Flaming Fundamentalists For Peace

RL: American Voters Are Easy

2026-09-11T00:01:00.000-04:00

The title of this article was inspired by the Earth Girls Are Easy movie title with 'RL' standing for Real Life.

Of course, saying that any girl is easy in today's venacular means that it does not take much time or effort to gain sexual favors from them. And so when one says that American voters are easy, what is being said is that their voting favors are easy to win.

There are a variety of reasons why American voters are easy. One reason is that we have, for as long as I have been alive which goes back to the Eisenhower Presidency and that preceded the 9/11 attacks, a lazy, bipolar Democracy. BTW, I actually had to confirm the timing of Eisenhower's Presidency to a high school kid when we were discussing history.

By lazy, I mean that we take relatively little to no both time and effort in deciding for whom to vote. For too many of us, our party affiliation determines how we vote. For too many of the rest of Americans, political commercials settle our decisions.

I use the word 'bipolar' because of our two-party system that consists of the Repubican and Democratic parties. Both of those parties hate third party competition from their respective share of voters from the conservative-liberal divide in our nation. Each of those parties has worked to suppress the exposure of names of third party candidates on the election ballots. And so for almost 100% of the time, the behaviors of the major political parties during the elections fixes the election. In addition, either party loyaty or fear/hatred of the opposing party keeps us voting for either Democrat or Republican candidates. In addition, the viability of a third candidate also keeps us corralled into the Republican or Democratic herd.

But what about "independent voters"? Here, we should also focus on the laziness of American voters. Certainly, our two-party system makes our voting choices easy to make. And so it makes us lazy voters. Lazy voters are easy voters. And so, again, what about the independent voters? Have they escaped the laziness of other voters?

The answer is a firm 'NO!' They might be a bit less lazy than our counterparts who are too loyal to their respective parties. but they are not off the hook. Why is that the case? For most independent voters, their laziness has to do with the kind of society we have.

There are two factors that drive our society that can cause voters to be lazy. The first factor is that we have a consumer society. And in a consumer society, the tendency is for people to find a large part of their personal significance in what and how much we consume. Our consumerism not only dulls our concerns for higher values, it bestows on us a political Attention Deficit Disorder so that we don't have the patience or interest to weigh through the details of the tradeoffs that each candidate brings to the table. Those previously mentioned higher values incluse human rights, a non-toxic environment, a good education system especially for low income neighborhoods, law enforcement and the justice systems, and an economic system that, tragically, currently revolves around shareholders. That reductionism eliminates other stakeholders of our economic system from consideration like the environment, respect and adequate compensation for all employees both foreign and domestic, consumers, neighborhoods and even educational institutions.

Now add to that the role that advertising plays in our purchases. Advertising relies on selling a statu, that possession of a product can bring, or it relies on a single benefits that owning a given product brings. What we will never hear from any political advertisements are the tradeoffs that come with the selection of any candidate. And so our political advertisements mirror our product advertisements in that they rely on, using a Rush Limbaugh phrase, symbolism over substance.

Think of many of the car advertisements we are shown. They often focus both on the looks of a car and the image it projects more than on any other quality. Think of how our food is advertised. Restaurants focus on the taste of the food so that its nutritional provision and its safety in terms of preparation and added contents are overlooked. And what about the advertisements for clothes? Advertisements of focus on the status that wearing such clothes will bring and neglect to inform us about the plight of those who actually make the clothes.

Now think about how our political candidates are advertised in their commercials. Again, it's all about image. When political issues are included, they are greatly reduced to perhaps one or two positions so that the potential of a given candidate is based on overly simplistic thinking. Candidates must project a strong, patriotic image who will help return America to a place of strength and leadership while reducing taxes and normal costs.

But what makes our nation strong? Is it military capabilities or dominating others? Also, what is the price of reduced taxes if such reductions require that our national debt continues to spike so that it can cause our economy to collapse?

Like the claims made by the advertisements for the products we buy, the tradeoffs of the suggestions of the advertisements are not in sight. And the same goes for obeying the political campaign advertisements.

BTW, what are tradeoffs? A tradeoff includes the costs and benefits of any choice we make. For example, I am told that while I might enjoy the taste of the food and the speed at which fast food is delivered, there are costs. The fast food might have unnecesary ingredients that improve the appearance and taste of the food while toxically prolonging food storage. And its preparation might be harmful to my health, especially in the long-run. Such food might also not be as nutritious as I have been led to believe. Or so I have been told.

Because we have been consumed with consuming and advertising has been designed to kill our curiosity, we tend to put little effort into discovering the tradeoffs that come with electing the candidates we are favoring.

Take the 2024 election of Donald Trump as an example. We had already seen, first-hand, how his first administration left the nation in utter chaos. And that state existed before the January 6th attempted coup. But because the Repubs painted such a negative image of Biden and Harris while strongly promoting Trump's abilities and positions, too many of us fell for the Republican claims for Trump hook, line, and sinker.

For the most part, American voters are easy. And because of that, we have Trump as President and a worsening of the candidates we choose from in our elections. The old line, 'you get what you pay for,' applies here. That is because the quality of our candidates corresponds not with money, but with disruption, patience, research, anxiety, reflecting, and investigating the candidates and the issues before we vote. Though right now, not voting for Trump seems like the best alternative, perhaps some day in the future, neither of our two political parties will be way off the rails like today's Republican Party. And should that time occur, it would serve us well to consider voting for third party candidates as much as we feel comfortable with voting for candidates from our nation's two major political parties.

Views From The Outside For September 8, 2026

2026-09-08T00:01:00.000-04:00

Views From The Outside

The purpose of this page is to list news stories and reports from mostly Western sources outside of the U.S. You can use Google Translate to translate articles that are printed in another language.

So far, news sources include:

International

Médecins Sans Frontieres

UN News

From Canada

Le Devoir

Le Journal de Montréal

CBC

From England

BBC

Reuters

From France

France24

Les Echos

Le Monde

From Germany

DER SPIEGEL

From Russian Source

Novaya Gazeta Europe

From Spain

El Mundo

El País

From Switzerland

Neue Zürcher Zeitung

From Ukraine

UATV English

<< Previous Views Next Views >>

In These Midterms, A Vote For A Republican Is A Vote For ...

2026-09-04T00:01:00.000-04:00

Trump and his agenda. Why is that? It is because Republican members of Congress have overwhelmingly supported Trump's agenda and appointments. Look past the commercials describing how a Republican candidate is on your side because of a particular issue they supported, that candidate is more concerned with Trump's approval than yours. And that is despite the fact that there are only a few instances in which enough Republicans broke ranks to challenge a Trump supported policy. And so a vote for a Republican is a vote for the following.

Climate Change Denial
Medical Science Denial
Using threats of withdrawing important research funds to coerce Universities to submit to his will.
An increasingly authoritarian Executive Branch
A hierarchical society where some groups are privileged over other groups. A hierarchical society comes with authoritarian governments.
Opposition to the basic foundation of Democracy which is diversity, equity, and inclusion (a.k.a., equality) without which there is no Democracy regardless of the democratic procedures being followed.
An increase in systemic racism. This is evidenced by gerrymandering that reduces black representation in government and restricting blacks from the telling of black history in America in order to promote an American history that is approved of by conservative whites.
An future increase in sexism as is evident in the Project 2025 proposals.
An increased intensity in oligarchic control of the government and the economy. To find our shadow government, one must follow the money, not the bureaucracy. An attack on the bureaucracy has resulted in attacks on democratic controls on business.
A foreign policy that is cozying up to dictators and attacks now former allies. That is because the criteria that Trump uses for a successful President consists of domination and acquisition. This is primarily seen in the use of tariffs. But it is also seen in the use of military force and military foreign aid.
A domestic policy that rewards oligarchs and slashes social safety net programs for those who are vulnerable. Trump has already publicly said that because of his plans for the military, social safety nets like Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs must be turned over to the states because his federal government cannot support social safetnet programs and what he is planing for the military. It is the Military Industrial complex that most benefits from many of Trump's plans.
A ballooing National Debt that could, in the near future, cause our nation's economy to collapse.
A President who constantly, lies and gaslights us about the news, and berates almost every source of dissent.
A country that is becoming more and more like Russia whose government is an oligarchy that displays a religious façade.
Putin and his agenda. After all, Putin wants a weak America and E.U. Trump seems to be doing his best to weaken both entities.

