew of a ballistic missile or a host of other developments.

Trump has long condemned interventionists like both Presidents Bush and said that he would not lead America into endless global entanglements. After hitting targets within Iran, Syria, Iraq, and now Nigeria, it seems clear that while President Trump wants to avoid long military entanglements, he isn’t reluctant to order strategic military strikes. The big question is whether the two can remain divided and if the strikes will accomplish their purposes.

On the international scene, even some who like the fact that Maduro is out will decry the United States for acting unilaterally, and some will cite international law. The United Nations will huff and puff and blow its own horn, but to no effect. There is a live debate over the existence and content of something called “international law,” but the United States will never sacrifice its own security to satisfy the General Assembly of the United Nations. If the United Nations were effective, U.S. action would not have been necessary. The world is a mess, and the U.N. is incompetent to meet the challenge—and always will be.

Realists know that actions like this military strike and the removal of Nicolas Maduro are never fully satisfying, even as they are necessary. What matters now is what comes next. I was among the first American journalists to land in Panama in 1990 after the United States took similar action to remove and prosecute Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega, and I was one of the first to interview the new president, Guillermo Endara. I know the score. The arrival in Venezuela of yet another Chavez or Maduro resolves nothing. But, if nothing else, Maduro’s fellow strongmen around the world are surely asking the question: “Who’s next?”

This article originally appeared at WORLD Opinions on January 5, 2026.

The post The parable of Nicolas Maduro: You can run, but you can’t hide appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Australian authorities soon reported that the shooters were a Pakistani father and son and stated the obvious—that this was a targeted act of anti-Semitic hatred and mass murder. The Australian government later said that Islamic State flags had been found in the suspects’ car. Australia’s prime minster, Anthony Albanese, declared: “This is a targeted attack on Jewish Australians on the first day of Hanukkah, which should be a day of joy. An attack on Jewish Australians is an attack on every Australian.”

The prime minister said the right words of moral solidarity, but his comment did not make the true nature of the attack quite obvious. This was not just a targeted terrorist attack on Jewish Australians, though it surely was that. It was also a dagger thrust in the heart of Western civilization. Freedom of assembly means nothing if citizens are too afraid to assemble.

The pattern is all too clear. Just consider attacks on Christmas markets in Germany—with new arrests for conspiracy to commit further attacks announced just in recent days. The death toll mounts as the attacks in Western nations multiply. The murderous shooting on the campus of Brown University in the United States happened in a classroom where a Jewish scholar was professor. Coincidence?

There are two undeniable patterns here. The first is the pattern of anti-Semitic violence. The second is the larger pattern of terror tied to immigration and Islam.

Some people will recoil at the suggestion that immigration and Islamic terrorism have anything to do with these attacks, but the facts are plain to see. Western civilization now faces a direct threat to both liberty and civilizational survival, and denial is not a strategy. It is a form of self-induced delirium.

First, consider the crisis of immigration, and in some nations that means both legal and illegal immigration. At the beginning of this century, 23% of Australia’s population was immigrants. Last year, that count had risen to almost 32%—meaning that nearly one third of the nation’s current population consists of immigrants.

Nation by nation, the numbers (acknowledged and unacknowledged) are less important than the fact that millions upon millions of those who have arrived in Europe, the United States, Canada, and Australia have come from radically different cultures with different worldviews and conceptions of citizenship. Western nations understand citizenship to be a shared project marked by a commitment to the nation. It is now clear and undeniable that millions of recent immigrants have no intention of assimilating into their new host cultures.

This emerges in news stories, often with the truth about immigration denied or submerged. Just consider the news about millions of dollars of fraud through government programs in Minnesota, largely within the Somali immigrant community. The story is surely bigger than immigration, but immigration is clearly part of the story.

Any doubts about the fact that the West faces an existential crisis in the form of immigration should be dispelled by a quick look at the quarters of Paris now effectively taken over by Muslim immigrants of several generations. Look at what happened after former German chancellor Angela Merkel opened the nation to unprecedented immigration and largely opened its borders. Look at what is happening now in nations like Sweden or see how the political landscape has been changed in Britain.