Obviously, the above list is incomplete, but it should be adequate enough to deter rational voters from voting for those Republicans who have supported and enabled Trump's agenda.

Under the Republican control, Congress has simply provided a rubber stamp to what Trump wants. In other words, Congress no longer functions as a check on the Executive branch. If we want to Make Congress Relevant Again, we cannot afford to vote for almost any Republican candidate. Because Congress has been bowing down at Trump's feet, we are watching our government, political system, and nation become like a truck heading down a mountain road with no brakes and no steering. It is only a matter of time before the damage done by Donald Trump to our government and nation becomes irreversible.

Finally, we should be able to ascertain that Trump needs professional help, not power. He is a very damaged person who should be encouraged and invited to resign in order to be able to acquire the help he needs.

Blog Break

2026-08-15T00:01:00.000-04:00

Please note that the dates from the last posting of this blogpost have changed.

For personal reasons I am taking a blog break from posting from Saturday, August 15th to Thursday, September 3rd. The next new post will be on Friday, September 4th. In the meantime, you can visit some of the other pages on this blog accessed through the tabs shown above or the incomplete list below.

Other Pages

Audio-Visual Library Page (this is my favorite page on the website)--has recently been updated
Activism page
Needs updating
Favorite Articles page
Needs updating
Favorite Websites page
Needs updating
Past Blog Posts page
Needs updating

Has Iran Been Using A Rope-A-Dope Strategy On The U.S.

2026-08-14T00:01:00.000-04:00

The Rope-A-Dope was a fighting approach that came from Muhammad Ali's training for his fight with George Foreman. That fight was entitled, The Rumble In The Jungle.

The fight occurred when I was in college. I remember talking to a friend about it and we both thought that Ali had bitten off way more than he could chew. Why? Ali had, by that time, 2 epic fights with Joe Frazier. Frazier won the first fight and it took Ali all he could muster to beat Frazier in their second fight. They fought a third time after Ali's fight with Foreman.

Meanwhile, Foreman easily disposed of Frazier in their first match in the second round. Their second match occurred after Ali's fight with Foreman. Foreman knocked down Frazier 3 times in each of the first two rounds. The 6th knock down ended the fight.

And then we considered the age difference. Ali was in his early 30s and Foreman was in his mid 20s. And so the end of the fight seemed almost predestined in favor of Foreman. However, Ali shocked the world.

How did Ali win? One of the tactics he used was the Rope-A-Dope. That is where Ali would cover himself and lean back on the ropes while letting Foreman to flail away. By minimizing the damage that Foreman did while letting Foreman exhaust himself, Ali took control of the fight and knocked out Foreman in the 8th round.

The question becomes whether Iran is employing an equivalent Rope-A-Dope strategy. Is Iran allow America to continually attack it until America is too exhausted to continue the fight? Being too exhausted in this war would mean that America would no longer have enough weapons and/or the political will power to continue the fight. We should note that America has experienced that kind of defeat before such as in Vietnam and Afghanistan.

My one source tells me that the Iranian people are very proud people who will not surrender. Perhaps, neither Trump nor Netanyahu considered that resolve before deciding to start the war. In the meantime, being as transactional as he is, Trump sees the war as both a boon for the Military Industrial Complex and somewhat of political liability. That degree of liability will be mitigated by the level of control which he tries to exert over the midterms.

Yes, every nation has a limit as to how many attacks it can survive and Iran is no exception. Perhaps, the damage that America has inflicted is not counted as being as crucial to Iran as Trump hopes. And that leaves us with the question of which nation can outlast the other. Trump's taste of blood from the Venezuela incursion is still strong. And his strategy for how to protect himself from the midterm results may help strengthen his resolve. In the meantime, Trump's spending on the military and internal security for the US is putting our nation perilously close to a financial knockdown if not a knockout. And one has to wonder whether putting our nation at such financial risk is part of Trump's plan and his vision for America's future. After all, no one really knows what Trump owes Putin for the latter's help in his past election efforts. And we can already see that despite some of his rhetoric, Trump has taken no significant steps to pressure Putin into stopping his invasion of and atrocities in Ukraine.

Views From The Outside For August 11, 2026

2026-08-11T00:01:00.000-04:00

Views From The Outside

So far, news sources include:

International

Médecins Sans Frontieres

UN News

From Canada

Le Devoir

Le Journal de Montréal

Toronto Star

CBC

From England

BBC

Reuters

From France

France24

Les Echos

Le Monde

From Germany

DER SPIEGEL

From Russian Source

Novaya Gazeta Europe

From Spain

El Mundo

El País

From Switzerland

Neue Zürcher Zeitung

From Ukraine

UATV English

<< Previous Views Next Views >>

How Shall We Then Live With Unbelievers

2026-08-07T00:01:00.000-04:00

The title of this article is based on the title of a multipart documentary by Francis Schaeffer. His work was trying to call America to return to a Christian base for thought. However, here, we need to examine what the New Testament tells us believers regarding how we should relate to unbelievers in our society. This is a very important subject seeing the rise in cultural and societal Christian hubris that is evident in many religiously conservative American Christians including those who are Christian Nationalists and a significant number of those who aren't. I wanted to write about this despite the fact that the biggest current threat to American Democracy is the oligarchy.

Before disussing how those of us Christians should live with unbelievers, we need to face one of our own liabilities. This liability is our penchant for authoritarianism. We are told to submit to so many biblical authority structures and figures that it is difficult for us to turn off the authority switch. Thus when we experience life in society, we are seemingly always looking for proper authority figures to give us orders to obey, and we expect all others to follow suit. After all, misery loves company. And since we are always looking for authority figures to submit too, we often conflate a biblical submission to authority figures with authoritarianism. And what we miss is that there are times and places where we can turn off the authority switch and live with others as equals.

And so we religiously conservative Christians can unknowingly embrace authoritarianism. We'll describe authoritarianism in terms of the relationships that exist between the authoritarian leader and their authoritarian followers. Authoritarian leaders want total control over what their followers believe. One way they do that is to use labels to reduce a person to just one characteristic, act, or a piece of slander. Such a use of labels is designed to get people to automatically or reflexively accept or reject what is said by a given source. Laudatory labels are used to persuade people to assume that what a given source says is correct while the pejorative use of labels are used to persuade people to assume that what a given source says is false. Notice the black/white thinking involved here.

As for authoritarian followers, they are looking for nanny thinkers. They are looking for leaders with whom they can automatically agree. Therefore, authoritarian followers are much more concerned with who made a claim rather than why the claim was made. If we want to escape from being an authoritarian follower, then we will invest more time into examining why a claim is being made than who made the claim. The approach taken by authoritarian followers can be best expressed by making a slight alteration to a bumper sticker about the Bible which I used to see:

'God said it. I believe it. That settles it'

Now if we insert a fill-in-the-blank for the word 'God,' then we get a picture of the sentiments of the authoritarian follower:

_________ said it. I believe it. That settles it.

For religiously conservative Christians, names that authoritarian followers might insert could include Calvin, Arminius, Luther, Jonathan Edwards, J. Gresham Machen, Tim Keller, Charles Stanley, Charlie Kirk, Rush Limbaugh (for yous psuedo old-timers), Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, John Hagee, Dr. David Jeremiah, and Robert Jeffress. Skipping over the Liberals here, leftist leaders drawing authoritarian followers include Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Chris Hedges, Bernie Sanders, Martin Luther King Jr., Mao, and Karl Marx. We should note here that not all of the people just mentioned act as authoritarian leaders. Just because a leader has authoritarian followers does not imply that that leader is an authoritarian leader.

We should note another reason why my fellow religiously conservative Christians have a penchant for authoritarianism. That reason can be observed by looking at the quoted bumper sticker. We sometimes project the same characteristics that we attribute to God or God's Word to our pet leaders and/or ideologies. For example, some believe that their favorite form of Capitalism works in all times and situations. For others, it is there favorite form of Marxism. Note that neither Captialism nor Marxism are monolithic. In addition, we prefer to become authoritarian followers because it makes life more simple and safe. We don't have to critically examine what our adopted leaders have to say, all we have to do is to trust and obey them. And as with authoritarian followers of different religious or ideological stripes, becoming such a follower of someone who is famous or seems to be an impressive leader can give us a sense of significance and even belonging.