Every nation owes it citizens a responsible immigration policy. And it is not racism to argue that any sane nation’s immigration policy is premised upon the newcomers’ commitment to join the national project, and not to subvert it. One way or another, every enduring nation adopts an immigration policy consistent with its values and its national interest. To fail at either task represents national disaster. An immigration policy right for America, for example, would uphold American values and require newcomers to join in support of the American project, the perpetuation and enrichment of the American future, consistent with American values and identity.

To be blunt, the only alternative to this is the dissolution of the nation, the subverting of our national interest, and the abdication of national responsibility. For too many years, America’s own uncontrolled borders have been, not only a way for rightful immigrants to join the American dream, but for felons and miscreants and worse (even international terror suspects) to enter the nation. The number of people illegally crossing the border has decreased, especially under the Trump administration, but our laws remain a mess. At present, our own broken immigration laws make a mockery of our national interest and our national responsibility.

Finally, we face the fact that the threat from Islam is real. The reality is that the vast majority of Muslims around the world, quite consistent with their own convictions, do not want to join the civilizational project of the West, including the national project of the United States. Just in case you wonder, they say this out loud. Islam does not sit easily where Islam does not dominate, and that fits the pattern of the Islamic worldview. Consider this: We are constantly told of liberal Islamic figures in the United States as indicative of Muslims becoming part of the American dream, and some do, of course. But just think of New York City’s incoming mayor, Zohran Mamdani. The mayor-elect can openly make his case in America’s largest city. It’s less likely that he could safely make the same case, presenting as a Muslim man but acknowledging his liberal views on LGBTQ issues, for example, on the street in Pakistan.

At the present, an honest national conversation about these things seems almost impossible. Meanwhile, the headlines mount and the tragedies continue. Our hearts go out to the people of Australia, and particularly to its Jewish community. This news story will soon disappear from the headlines. The problem, however, will not disappear on its own.

This article originally appeared at WORLD Opinions on December 16, 2025.

The post The clash of civilizations on Bondi Beach: We are at war, and it’s time we admit what’s at stake appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

The debate that lingers has been largely driven by President Trump, who repeatedly called for the Republicans to end the filibuster once and for all. As the president sees things, the Senate’s filibuster rule is simply an obstacle that should be eliminated. I say it is an obstacle put there deliberately and I further argue that the removal of the filibuster is a decidedly unconservative proposal that would lead to disaster. That’s all.

Once upon a time, the Senate and the House both had filibuster rules that enabled members to delay legislation, sometimes leading to the defeat of that legislation. Though the word is strange, the principle is deeply conservative. In ancient Rome, Cato the Younger used his own version of the filibuster to prevent the passage of legislation. In the Senate of Rome, all legislation failed with the coming of darkness. Cato just talked until sundown and refused to yield. With darkness the legislation failed and senators went home to dinner. Cato went home satisfied that he had prevented disaster.

The House of Representatives ditched the filibuster early in its history, but the House was designed to be the chamber of energetic legislative action. The Senate, by contrast, was designed to be the brake on the hot passions of the House. In the Senate, every state stands equal and any senator can command the floor. The Senate was designed to slow things down. The filibuster is not mandated in the Constitution, but it has been an essential rule of the Senate. In older days, a “talking” filibuster was required. More recently, the filibuster works in the Senate by requiring 60 votes (a 3/5 majority) for any bill to advance to a vote. In most cases, no marathon-length speeches are necessary.

Let me be blunt. Conservatives depend on the filibuster and without it we would be living under very different circumstances. The conservative disposition calls for restraint when it comes to legislation. If the filibuster had not been in place, we would be facing disaster. To remove it would be to torpedo conservative aims and hand the Senate to the next Democratic majority, free to run roughshod toward progressivist goals.

Conservatives believe in the lessons of both history and mathematics, so let me give you a major dose of both. If legislation in the Senate can move forward with a simple majority, as in the House of Representatives, the Senate becomes little more than a second House with longer terms. The nightmare scenario is one in which there is no Senate filibuster and the Democrats control both chambers and the White House. The Democrats would win every vote, and nothing could stop a bare Democratic majority from passing whatever legislation it likes—and its increasingly radical base demands.

Now for the history part. Brace yourselves. I made a chart of every congress since Franklin Roosevelt was elected president. No less than 18 of those congresses, starting with the 73rd Congress in 1933, had Democrats in control of the House and the Senate and the White House. What about Republicans? Over the same period from 1933 until the present, Republicans had the clean sweep only four times. Want to get rid of the filibuster? Say hello to disaster.

Just take the issue of abortion. The Democrats have been kicking themselves ever since the Supreme Court reversed the Roe v. Wade decision in 2022. Their base demands to know why the Democrats did not pass comprehensive abortion rights legislation when they were in total control. The filibuster is a major answer to the question. That same leftist base demands that the Democrats pledge to eliminate the filibuster once the party is in the majority once again, and that with the filibuster gone, and with Democrats once again in control of the House and the White House as well, they would be free to pass radical abortion laws and run the tables, so to speak, with progressivist legislation. Just imagine the LGBTQ avalanche to come.

Think it can’t happen? Without the filibuster, Democrats can run Congress like the British Parliament, where a simple majority can basically run the tables. A Democratic president would be only too glad to sign the leftist legislation. Think that’s unlikely? Remember, the Democrats have controlled the House and the Senate and the White House for no less than 36 years since Franklin Roosevelt’s inauguration. Just imagine if they had held that control without the restraint of the filibuster in the Senate.

The filibuster can be frustrating. The recent Democratic filibuster was frustrating, and comes with consequences. But conservatives had better remember that, without the filibuster, we would be living in Nancy Pelosi’s America. When she was speaker of the House, she famously hated the filibuster rule in the Senate. But for the filibuster, the Democrats could have cleared the decks with their legislative priorities when Barack Obama and Joe Biden were in the White House. Let that little nightmare focus your attention.

William F. Buckley, Jr. once said that the conservative mission was “to stand athwart history yelling stop.” Killing the filibuster would mean conservative surrender. The filibuster is one essential way of yelling stop.

For a counterpoint by Hunter Baker, see “The filibuster is failing us.”

This article originally appeared at WORLD Opinions on December 17, 2025.

The post Keep the filibuster rule Point: Eliminating the minority brake in the Senate is the last thing conservatives should want appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Her predecessor as Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, resigned in the wake of a sex abuse scandal in which he was accused of taking inadequate action. The selection of Bishop Sarah to be the next Archbishop of Canterbury is seen as response to that controversy, though, given the theological trajectory of the Church of England, the appointment of a woman to the highest clerical leadership position in the church was inevitable. It was just a matter of time, and, at the end of last week, the time came.

Two of the last three primates had been advertised as some kind of evangelical. In both cases, with George Carey and Justin Welby, they turned out to be the kind of evangelicals who are not evangelical. Both withered in conviction while in office. If they had any strong convictions in the past, those convictions seemed to disappear as soon as they put on Canterbury’s miter. Conservatives in the Church of England—and there are brave ones left—are now put in a devil’s bind. Evangelical priests in the Diocese of London, where Sarah Mullally has been bishop, were allowed to appeal for external episcopal oversight. Now that she is to be Archbishop of Canterbury, that would seem to be impossible.

Understandably, conservatives in the Anglican Communion are up in arms. Many expressed outrage at the appointment of Sarah Mullally to Canterbury, both for the fact that they do not recognize a woman as priest or bishop, and because this particular woman bishop is quite liberal. Interestingly, she cited her experience as a nurse in coming out against assisted suicide, now debated in Britain’s House of Lords. You can imagine the puns. It certainly does appear that the Church of England is being self-euthanized. On LGBTQ issues the new archbishop is all in on welcoming practicing homosexuals in the church and blessing their unions. It is hard to see how the church will not move swiftly under her leadership to embrace legalized same-sex marriage and all the rest—meaning, all the letters of LGBTQ, and that pesky + sign as well.