I believe that it is the penchant for authoritarianism that us religiously conservative Christians have which has provided a significant driving force to the recent emergence of today's Christian hubris. We believe that our leaders know what's best and because we have been trained to look for authority figures to follow, and, again, misery loves company, we not only fall in line, we expect, or demand, that everyone else in society do the same

Now we can examine what the New Testament says about how we are to live with unbelievers in society. Note that this discussion will be incomplete in the Scriptures that will be mentioned. But that does not imply that nothing of value will be said. Our first stop is John 3:1-8 (click here for the source).

'Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews; 2 this man came to Jesus at night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus responded and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless someone is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

4 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a person be born when he is old? He cannot enter his mother’s womb a second time and be born, can he?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which has been born of the flesh is flesh, and that which has been born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it is coming from and where it is going; so is everyone who has been born of the Spirit.”'

Why is the above passage important? It is because one of the justifications why some are promoting Christian Nationalism is that Jesus charges us to make disciples of every nation--a.k.a, the Great Commission. Despite the fact that the declension of the word for nation used in the Great Commission (click here for the source of the passage) most often refers to ousiders in the New Testament, one cannot be a disciple without faith. And note, in the passage quoted above, what determines when faith comes. Though we Christians are charged with evangelizing, we can't control the results. We can't control whether faith comes to a person. And so how can any set of laws or leaders make anyone into a disciple of Christ as defined by the New Testament? And yet that is what Christian hubris, especially Christian Nationalism, tries to do.

Or let's look at other New Testament Scriptures. For example, in Matthew 10:12-14 (click here for the source), Jesus told his disciples that if people do not listen to what they say, then leave and walk away.

In addition, both Jesus and Peter instruct us not to dominate others (click here and there for those sources). And though those instructions were about how Christian leaders were to treat believers under their care, why does that not have at least some application to how believers should treat unbelievers.

We could also look at I Corinthians 5:9-11 (click here for the source). There, Paul tells fellow Christians to not associate with church members who are immoral. But note that he does not say that we shouldn't associate with immoral unbelievers. What those with Christian hubris want to do, to varying degrees, is to use their laws to remove unbelievers who are immoral as described in the I Corinthians passage from the presence of God's people in society. That would have the same effect as what Paul said should not be done: to remove Christians from the world.

Another passage that is quoted to justify Christian hubris in society is a passage like Romans 13 and in I Peter 2 (click here and there for the sources). In those passages, the government's purpose is to punish those who do evil and honor those who do good. And since all sins are evil, those with Christian hubris believe that we need laws that are only based on God's laws. There are two problems with such an approach. First, again, we are sharing society with unbelievers and so we, in many instances, would have to require an obedience that can only come with and after faith and we can't manufacture faith in people. In addition, such an approach causes governments to only represent believers and to be apathetic or hostile to unbelievers. Such an approach would allow believers to use the government as a proxy to dominate unbelievers. We should also note that the evil mentioned in those two passages was not defined but assumed to be understood by that audience.

Another justification for Christian hubris in society which I have seen consists of a logic that says because we, unlike those in New Testament times, have an opportunity to make society a Christian one, we should do so. And so the examples and the teachings of the Apostles become irrelevant. But such opportunism ignores the New Testament and forgets the dynamics involved when people come to faith and start to become obedient to Christ.

The New Testament tells us that God is patient and wants all to come to repentance and believe. And the question becomes whether Christian hubris practices that patience. Yes, we need certain laws from the Scriptures to protect a nation's citizens from each other and others. But most, if not all of those laws, have been repeated by other sources and provide no privilege to Christianity in society. Those laws that would privilege Christianity above the beliefs of others and would put us religiously conservative Christians into positions of treating unbelievers as subordinates and thus in ways that are not supported by the New Testament. Tim Alberta emphasizes this point when he talks about Peter. For example, when Jesus was being arrested, Peter responded with the sword and Jesus rebuked him. But in I Peter 2, when Christians are being persecuted by unbelievers, Peter tells us to imitate Christ when He was put on trial and was crucified. Christ didn't trade insult for insult. Instead, he suffered quietly so that He could be take our place by being crucified. Peter goes on to say that how Christ responded set an example for us to follow (click here to see that portion of I Peter 2).

The final argument for Christian Nationalism rests on the claim that God made a covenant with America and so, to keep that covenant, America must follow God. Such a view, however, ignores how covenants were made in the Bible. It was always God who initiated and defined a covenant, not the people. And those covenants are recorded in the Scriptures. In addition, the fulfillment of every covenant was seen in Christ and in Him only. Claiming that God made Americans his covenant people removes Christ from the center of the revelation about the covenant and the covenant itself. Instead, we need to ask whether proclaiming that Americans are God's covenant people is more a result of corporate self-promotion rather than preaching Christ.

And so, just perhaps, we should examine whether democracy with equality puts us religiously conservative Christians in the most optimal situation for how we should share society with unbelievers. That we should look at ourselves as peers with unbelievers in sin because we are. We should look at unbelievers as peers in society, because they are Thus, we can work side-by-side with unbelievers in shaping society knowing that not only do we need to give them, what is for us, an uncomfortabe amount of leeway, we also have much to learn from them. In addition we have Christ's first coming as our example, not His sescond coming. And at that point, we should focus on bearing the fruit of the Spirit in their presence, as Kristin Kobes Du Mez constantly tries to remind us (click here for the list of the fruit of the Spirit). We really need to get how we share society with unbelievers right because the reputation of the Gospel is, in large part, riding on it. Here, we should note that when Christians dominated many nations during Christendom, all sorts of injustices were practiced then and thus became associated with the Gospel.

Views From The Outside For August 4, 2026

2026-08-04T00:01:00.000-04:00

Views From The Outside

So far, news sources include:

International

Médecins Sans Frontieres

UN News

From Canada

Le Devoir

Le Journal de Montréal

Toronto Star

CBC

From England

BBC

Reuters

From France

France24

Les Echos

Le Monde

From Germany

DER SPIEGEL

From Russian Source

Novaya Gazeta Europe

From Spain

El Mundo

El País

From Switzerland

Neue Zürcher Zeitung

From Ukraine

UATV English

<< Previous Views Next Views >>

What's It Like To Live With A Perfect Person

2026-07-31T00:01:00.000-04:00

I am occasionally in the position to give dating advice. I don't know why that is because, at my age, the only dating I do is decrepidating. And I do that quite well. But one piece of advice I always give is that when choosing to date a particular person, if that person does not freely admit to having faults and sins, then don't date them. Why? It is because once you are in a committed relationship, that person's failure to admit to having faults and sins will morph into making you one of their scapegoats. The person who refuses to admit to fauls and sins has proclaimed themselves to be perfect.

I grew up in a home where one of the family members was perfect because that person was too insecure to admit to having faults and sins. And therefore, some of the other members of my family served as scapegoats for that perfect person. Though I was not a recipient of those attacks, those attacks did have a significantly negative effect on myself.

And so perhaps, just perhaps, we should apply that same rule to the people we elect. Why? It is for the same reason. When things go wrong, some of our politicians will always find whipping boys to blame instead of admitting to being wrong. We have to live with scapegoating others, or even perhaps ourselves, for at least their first term. And since most incumbants are continually reelected, we usually have to live with that abuse much longer than a person's single term.

The reluctance of family member to admit faults and sins was only part of what made my home life back then dysfunctional. But we should note, that trait alone can easily make any home dysfunctional. And so now let's return to the criteria we using in voting for candidates.

Currently, we have a President who is too insecure to admit to doing something wrong or even making mistakes. And many of us have moments or situations in which we also feel insecure. So we should empathize with the President regarding that without condoning how he behaves. Because the President is scapegoating particular people and groups and even nations with his criticisms and worse, our nation has either become dysfunctional or is getting more dysfunctional. Here I am not saying that our democracy has become dysfunctional, the whole nation is.

That doesn't mean that the President is always wrong when he criticizes others, but it does mean that he is not always right as well. And getting some of his most ardent followers to admit that he can be wrong is harder than for the Conclave to elect a conservative Protestant to be Pope.

At this point, we can now talk about how the whole nation has become dysfunctional. For the President is now reflecting what has become of America. In a past article, I talked about those who arrogantly believe that they have everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them. What I am talking about now is the flip side of that coin. When we always blame others for the failures that our side has caused, we are proclaiming that our side is never wrong. We are proclaiming that our side is perfect. And we see that kind of approach being taken by some MAGA followers, some progressives, religiously consesrvative Christians with hubris, the oligarchy, to name a few. And so when one's side is wrong, one abuses everyone by either gaslighting or scapegoating others. And just as it is dysfunctional when a family member portrays themselves as perfect, it is even worse when a whole nation is divided by such behavior.