The Most Reverend Dr. Laurent Mbanda, Archbishop of Rwanda and leader of GAFCON, the group of conservative global Anglicans set up in opposition to liberalism in the Episcopal Church in the United States and out of disappointment with the pathetically anemic leadership of the Church of England, spoke the truth when he said that “the majority of the Anglican Communion still believes that the Bible requires a male-only episcopacy.” Worldwide, Anglicanism has been most vigorous where the doctrine has been most conservative—and that has generally meant in places far from London or Canterbury. GAFCON also expressed gave disappointment in the lack of biblical fidelity seen in Dame Sarah, and the group expressed disagreement with her “unbiblical and revisionist teachings regarding marriage and sexual morality.”

Dr. Gerald Bray, historian and theologian and one of the most respected voices among conservative Anglicans, held nothing back in an article for Evangelicals Now: “Undertrained and inexperienced, with a proper job somewhere else, the only reason she became a bishop is that she was a woman when women were wanted and in short supply. A man in her position would never have been considered. General awareness of that will make her task exceptionally difficult. Everybody in the Church of England will be polite to her, but few will listen to whatever she has to say.” In the British tradition of pushing on anyway, Bray concluded: “The best we can hope for is that evangelicals (in particular) will be left alone to get on with the mission of Christ, and that when the See of Canterbury becomes vacant again, a more promising candidate may be found.”

My own life has been so enriched by the Anglican tradition, and my soul has been fed by towering figures such as John Owen and Bishop Charles Ryle. I hold dear the memory and examples set by towering Reformation martyrs such as Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, Bishop Nicholas Ridley, and Bishop Hugh Latimer. I learned much from J. I. Packer and John Stott and a host of others, living and dead. I am thankful for such good work done by so many for so long. I pray for them. I cherish Anglican music, though I hear it far more commonly in my library than in my church. I grieve for my Anglican friends.

Year ago, on a visit to our campus, historian John Shelton Reed remarked that you can only expect so much orthodoxy from a church founded by King Henry VIII. I see the point. But I can only wonder what King Henry would say of this development in the Church of England, and what he would think of the approval granted by King Charles III, the church’s current Supreme Governor. Then again, I am fairly certain King Henry’s response would not be printable at WORLD Opinions. I’ll leave it at that.

This article originally appeared at WORLD Opinions on November 6, 2025.

The post A liberal nurse to lead a dying church?: The Church of England’s first female Archbishop of Canterbury is devastating news for conservative Anglicans appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

A massive crowd gathered in the sports arena and in an adjacent facility. Major media reported a total attendance of nearly 200,000 people. The entire event was unprecedented and heart-wrenching. This was a memorial service for a young man, just 31 years of age, a husband and father of two very young children, struck down in the violence of an assassin’s bullet. Those facts were ever present and ever visible. A huge image of Charlie loomed over the huge platform. Charlie Kirk’s young widow spoke bravely in her late husband’s honor. It was emotionally charged from the beginning. But, from the beginning, it was not the usual memorial service. President Trump got it right. It was like a revival.

Pastor Rob McCoy started it all off with a bold presentation of the gospel of Jesus Christ, speaking directly to the New Testament message of Jesus the Christ, the very Son of God, who “left the glory of heaven’s throne for the humiliation of an earthly cross.” Pastor McCoy, Charlie Kirk’s own pastor, spoke of the reality of sin, of the wages of sin as death, and of the atoning death of the Lord Jesus Christ for the salvation of sinners. He called sinners to believe and be saved—right there as the service started.

Speaker after speaker bore witness to the gospel. They spoke openly of Charlie Kirk’s personal faith in Christ and of his call for others to believe and be saved and to follow Christ in obedience. They did not speak of Charlie’s faith in political terms. They bore witness to Charlie Kirk’s politics in terms of his Christian commitments. Honestly, it was five hours of witness and encouragement and Christian testimony. One young man spoke of learning from Charlie Kirk and “his love of God and true joy he found in his savior Jesus Christ.” Andrew Kolvet, who worked with Charlie on his podcast, spoke of his evangelistic mission: “He confronted evil and proclaimed the truth and called us to repent and be saved.” He cited 1 Corinthians 15 in his thankfulness for the promise of the resurrection. The sum of his message? “Christ has overcome death.”

Benny Johnson spoke of Charlie Kirk as a martyr for the Christian faith and then made it really personal: “When Charlie first met me, I was a degenerate loser. I’m still a loser, but I was addicted to alcohol. I had no wife, I had no kids. I had nothing going for me. After ten years of work with Charlie Kirk, after his witnessing to my life, I had become a Christ-centered man.” He then pointed to his wife and eight-month-old son.

Apologist Frank Turek presented the gospel in doctrinal detail, right down to penal substitutionary atonement. In His righteousness, the Father demanded an innocent and perfect sacrifice for sin, and the Father sent the Son to die for sinners on the cross, the perfect substitute. This same Christ rose from the grave, raised by the Father. Sinners who come to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ are “given His righteousness.” As Turek declared: “Ladies and gentlemen, this is the greatest story ever told, and it happens to be true.”

Explicit gospel testimony came from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of War Peter Hegseth, and a host of others. Then Vice President J. D. Vance went to the platform. In a remarkably moving statement, the vice president of the United States said this: “I was telling somebody backstage that I always felt a little uncomfortable talking about my faith in public, as much as I loved the Lord and as much as it was an important part of my life. I have talked more about Jesus Christ in the past two weeks than I have in my entire time in public life.”

Cynics will think what they will think, but comments of this depth were not at all necessary. The speakers could have gotten away with spiritual platitudes and a little Christian jargon. That’s not the message that was conveyed at the service. That means the words must have been heartfelt and sincere. For some of these public leaders, the words may be costly, but they said them anyway.

Some observers of American religion have argued that much of the Christian language used by public figures is just evidence of “civil religion,” a basic mixture of patriotism and some vague spiritual language. But the message of the memorial service for Charlie Kirk was not vague, and it was not minimal. It was far more than that. Did you ever expect to hear a vice president of the United States talk like J. D. Vance did yesterday? We will be thinking about this service for a long time.

We continue to pray for Erika Kirk and her sweet children, and for the perpetuation of the amazing work Charlie Kirk accomplished in raising up an army of young people—especially young men. Erika Kirk pointed to her husband’s mission “to save young men just like the one who took his life.” Then in an absolutely astounding statement, Erika Kirk directly spoke with reference to her husband’s killer, speaking of God’s forgiveness. She movingly spoke of “that man, that young man,” and then went on to say: “I forgive him.” She said she did so because “it is what Christ did, and it is what Charlie would do.” Amazing grace—right there for all to see.

Right now, I am still stunned by the sheer weight of Christian testimony that came in that service yesterday. May God use it for the increase of the gospel and all to His glory.

This article originally appeared at WORLD Opinions on September 22, 2025.

The post “This is like an old-time revival, isn’t it?”: The astounding memorial service for Charlie Kirk appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Furthermore, early information released by law enforcement included engravings on ammunition that clearly reflected “a leftist ideology.” As is true in the vast majority of political assassinations, the assassin kills to send a political message. That was accentuated in the killing of Charlie Kirk because it happened in the context of a political event in which Kirk was doing what he did best—appearing among thousands of college students in order to contend for his beliefs. He sat under a tent that advertised with words the openness of his approach: “Prove me wrong.”