While the President likes to brag about how "hot" our nation has become under his leadership, the world looks at us in the same way that other members of a family look at the member who always blames others for their mistakes. Of course our nation isn't the only nation that practices such scapegoating. But there might be an interesting correlation here. The nations whose leaders scapegoat the most are the nations that are currently practicing the most physical violence against others. And whether one is exhibiting external or internal violence, with the latter being expressed by words, the resulting violence, along with the gaslighting, is abusive to all victims as well as all who have to see or listen.

Certainly perfect people, regardless of the location or context, can be angering. But if we are going to reach them, it is counterproductive to respond to them with anger because that will all too easily trigger their insecurities and make them defensive. We need to find ways to peacefully challenging their denial of faults and sins. I know that some will read those words and claim that I am singing, To Dream The Imp-ossible Dream. And that might be the case. But is it better to only let perfect people own their insecurities and abusive defensiveness, or is it better to act like perfect people ourselves when challenging them? Who wins if we choose the latter?

Views From The Outside For July 28, 2026

2026-07-28T00:01:00.000-04:00

Views From The Outside

So far, news sources include:

International

Médecins Sans Frontieres

UN News

From Canada

Le Devoir

Le Journal de Montréal

Toronto Star

CBC

From England

BBC

Reuters

From France

France24

Les Echos

Le Monde

From Germany

DER SPIEGEL

From Russian Source

Novaya Gazeta Europe

From Spain

El Mundo

El País

From Switzerland

Neue Zürcher Zeitung

From Ukraine

UATV English

<< Previous Views Next Views >>

What Kind Of Wall Should Separate Church And State?

2026-07-24T00:01:00.000-04:00

In examining the role of religion in politics, we need to acknowledge not just the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, we should also look at conversation between the Danbury Church and Thomas Jefferson, The Constitution, and a line from Jefferson's 1801 inaugural speech. We will look at the conversation first. In 2nd paragraph of its letter to Thomas Jefferson after he became President, the letter from the Danbury Church said the following (click here for the source):

'Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter, together with the laws made coincident therewith, were adapted as the basis of our government at the time of our revolution. And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, [so] that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore, if those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow men, [or] should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.'

The 2nd paragraph of Jefferson's response is most pertinent here (the link to the this source is the same as the above link):

'Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.'

The Establishment clause from the 1st Amendment is displayed below (click here to see the source)

'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'

Before discussing the issue, we should note that the very end of the Danbury letter seems to be at least a little prophetic to what has been happening in America today.

We should note that the Danbury letter expressed a concern that the then current legislation seemed, to them, that one's ability to practice a religion was relegated to be a 'favor' rather than an 'inalienable right.' This provides the context for Jefferson's response.

Similar to what was expressed in the letter, Jefferson acknowledged that the government can only target 'actions' and not 'opinions.' So we see that with both the Danbury letter and Jefferson's response government could address actions. But the question becomes what, or perhaps whose, criteria is the government using to determine when to intervene in human affairs. That is the question on which our government's past response to slavery and Jim Crow laws and practices was responding to. It is also the question on which government's duty to respond to abortion revolves around. And what or whose criteria is the question that the debate over Christian Nationalism is concerned with.

At this point, enter the work of Martin Luther King Jr. and his SCLC. in the 1950s and 1960s. They spoke of and worked for equality for all people. And they did so from their religious beliefs. But it wasn't just political equality that they promoted; it was an equality in outcomes. That latter point was made by King in his 1967 interview with Xander Vanocur (click here to see that interview).

Now when we look back at those days, how many people complained about the Church influencing the government? The answer to that question is complicated because the American Church has always been divided about racial equality and was on both sides of the racial divide. But we should note that because King and the SCLC spoke and worked for equality rather than a privileged place for themselves and their religion, their work was not seen as a violation of the separation between Chuch and State

We should note that the mission of King and the SCLC is supported by Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. Thus, equality, that is 'equal protection of the laws,' became the measuring stick that the government could use to intervene or be prevented from acting was equality. So we should not just note, but emphasize too, that King and the SCLC were working for the welfare themselves and some other marginalized groups.

That brings us to today and the desire of many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians to be the sole provider of rules that determine when the government can either intervene or be prevented from doing so. Many of those Christians are called Christian Nationalists. But there are also some Christians who are not Christian Nationalists who, to a lesser degree, want to provide rules to determine government intervention.

Christian Nationalists tend to argue that because they hold to the same faith that many of the founders had of America, they deserve a greater voice in determining what laws the government should pass. They also say that America was founded to be a Christian nation. And so, again, they should have a greater, or perhaps the only, voice in determining the laws of the nation. And that brings up the question of whom the government should be representing. Should the government represent only Christians or Christians more than unbelievers or should the government represent all of its citizens?

The problem with the Christian Nationalist views is that citizenship in America is not defined by one's beliefs but by federal laws and The Constitution. Citizenship is determined by the location of one's birth, the citizenship of one's parents, or meeting requirements for becoming citizens. The Constitution gives no leeway for ranking American citizens except that only those born in the U.S. can become President.

Yes, Christians influenced the culture of America greatly during its early days. And many states, as stipulated in their state constitutions, favored Christian leadership over their states. But The Constitution did not do so. In fact, as can be ascertained from the Constitutional debates, religion played little to no role in the Constitutional definition of America. In fact, a deliberate distancing of the Federal government from religion was a feature both in The Constitution and in the debates that helped determine its contents.

But something else should be noted about America's early days that was heavily influenced by Christianity. That influence was determined by demographics. Because Christendom existed throughout America's early until around half of the 20th century, many people who saw themselves as being Christians though lifestyles or beliefs may not have confirmed that conviction. And so the biggest factor that determined America's past direction was demographics. Thus we have to ask why should Christians have the dominant voice over our government today when the demographics have changed. Should past demographics mean that those who meet the legal definition of citizenship are not real citizens because they hold to different values and beliefs than our founders had?

Those who hold to Christian Nationalism would answer that last question with a firm 'yes.' And that is because, with their definition of what it means to be an American, the definition of America is fixed throughout time regardless of any changes in the values and beliefs of the people. And so those who do not hold to what Americans from the past hold to are not American enough to matter in terms of influencing the government.

What we have with the Christian Nationalist viewpoint is the tyranny of past demographics. According to them, it isn't what our founding documents said that defines us and determines our path, it is compliance with dominant religious views from the past.

We also need to pay attention to those non Christian Nationalists who use terms like 'moral law' or 'natural law' to obligate those in government to pass laws that are based on a unique Christian view. In particular, laws that would marginalize those from the LGBT community should be based on the moral and natural laws. We should note here is that there are multiple versions of natural law. And so, to a lesser degree, we see the Church having undue influence on government's making of laws. And their justification for pursuing this undue influence is the view of the role of government officials that was held to in the past during Christendom.

And so we've seen two kinds of Christian influences on our government. One kind saw a Christian influence that advocated for the marginalized, others, as well as themselves. It attempted to lift up themselves and others to an equal place in society. The other kind of sees a Christian influence that is self-promoting while arguing for hierarchy. They want to lift themselves up above all others in society. And that brings us to our final quote. In his 1801 Inaugural Address, Thomas Jefferson said the following (click here for the source):

'All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression'

And so the one kind of Christian influence, which consists of Martin Luther King Jr. and the SCLC, was working for justice and the other kind while the current kind, of Christian influence, which consists of Christian Nationalists and some other authoritarian Christisns, is working for Jefferson's view of oppression. This latter influence is telling us that the State cannot properly function unless it is in control. Is it any wonder then that, today, many are arguing for a separation of Church and State in response to the latter kind's influence?