We need to take a closer look at the other major statement by Gov. Cox. With carefully calculated words, meant to reduce any possibility of misunderstanding, the governor stated that investigators were talking to Robinson’s roommate. “The roommate was a romantic partner, a male transitioning to female,” Cox said.

The transgender issue had been raised about 24 hours before the governor made that official statement. The words chosen by the governor left no room for misunderstanding. Tyler Robinson had a roommate, described by the governor as a romantic partner, “a male transitioning to female.” Suddenly and officially, the trans angle became part of the story. And Charlie Kirk had just answered a question about mass shootings by transgender individuals when he was assassinated.

It was immediately clear that the mainstream media wanted to stay as far away from that part of the story as possible. That’s exactly what happened with the shooter who killed and injured children at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis. But, since in that case the transgender issue was relevant to the shooter himself, the issue was impossible to ignore. News reports and commentary after the gruesome shooting were a jumble of confusion—the confusion inevitable once the transgender ideology takes hold.

The killer in Minneapolis was Robert Westman, who had changed his name to “Robin” Westman with the cooperation of his mother. The New York Times referred to the transgender shooter as “Ms. Westman.” Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a Democratic senator from Minnesota, told National Public Radio that the shooter acted out of hate, rightly referring to Westman as “he.” NPR quickly came back with this comment: “And just a point of clarification, Sen. Klobuchar referenced the shooter as ‘he.’ Although police have identified a suspect, it’s still unclear at this time what that person’s identity is or how they identify.” On PBS Newshour, David Brooks referred to Westman as female. Many others did the same, knowing that Westman was biologically male. Other media sources tried their best to avoid making any gender reference at all, referring only to “the shooter.”

Authorities in Minnesota later disclosed that Robert Westman had attended the school as a boy, but later identified as female, creating the ridiculous formulation that he attended the school as a boy but returned with murderous intention as a female. The powers that be told us all to move on—nothing to see here when it came to the transgender issue.

That same pattern appeared in the horrifying 2023 mass shooting at The Covenant School in Nashville. Eventually authorities identified Audrey Hale, the shooter, as transgender or non-binary. ABC News argued that the trans dimension of the story was not an issue: “Advocates say transgender people have historically and falsely been categorized as violent or dangerous—perpetuating anti-transgender sentiment and further ostracizing a vulnerable and small population.” ABC News went on to state: “Every study available shows that transgender and non-binary people are much more likely to be victims of violence, rather than the perpetrator of it, the Human Rights Campaign said in a statement following the shooting.”

It would certainly be wrong to argue that everyone with a transgender identity is a potential mass shooter. That would be flatly irresponsible. But it is insanity to argue that the transgender identity has nothing to do with these crimes. The pattern is now undeniable.

Most cultural authorities are running scared from any public acknowledgement of the pattern. They are so intimidated by the LGBTQ community and the cultural guardians of leftist gender ideologies that they simply want to move on—fast. They want us all to do the same.

But we can’t just move on. The ideologues and activists of the transgender revolution want to prevent any discussion of the fact that there is deep trouble here. What kind of intense inner turmoil is reflected in this pattern? By definition, the intense rejection of one’s given biological sex cannot be an insignificant matter.

I know this isn’t going to be easy, but the issue can’t be avoided. We have to talk about this.

This article originally appeared at WORLD Opinions on September 16, 2025.

The post We have to talk about this: The transgender dimension of recent mass shootings appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

That same generation saw riots break out in American cities and on college campuses and the National Guard sent into the chaos to restore order. Those memories fade very slowly, if at all.

Then came Sept. 11, 2001, exactly 24 years ago today. No one who experienced that day can forget it. It is seared into our collective memory. Towers and bodies fell after airliners were deliberately crashed into skyscrapers and the Pentagon. Who could forget that? Among those who watched the images unfold, who could possibly just forget and move on?

Yesterday is now one of those days, and for today’s young adults, and especially for young Christians, and even more specifically for Christian and conservative young men, it is a day that will also be seared into generational memory. The assassination of Charlie Kirk, right at the heart of a major American university, even as he sat under the banner, “Prove Me Wrong,” is a generation shaping event.