Views From The Outside For July 21, 2026

2026-07-21T00:01:00.000-04:00

Views From The Outside

So far, news sources include:

International

Médecins Sans Frontieres

UN News

From Canada

Le Devoir

Le Journal de Montréal

Toronto Star

CBC

From England

BBC

Reuters

From France

France24

Les Echos

Le Monde

From Germany

DER SPIEGEL

From Russian Source

Novaya Gazeta Europe

From Spain

El Mundo

El País

From Switzerland

Neue Zürcher Zeitung

From Ukraine

UATV English

<< Previous Views Next Views >>

The Dilemma That Today's Christian Fundamentalism Has Caused For Some Of Us Believers

2026-07-17T00:01:00.000-04:00

A long time ago, in a decade that seems far, far away, I wrote an article on why Christians should support same-sex marriage in society but not in the Church (click here for the article). In that article, I claimed that the insistence by some fellow believers on banning same-sex marriage in society will cause many believers to either accept homosexuality as a Biblically accepted lifestyle or to leave the faith all in order to rightly avoid marinalizing homosexuals. The kind rejection of the modern concepts of social injustice, CRT, and wokeness, all of which are synonyms for 'Communism' according to Trump, by many fellow Christian Fundamentalists has been producing a similar results. Religiously conservative Christians are being tempted to follow religiously liberal Christianity, which is not Christianity, in order to follow their social justice convictions. And that is especially true in today's political environment where religiously conservative American Christians are still strong supporters of Trump.

First, we should define the kind rejection of more modern criticisms of the West of which I am talking about. In 1967, when speaking against the Vietnam War, Martin Luther King Jr. said the following (click here for the source):

'The Western Arrogance Of Feeling That It Has Everything To Teach Others And Nothing To Learn From Them Is Not Just'

I have mentioned this quote before. In particular, I suggested that we replace the word 'Western' with a fill-in-the-blank to see how this quote can apply to more than the West during the Vietnam War and at other times. It can be used to help provide a check on any of the groups we belong to as well as ourselves as individuals. And it can be used as a litmus test on those individual groups we are listening to.

And so perhaps it is time to apply that quote to American religiously conservatives who are overly critical of progressive or leftist ideas such as Marxism, Critical Theory, Post Modernism, CRT, wokeness, DEI, and alike. By being overly critical, I am referring to applying the quote to the situation where many religiously conservative Christians believe that there is nothing to be gained by listening to progressive and leftist ideas. We need to ask if these American religiously conservatives have succumbed to that arrogance of feeling by believing that they have nothing to learn from Marx and his modern derivatives. I am not saying that American religiously conservatives should never criticize those people and ideas just mentioned, what is being challenged is how far are they going in questioning others.

Personally, I find it very troubling when I hardly find any fellow believers who share my agreements with Marx, Critical Theory, Post Modernism, CRT, wokeness, DEI and alike. I find it very difficult when so few of my fellow believers in Christ are either silent or supportive of how the Israeli government is treating the Palestinians and its neighbors. It is also distressing when they do the same with Trump's authoritarianism and his cutting of aid to programs that provide humanitarian help to the less fortunate while he is more than eager to send in the military where they do not need to go. They also do the same with Trump's opposition to DEI and equality for the LGBT community. For those actions and decisions involve moral issues. And then when those who are theologically liberal, who are in essence without the Gospel, are pursuing and promoting justice and peace that we Christians should be supporting and practicing, I find it more distressing. It is distressing not just because I feel almost alone in supporting politically progressive ideas and causes; it is tragic because of the harm done to the reputation of the Gospel our silence.

Sign made by Protest Barb

To those who are offended by my statement saying that those who are theologically liberal are without the Gospel, we need to note what their beliefs are in comparison with the Gospel. Liberal theology can be divided into two branches: the reduction of all reality into the physical realm and the belief in universal salvation. And to be even more specific, many of today's liberal theologians are selectively citing the Gospels to bolster their claims about Jesus and thus they are challenging the rest of the Gospels as to all that Jesus said and did. In addition, they also ignore its other parts of the New Testament such as the book of Acts, the Epistles, and Revelation.

Many of today's liberal theologians look for those parts of the Gospels which seem to support the kind of inclusiveness that they want to see in the Church. They want to see that inclusiveness in the Church because of how the Church can influence society. In other words, they teach the Gospels in a way that instructs the Church how to be what they want society to be. And though we should want inclusiveness that they want in society, the Church is a different story because the Church is exclusively about believers in Christ.

And so liberal theologians teach only parts of the Gospels. For example, when talking about homosexuality, they mention that Jesus never talked about homosexuality. And that is true. But what they leave out is when Jesus said the following (click here to see the source):

18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter shall pass from the Law, until all is accomplished!

And what we should note is that the Law, of which Jesus spoke, condemns homosexuality. Should liberal theologians mention the Old Testament dietary restrictions, they forget Peter's dream, recorded in Acts 10, about how all food has now become clean.

So a major problem with these theologians is that they leave out the rest of the New Testament. And so what they ignore is what Jesus instructed the Apostles to do as recorded in the Gospels and the book of Acts. They also ignore the fact that Jesus sent out Apostles to authoritatively represent Him. And so the book of the book of Acts, the Epistles and Revelation are vitally important.

To their credit, many who hold to liberal theology put us religiously conservative American Christians to shame with their warmth, love, wanting inclusiveness in society, and moral concerns about social justice. They also put us to shame with their opposition to Trump's authoritarianism. We religiously conservative American Christians have a lot to learn from them with regard to their characteristics and views.

But as valuable as personal characteristics and their social justice views are, their attributes and views do not present the Gospel and thus do not save us in either the present or future senses. That is because of God's demand for holiness far exceeds any goodness that we can practice. We do need a savior who takes the punishment for our sins as well as calls us to live a life of repentance because, even after believing, we fight win some/lose some battles against sin. To reduce the Christian life to just having superior moral views on social justice and good characteristics ignores how sinful each of us is and how much we need a savior and not just a teacher or role model. And to think that all will be saved ignores our need to believe in the savior.

And so here is the dilemma that many of my fine, fellow Christian Fundamentalists present. We fall short in the personal characteristics that we should excell in while representing Christ. The same goes for many of our social justice views. For many of us, that might be because our social justice views have been compromised by our political and ideological loyalties. And so in falling short in these matters, we hurt the reputation of the Gospel and have caused some to be tempted to switch to a false gospel because of how many liberal theologians are superior to us in displaying those personal characteristics and their social justice views. For they reason how can the true Gospel produce such poor results. I know that some of my behaviors and words have hurt the reputation of the Gospel.

I should add that the above is not the only dilemma. What I find personally upsetting is that I can't have political fellowship with many of my fellow believers in Christ because of the disparity in social justice morals caused by the differences in our social justice and political views. On the other hand, I can't have religious/spiritual fellowship with theological liberals who share my political and social justice concerns because they have either latched on to another gospel or simply believe in no Gospel and thus do not recognize the true Gospel.

I should add here that the above dilemma is an American phenomenon from what I have learned from Christians in other countries. I've been told that Christian Fundamentalists from the U.K., for example, hold to neither American conservative political views nor lack adequate social justice views.

Right now, many religiously conservative Christian churches are working hard to maintain the above status quo by either being silent on social justice issues and views or by espousing views that support or promote social injustices. And that fits them fine because then they can maintain more homogenity in their congregations. The result of such an approach is either a muted call to repent and believe to non political conservatives or an implied demand that non political conservatives must become political conservatives in order to believe in Christ. And that makes the religiously conservative American churches complicite in the sins of social injustices practiced by our government.

But perhaps there is a silver lining or two around our current dark cloud that seems to engulf us. That is that if we define Christian Fundamentalists solely by beliefs in the fundamentals of the faith, we find that such fundamentalists are a diverse lot. We are not a monolithic group. And because of that, there could very well be Christian Fundamentalists who are politically liberal or even leftist. In addition, perhaps we can find that Christian Fundamentalists and nonpolitical conservatives can learn from each other in terms of how to live together on this planet. That is a lesson I've begun to learn thanks to some of my unbelieving friends who have taught me things I would have not learned elsewhere.

Views From The Outside For July 14, 2026

2026-07-14T00:01:00.000-04:00

Views From The Outside

So far, news sources include:

International

Médecins Sans Frontieres

UN News

From Canada

Le Devoir

Le Journal de Montréal

Toronto Star

CBC

From England

BBC

Reuters

From France

France24

Les Echos

Le Monde

From Germany

DER SPIEGEL

From Russian Source

Novaya Gazeta Europe

From Spain

El Mundo

El País

From Switzerland

Neue Zürcher Zeitung

From Ukraine

UATV English

<< Previous Views Next Views >>

Is All Fundamentalism Bad?

2026-07-10T00:01:00.000-04:00

Christian Fundamentalism has been taking a lot of public criticism. In fact, fundamentalism of many, if not all, stripes is being looked down on for a inflexibility that has been causing much personal harm and injustice. And so fundamentalism is seen as a negative trait.