I can see liberal eyerolling even now. Most would have the sense not to say out loud what a few on the left have rushed to say. MSNBC had to issue a statement apologizing for statements by one of its own, Matthew Dowd, acknowledging that the words he spoke were “inappropriate, insensitive, and unacceptable.” The network later announced that he had been fired.

Charlie Kirk was not an American president, nor was he running for office. Instead, he was a remarkable young man who set out to rally a generation of American young people to conservative ideas and policies. He co-founded Turning Point USA when he was only 18 years old. In political terms, he was unquestionably a prodigy. He was also a natural provocateur and debater. He would have been a great courtroom lawyer, but he had aspirations to change history by changing minds—and to do so on a civilizational scale. He had prodigious gifts and seemingly boundless energy.

Kirk and his organization deserve tremendous credit for winning the hearts and minds of so many young people to conservative beliefs and conservative politics. He was astoundingly successful in reaching and invigorating teenage boys and young men and making them care about something massively bigger than video games and fantasy football. He saw civilization at stake and he gladly entered the arena of action. Throngs of young people followed him, inspired to action by his arguments and example.

I first met Charlie Kirk several years ago when we were both addressing a major conference of conservatives. Backstage, I was impressed by his gifts but turned off by his demeanor. That was during Charlie’s years of bare-fisted libertarianism and personal assertion. Back then, he saw Christianity as a huge drag on conservative progress. He was pretty clear in calling for a new young conservatism of liberty and resistance. At the time, he didn’t have a lot of use for conservative Christians, and he wasn’t subtle.

Not long thereafter, Charlie embraced two things that had been missing from his earlier approach. He openly and boldly claimed the gospel of Christ and courageously identified himself as a Christian believer. He also began to argue with consistency that a recovery of Christian truth was essential for a lasting conservatism. He was right.

Furthermore, his private sphere changed along with his public arguments. He got married to Erika and they were blessed with two children, still very young. As we all know, and as God intended, that brings maturity and deeper meaning to a man’s life, and all that was evident in Charlie’s life.

All that was cut short with the horrifying violence that unfolded on the campus of Utah Valley University. The violence shocked the entire nation. As with Cain’s murder of Abel, Charlie Kirk’s blood cries out from the ground.

He was a man who knew he had enemies and a man who loved confrontation. But he was animated by ideas and driven by passion. He was doing what he did so well, arguing for his beliefs, when the assassin aimed his weapon. He was still so young. No one knows what he might have done over decades ahead. But the political loss disappears into the mist in comparison to the unspeakable loss that is now experienced by his widow and young children, now fatherless.

Now is the time for us to pray for Erika Kirk and her precious children. That comes first. But this is also a time for justice and a renewed determination to hold to honored convictions, even in the face of unspeakable violence. This generation of Christian young adults, and especially young men, is about to grow up a bit faster than they thought. The assassination of Charlie Kirk is not going to be forgotten, and the cries for justice are righteous and right.

This article originally appeared at WORLD Opinions on September 11, 2025.

The post A most tragic turning point: The assassination of Charlie Kirk and the call of a generation appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

The brutal murder of 23-year-old Iryna Zarutska on Charlotte, N.C.’s light rail system raises the issue all over again, and understandably so. The young woman had left Ukraine to come to the United States in order to escape the violence of war. Tragically, she met deadly violence on a commuter train in an American city. The murder took place on Aug. 22, but the story broke into national headlines just in recent days.

The sudden attention can be traced to the release of security footage showing the young woman sit on the train, only to be savagely attacked without any provocation at all by the man sitting behind her. The shock and fear in her eyes are horrible to witness. The brutality of the murder is shocking to our eyes. The images tell a truth we cannot miss. This was an unprovoked murder undertaken and recorded on video.