There is much anecdotal evidence that supports the negative reaction that fundamentalism receives. And so the label itself allows people to automatically dismiss or reject what a person or group might say if they are called fundamentalists. That automatic dismissal means that the actual fundamentals that a group adheres to are automatically ignored because of the label.

But instead of reflexively rejecting what a person or group is saying because they are fundamentalists, shouldn't fairness and intellectual integrity cause us to ask any fundamentalist what are the specific fundamentals they believe in before disagreeing with them? One would think so. For example, take the 3 core tenets of the French Revolution. They are liberty, equality, and fraternity. Nevermind the inconsistent employment of those tenets by those leading that revolution, if those tenets are one's fundamentals, then should one be looked down on for being a fundamentalist?

And so let's look at the fundamentalism I follow: Christian Fundamentalism. We should immediately note here that Christian Fundamentalists are not, as might be expected, a monolithic group. Way back in 2005, ZNet, the name of the site has been slightly modified since then, posted a letter of mine defending Christian Fundamentalism as an article (click here for the article). It is the only article of mine that they posted. I made the case that the fundamentals of the Christian faith do not imply support for any social injustice. Those fundamentals include what is involved in the recognition of Jesus Christ as being fully God and fully man, His mission on earth, His return, and the errancy of the original autographs of the Scriptures. The latter referring to the original documents containing the Gospels, the Acts, the Epistles, and the book of Revelation along with the books of the Old Testament. That that inerrancy included neither copies of manuscripts nor translations of any of the manuscripts into other languages. The logic supported this belief in inerrancy is to teach that what we can know about God's redemptive revelation about Himself must be revealed by God alone rather than discovered by man. It should be noted that these tenets form the original definition of Christian Fundamentalism and were used, and still work, to distinguish Christian Fundamentalism from Liberal Theology.

However, despite the fact that this fundamental tenet on inerrancy does not imply support for any social injustice, the belief in inerrancy seems to have caused support for practicing some social injustices such as those supported by Christian Zionism. And so injustices have been performed because of the belief in the inerrancy of the original autographs of the Scriptures. And so, what gives? Why the disparity between the claim that the fundamental tenet on inerrancy does not imply support for social injustices and what we see in the world around us?

What gives is how the belief in the inerrancy of the original transcripts is applied by many of my fellow believers in Christ. To many of my fellow believers, to accept this tenet means that we must literally interpret the Scriptures as often as possible. In essence, this is an all-or-nothing approach to interpreting the belief in the errancy of the original manuscripts. The good news here is that that approach has little, if any, support in Church history. The bad news is that many literal interpretations are valid. So how do we tell the difference when to accept a part of the Bible as being literally true and when to apply a more allegorical interpretation.

To illustrate one approach that helps us to tell the difference, I will refer to my current state of health, I am old. And I do not consider my olden years to be my golden years. Because of a conglomeration of events, I now need a cane to walk. I am hoping to see the day when I can, but not necessarily will, throw away the cane. I refer to that future day as: The Cane Mutiny. Anyway, the question becomes is whether or not my cane is a crutch. The literalist will always answer that it can never be a crutch because it is a cane. But those who would first consider the context of my health at the time will say 'yes' if I am using it when I no longer need to.

And so it is with certain parts of the Scriptures. Context can determine whether we should take a scripture passage literally. Take Genesis 17:9-13 which includes part of the covenant that God made with Abraham for example. That passage says (click here for the source):

9 God said further to Abraham, “Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 10 This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12 And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, including a slave who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants. 13 A slave who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall certainly be circumcised; so My covenant shall be in your flesh as an everlasting covenant. 14 But as for an uncircumcised male, one who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”

Now compare verses 10-13 with what Paul says in Galatians regarding who is a descendant of Abraham according to this covenant:

Galations 3:6-9 (click here for the source)

6 Just as Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. 7 Therefore, recognize that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. 8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations will be blessed in you.” 9 So then, those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer

And Galatians 5:1-6 (click here for the source)

1 It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.
2 Look! I, Paul, tell you that if you have yourselves circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 And I testify again to every man who has himself circumcised, that he is obligated to keep the whole Law. 4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by the Law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For we, through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.

When Paul wrote to the church at Galatia, he was addressing a problem caused by some Jewish Christians who were in what was called the Circumcision Party. Because of what was written in Genesis 17:10-13, those in the Circumcision Party claimed if Christian believers were going to be counted as the descendants of Abraham, then Christians had to be circumcised according to the Abrahamic Covenant. In other words, these Jews were the literalists of their day when it came to interpreting the Abrahamic Covenant. So why wasn't Paul being a literalist? It was because the context had drastically changed from when the Abrahamic Covenant was made to the time after which Jesus was crucified, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven. And because the context had changed, the meaning of the Abrahamic Covenant was applied differently and its true intent revealed. For the Abrahamic Covenant wasn't about the physical descendants of Abraham, it was about the children of the promise vs those of the flesh. In Romans 9:6-8, Paul also talks about these two sets of children. That convenant was about Christ and what made us become the children of the promise, the descendants of Abraham, rather than the children of the flesh.

Now there are some fellow believers who, because of their insistence on literally interpreting the above part of Genesis say that there are now two groups of people who are people of God. But what Peter wrote in his 1st letter contradicts that claim. Peter wrote in I Peter 2:4-11 (click here for the source):

4 And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by people, but is choice and precious in the sight of God, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices that are acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For this is contained in Scripture:

“Behold, I am laying in Zion a choice stone, a precious cornerstone,
And the one who believes in Him will not be put to shame.”
7 This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for unbelievers,
“A stone which the builders rejected,
This became the chief cornerstone,”
8 and,
“A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense”;
for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this they were also appointed.
9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy

Note how, according to Peter, it those who believe in Christ who are counted as a 'holy nation' and a 'royal priesthood.' Those were descriptions God gave to Israel in Exodus 19. Then consider how Peter calls fellow believers 'the people of God.' Note that those who don't believe are not those things regardless of their ethnicity. And so here, 2 points should be made. First, we see a mix in the above passages of parts that are meant too be literally interpreted for today and those that are not. And second, though some might be offended by the exclusiveness of who is considered to be the people of God, it does not imply any support for practicing social injustices. That is because later on in the same chapter of I Peter, Peter instructs Christians to suffer persecution silently in the same way Christ endured his trial and crucifixion. And in another part of the letter he tells Christians not to dominate others. And so whether what is written above about taking Genesis 17 literally in New Testament times, which helps debunk Christian Zionism, or the call to suffer persecution as Christ did, which helps debunk Christians ruling over society, we see that the belief in the inerrancy of the original autographs of the Scriptures does not imply support for or the practice of social injustices such as what we see in Christian Zionism or what we might see in a Christian ethnocracy such as Christian Nationalism.

Those fellow believers who, IMO, literally interpret the Scriptures when they shouldn't are often driven to do so by either their eschatology (study of the end times), their inability to fully see the correct relationship between the Old and New Testaments, or by a need to compensate for how liberal theologians interpreted most of the Scriptures allegorically or morally because those theologians did not believe in the diety of Christ and the supernatural realm described in the Bible. In terms of what is the correct relationship between the Old and New Testaments, the Old Testament was primarily about a veiled foretelling of Jesus Christ and his coming into the world while the New Testament tells us the story of Jesus Christ in the Gospels, a partial story of the Apostles, how to interpret His life, death, and resurrection in the Epistles, and an overall picture of the last days in Revelation.

We also find that there are a variety of writing styles used in both Testaments. Those styles of writing can also indicate to us what parts of the Bible are to be interpreted literally and what parts are not. But it is the inability to distinguish when to interpret the Scriptures literally from when not to that has, for the most part, made the label 'Christian Fundamentalism' a bad name because of how it has been used by some to support Christian Zionism or a Christian ethnocracy such as Christian Nationalism. What the New Testament instead calls us to is the reliance on both serving others and evangelism evangelism to spread the Gospel.

And so, again, as mentioned in the article cited above. there is nothing in the original definition of Christian Fundamentalism that supports or promotes practicing social injustices. I say that though appearances can be quite deceiving considering how many of us Christian Fundamentalists have often concluded that it is our duty to do otherwise.