Charlotte police quickly arrested Decarlos Brown, Jr. and charged him with first-degree murder. Authorities also acknowledged that Brown had a lengthy arrest record, including arrests for robbery with a dangerous weapon, threatening behavior, larceny, and other crimes. He served a prison term for one of the crimes, followed by a year of observation. More recently, he had been arrested, but released with “cashless bail,” a policy pushed by liberal activists. He had a very long list of encounters with police, who knew him to be a deeply troubled offender with a prison record. But he was left on the streets, and now we all know where that led.

Why wasn’t he in some form of custody or supervision? Over and over again we ask government leaders and law enforcement the same question: If you knew he was dangerous, why didn’t you do anything to protect the public?

We need to face the fact that American conservatives and liberals see the same crimes but not the same realities. When conservatives look at violent crime, they see a moral issue. When liberals look at the same crimes and statistics, they see a sociological issue. The natural response of conservatives is to demand that government protect innocent citizens from criminals and punish criminals in accordance with their crimes. The natural reflex of liberals is to demand that systemic problems be addressed, public funding be increased, and personal autonomy be respected. The vast majority of conservatives understand that social dynamics are part of the picture, but they insist that the primary issues are moral. The vast majority of liberals believe that at least some people belong behind bars, but they insist that the big issues are structural and systemic and they downplay personal responsibility.

At an even more basic level, conservatives and liberals see human nature in different terms. Conservatives generally understand human nature in terms of a vision basically compatible with the Bible and its understanding of human sin and human nature. Liberals, virtually from the beginning of modern liberalism, have possessed a more optimistic vision of human nature. Conservatives generally see evil emerging from the sinful human heart and evil intent. The basic problem is internal. Liberals are more prone to see the problem as external, explained by sociological realities and structural inequities in society.

This week, the New York Times ran a news story that declared: “A Gruesome Murder in North Carolina Ignites a Firestorm on the Right.” The Times seems to believe that the big story is outrage on the right after the release of the security camera video of the crime. Isn’t the bigger story the lack of outrage on the left?

After the crime was reported, Charlotte’s Democratic mayor, Vi Lyles, offered words of sympathy for the victim and condolences to her family. But, more recently, Mayor Lyles called for public understanding for Decarlos Brown—the man arrested for Iryna Zarutska’s murder (and seen murdering her in the security video). She attempted to place blame on the larger society, arguing that the brutal murder and arrest “should force us to look at what we are doing across our community to address root causes.” The mayor also said “we will never arrest our way out [of] issues such as homelessness and mental health” and she exhorted citizens to avoid “villainizing those who struggle with their mental health or those who are unhoused.”

The Trump administration joined the debate and accused Democrats of being soft on crime: “It’s the culmination of North Carolina’s Democrat politicians, prosecutors, and judges prioritizing woke agendas that fail to protect their citizens when they need them most,” according to a statement released by the White House.

Wouldn’t you think that liberals would at least reconsider their position in light of such a brutal and unprovoked murder? Wouldn’t you think they would agree that Decarlos Brown shouldn’t have been free on the streets? Wouldn’t this prompt a more fundamental rethinking of crime and punishment among liberals? Don’t hold your breath. It’s almost like they want to help write Republican ads for the next election.

Meanwhile, some on the right seem tempted to point to the fact that Decarlos Brown is black in order to score political points about race. Wouldn’t you think they would have the sense to see this brutal crime—and the liberal response—as an opportunity to make clear that conservatives will not make this case about race, but about sin and evil, crime and punishment?

Frankly, the smart conservative play is to let the liberals speak their minds and reveal their toxic ideas—and make sure they are recorded for future use. Closer to home, the smart play is for conservatives to avoid saying stupid stuff, take the high road, and underline the issues of right and wrong, crime and punishment—not race. Remember that our words are going to be recorded, too.

This article originally appeared at WORLD Opinions on September 10, 2025.

The post Brutal murder in Charlotte becomes national flashpoint: Response to release of security video shows deep division between liberals and conservatives appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.