Views From The Outside For July 7, 2026

2026-07-07T00:01:00.000-04:00

Views From The Outside

So far, news sources include:

International

Médecins Sans Frontieres

UN News

From Canada

Le Devoir

Le Journal de Montréal

Toronto Star

CBC

From England

BBC

Reuters

From France

France24

Les Echos

Le Monde

From Germany

DER SPIEGEL

From Russian Source

Novaya Gazeta Europe

From Spain

El Mundo

El País

From Switzerland

Neue Zürcher Zeitung

From Ukraine

UATV English

<< Previous Views Next Views >>

America At 250

2026-07-03T00:01:00.000-04:00

Benjamin Franklin said that our nation is 'a republic if you can keep it.' Historian Chalmers Johnson said that a nation cannot continue to be both a republic and an empire. In saying that, he was focussing on the Roman Empire, Great Britain, and the United States. According to Johnson, Rome chose empire while Great Britain chose a republic when the choices had to be made. Johnson said what he said because the demands of each form sabotages the other. And finally we have President Trump. Trump called U.S. policy toward the rest of the nations in the Western Hemisphere the 'Donroe Doctrine,' which seems to be a more intense form of the Monroe Doctrine. For America's 250th birthday, does the Donroe Doctrine tell us which path America has chosen between empire and republic?

To answer that question, one could consider Trump's request for a $600 billion increase in defense spending. This is despite the fact that the U.S. spent more on defense in 2025 than the combined spending of the next 6 nations. Also consider that with the war possibilities that Trump anticipates, Trump claimed that the U.S. government cannot also support Medicare, Medicaid, and daycare programs while financially supporting the military.

How does Trump justify his Donroe Doctrine? For one thing he claims that the U.S. has a right to clean up its own backyard, with its backyard referring to the rest of the nations in the Western Hemisphere. The problem with the comparison is apparent to anyone who has owned a house. One's backyard is a part of one's own property, not someone else's. And so when Trump refers to the rest of the Western Hemisphere as America's backyard, he is implying U.S. ownership over that land.

And so the demands of the Donroe Doctrine as well as Trump's other foreign interests require reducing our government's responsibilities to that of financing its military. But are the President's priorities here the same as the majority of Americans?

Why the big increase in defense spending? Did not Trump say that it was in anticipation for fighting new wars? What new wars is Trump talking about? Is Trump speculating what it might take to get some of the nations in the Western Hemisphere in line with his agenda? Here, Trump has had success in influencing some elections in some Western Hemisphere nations. But what will he do to those nations that are not so influenced? Also, is Trump anticipating more Middle East entanglements? And is Trump planning to eventually have a war with China? Are Americans willing to sacrifice their republic to satisfy Trump's appetite for domination and/or acquisition?

And speaking of imperialism, didn't Trump express imperial intentions when he talked about annexing Canada or threatening to use force to do the same to Greenland? Didn't Trump say that he could do anything he wanted to do with Cuba?

And so it seems that Trump is seeking a position of an emperor and/or hegemon. Does the cost of that combination require such executive control of the budget and other facets of government, that allows the President to curtail or eliminate certain rights and benefits? Are there other reasons why Trump wants to remove the Federal Government's support for our current social safety net programs?

And what about the American people. I don't know what the polls say but my preliminary reading of the MAGA doctrine says that Trump's vision for the future includes some key elements which go against what MAGA devotees voted for. And, being that many of those MAGA followers are some of my fellow religiously conservative Christians, I can safely say that at least some of them are no longer keen on keeping the Republic. For some prefer a strongman leader because we religiously conservative Christians have a penchant for authoritarianism. For others, the emergence of the LGBT community from the margins of society have caused them to lose faith in our democracy. I have even heard some of them even say that they prefer a government led by Putin to supporting full equality for those in the LGBT community. And considering that Project 2025, which Trump seems to be following, is the work of organizations like the Heritage Foundation, conservative preference for a strongman leader as opposed to a republic is significant.

And finally, we need to look at who financially benefits from Trump's imperial and hegemonic dreams. Is it not the Military Industrial Complex including the executives, shareholders, and those employed by the companies in that complex? And there are others besides those in the Military Industrial Complex who also greatly benefit from Trump's imperial and hegemonic dreams. How many of them prefer personal financial gain to keeping our republic?

Because of Trump values-free agenda, he has majored in promoting a transactional agenda. That agenda measures the value of decisions by profit margins. And so all decisions are measured by the amount of profit that can be acrued by Trump and his major donors. The problem with a republic, when the republic takes the form of a representative democracy, is that its emphasis on principles of equality and the value of each individual person works against the governmental needs of supporting an empire. And the question for America is whether there are enough Americans, most of whom if not all, who have been raised in a consumer-oriented society, who are concerned enough with principles of equality and the value of each person to still prefer a republic.

What values and prinicples are needed to maintain a representative democratic republic? One value is treasuring the sanctity of human life. Besides the abortion issue, when a nation so values the human life of immigrants, especially those who are emigrating to escape poverty and/or violence, so that it freely takes in those who are emigrating to stay alive. Another way of valuing the sanctity of human life is to try to ensure that there are enough jobs with living wages, enough affordable access to food and healthcare, and the realistic chance of economic upward mobility for those in the lower economic classes.

Another essential value to our democratic republic is to protect the equal rights of all people within one's borders regardless of race, religion, national identity, language, sexual orientation, or gender identity. We should note that regardless of the democratic processes we employ, without equality we have no democracy. What we would have instead is some kind of ethnocracy or classocracy with the latter consisting of either oligarchy or plutocracy. And the best way of preserving equality is to work to ensure the equal rights of others.

There are other ways of preserving a democratic republic, especially in the area of voting rights. We need to realize that federal id cards for voting based on birth certificates usually makes it difficult for many in economic lower classes where birth records are more difficult to recover because of the recovery process or the lack of formal record keeping at the time of birth. Those who want federal id cards for voting are not concerned with the obstacles that many in the lower economic classes face in obtaining such id cards. Instead, they are more concerned with restricting voting to only certain American citizens.

The U.S.A. will soon be 250 years-old. It has a complicated history. While those obsessed with patriotism will, at best, acknowledge that America is not perfect; others will point out that perfection is not the issue, direction is. And up until Trump's Republican Party Revolution, we could see a very slow but positive social-justice direction of the nation just by looking at the number and identity of groups that were emerging from the margins of society. That direction was positive however slight and slow it was. That positive direction was due to prioritizing values over interests, principles over transactionalism when the they clashed.

Trump's Republican Party Revolution has changed the direction of the nation in several ways. Not only has the nation more strongly pursuing a transactional direction that prioritizes profit margins over people, it is becoming more authoritarian. And note the pairing here. When we are more concerned with principles of equality and the value of people, we tend to be more democratic in how we are governed. When we measure value by profit margins, we also place a higher value on domination, we look to authoritarianism. And that is not only true when we passively look on while oligarchy gains more influence on our government, it is also the case when we become more ethnocratic such as what exists in Christian Nationalism.

And so America at 250 faces a crossroads. Will it restore that slight but positive direction toward a more equal and just society and nation, or will Trump's Republican Revolution become more and more the status quo of our nation. Please note that all of the negative end results that Marx saw in Capitalism are incarnated in Trump. We cannot have both Trump's Republican Revolution providing the new status quo for our nation while maintaining a democracy with equality. The more we slide down Trump's rabbit hole, the more authoritarian, and thus darker, our status quo and thus our future becomes. And the defense against such a future is simple. We need to be vigilant in defending the equality of others in the nation. For in so doing, we prioritize principles of equality and the value of each person over profit margins when they clash.

Views From The Outside For June 30, 2026

2026-06-30T00:01:00.000-04:00

Views From The Outside

So far, news sources include:

International

Médecins Sans Frontieres

UN News

From Canada

Le Devoir

Le Journal de Montréal

Toronto Star

CBC

From England

BBC

Reuters

From France

France24

Les Echos

Le Monde

From Germany

DER SPIEGEL

From Russian Source

Novaya Gazeta Europe

From Spain

El Mundo

El País

From Switzerland

Neue Zürcher Zeitung

From Ukraine

UATV English

<< Previous Views Next Views >>

Is Christian Nationalism Just The Tip Of The Iceberg?

2026-06-26T00:01:00.000-04:00

As we all know, an iceberg is larger than what can be observed above the water. In fact, the part of the iceberg that we can see is the smaller, and least threatening, part of the iceberg. According to the AI used by Google, around 90% of an iceberg is submerged.

The above pertains to Christian Nationalism because of the growing authoritarian movement in the U.S. This authoritarianism has already captured the Presidency. And because of the influence that Christian Nationalism has had on some of Trump's key people and the public attention that it is receiving, the question being considered here is whether Christian Nationalism is just the tip of the threat being posed to America's democracy or is there is something more dangerous lurking below the surface.

Christian Nationalism not only threatens to replace our democratic processes for determining our representatives and how they make decisions; it opposes equality by granting religiously conservative Christianity a privileged place above all ethnic and ethnic-religious groups in determining who will be governing our society. We should note what has been previously claimed in this blog. That what we are seeing in Europe and North America is a battle between Democracy with equality vs Authoritarianism with hierarchy. And the first sign of the latter is when an individual/group/ideology attacks equality for others. For without equality, we have no democracy, which, in contrast to authoritarianism with hierarchy, would be the rule of the people--the 'demos' means people. With the onset of Christian Nationalism here, what we seem to have, as Jeff Halper pointed out in his book, An Israeli in Palestine: Resisting Dispossession, Redeeming Israel, is an ethnocracy--the rule of an ethnocity or selected set of ethnocities over all of the people,

And so what is most apparent about the current authoritarianism in America is its Christian Nationalism character. But is Christian Nationalism the only threat to our democracy? And if the answer is 'no,' then what other threats are there to our democracy?

We need to realize that religiously conservative Christians do not have to be Christian Nationalists to threaten our democracy. That is because religiously conservative Christians have a strong penchant for favoring authoritarianism. Consider the following 2 video clips of John MacArthur speaking on Christian Nationalism and then on the freedom of religion:

AND

Outside of the abortion issue, which is really a social justice issue if the unborn child is a human life, note that MacArthur opposes both equality for the LGBT community and religious freedom. One could summarize his opposition to both equality and religious freedom by noting that he seems to conflate supporting the right to choose with supporting the choices made. That is because Christians should not support people chosing homosexuality, transgenderism, and the practice of other faiths than the Christian faith, he believes that Christians should oppose giving people the option to choose those alternatives. And so in attacking the freedom to choose, MacArthur is attacking the equality of people from the LGBT community and those who hold to nonChristian religious faiths. A Christian approach to supporting equality for the LGBT community and those who hold to nonChristian faiths would be to support people having the right to choose options that we religiously conservative Christians don't want them to choose. Such a perspective protects the equality of those mentioned by respecting their right to choose unbiblical alternatives. And then we could add that we Christians could then offer different choices through evangelism.

Note that MacArthur does not support Christian Nationalism. And yet, he is attacking the equality of some who think differently than he does. And the same goes for others, my fellow religiously conservative Christians in particular, who use code words to justify their opposition to equality for certain groups. Their opposition is based on traditional Christian beliefs that sprang from Christendom, which was an authoritarian time period when Christianity had a privileged place of influence and power over all other faiths throughout Europe and much of the Americas.

These code words are often used to obligate the civil authorities to ban certain practices that are condemned in the Scriptures. Code words like 'natural law' or the 'moral law' can be defined a number of ways. But when referred to by many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians, what they refer to are Christian definitions of those words. In fact, because Christian Nationalism is a diverse movement, sometimes what those religiously conservative Christians use code words want ends up being the same laws that some Christian Nationalists want to exist. Now it is obvious that Christian Nationalists are far more visible than these other Christians in terms of posing a threat to our democracy. But is Christian Nationalism the only threat to our democracy?

So what else could be attached to the iceberg that has Christian Nationalism as its tip? As this blog has pointed out before, oligarchy also threatens our democracy. And in a nation that celebrates Capitalism like America does, and especially like this President does, to follow what motivates those in our government, we need to follow the money. And in this case, that means we must look at the influence that certain sets of financial and corporate elites have on our government.

Here, we should note the past. And by the past, we should note Russia's influence on our President. Why? It is because Russia's Putin not only significantly contributed to Trump's 2024 election win and his other campaigns, he is greatly admired by Trump. And in terms of Putin's contribution to Trump's win in 2024, we don't know how much Trump owes Putin for his victory. In terms of admiration, Timothy Snyder, who is the author of the book, The Road To Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America, Trump's strong concern with having Putin's approval began in 2013. In addition, at one time, Trump chose to believe Putin regarding his attempts to influence our elections over what our intelligence agencies said.

This blog used the question of how much Trump owes Putin along with his admiration of him to predict what would happen if Trump was elected: Russia would be America's future. And what is Russia? It is a corrupt oligarchy run by a strongman where the national identity is tied to the Russian Orthodox Church even though most Russians do not regulary attend worship services.. That while Putin's government tosses out enough culture bones, such as its strong opposition to LGBT lifestyles, out to the Russian Orthodox Church to garner its support, it is mostly Putin, and then his oligarchs who are running the nation and primarily benefitting from its rule.

What do we see in America? At Trump's inauguration, elite tech leaders were given seats of privilege. We see how Trump and his family has been financially garnering hundreds of millions of dollars in wealth. We see corporations receiving tax cuts, secured through the "Big Beautiful Bill," and cuts in regulations. And some are receiving higher government contracts. We see Trump removing Congressionally approved funds from charitable, educational, social safety net funds. In addition, there is the power that Trump gave to Elon Musk, who contributed around $250 million to Trump's campaign. And who did Trump take with him in his trip to China?

But if those facts are not enough, Trump's Presidency provides enough evidence to show that we have already entered some level of oligarchy. Trump's personal criteria for success is based on domination and acquisition. As mentioned before, programs of 'social uplift,' as Martin Luther King Jr. called them, are easily sacrificed because there is no profit being made. Trump has said that the federal government can no longer support Medicare, Medicaid, and some food assistance programs because the government can't afford to support those programs and pay for what Trump sees are new defense needs to a tune of $600 billion being added to the defense department. As with USAID, Trump is threatening to cut federal assistance to state unemployment funds because of Trump alleged fraud. But that increase in defense spending is despite the fact that the Pentagon continually fails audits. And so it is the Military Industrial Complex, along with Trump's Presidential power that are the main beneficiaries of that increase in spending. This should remind us of what Martin Luther King Jr. once said:

'A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death'

Or look at Trump's military aid to autocratic regimes like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Or look at how Trump supports Ukraine in its war with Russia. Trump supports Ukraine by selling needed weapons to Europe to give to Ukraine. Do you see the transactional basis for his policies. While criticizing Biden for freely providing some weapons for Ukraine, Trump is seeking an economic profit for corporations here as the basis for helping Ukraine. In short, and an early blog article has already made this point, Trump is the culmination of all that is wrong with Capitalism according to Marx.

We should include that some of the programs that are being cut or are threatened with being cut enable greater social/economic mobility for those who are the have-nots. Here, we should note what Martin Luther King Jr. said in his 1967 interview by Xander Vanocur. What King stated was that he was afraid that his 'dream' was turning into a nightmare because of the lack of economic improvement for many blacks. Much of the above should help us see some degree of connection between financial well-being with civil rights

At the same time, Trump portrayed himself as the savior-defender of religiously conservative Christianity in America. And he has appointed people who have been strongly influenced by Christian Nationalism to certain key positions in his administration. In the meantime, Trump has been waging a "Christian" crusade against wokism, both here and abroad, to the extent that he is violating the free speech of those in the education systems of our nation.

Yes, Christian Nationalism should be a concern for us. Some of it is just the tip of the iceberg while the rest is the part of the iceberg that that threatens our democracy. We are right to be concerned about it.

However, it is too easy to become so focussed on Christian Nationalism that we blind ourselves to the threat that oligarchy poses to our democracy and way of life. Here we should note that most of the dangers posed by Christian Nationalism lie in the future. In contrast to that, oligarchy is not just posing current dangers to our democracy, it has been damaging our democracy for a while. And so again, according to this blog, the current authoritarian movement in America is using a religious façade to garner the votes of religiously conservative Christians to support something in addition to Christian Nationalism. And though the iceberg that threatens to sink our democracy consists of both Christian Nationalism and oligarchy, it is time that we start paying more attention to our oligarchy, to the large part of the submerged iceberg, that has been gouging huge holes in the hull of our democracy some time now.

Views From The Outside For June 23, 2026

2026-06-23T00:01:00.000-04:00

Views From The Outside

So far, news sources include:

International

Médecins Sans Frontieres

UN News

From Canada

Le Devoir

Le Journal de Montréal

Toronto Star

CBC

From England

BBC

Reuters

From France

France24

Les Echos

Le Monde

From Germany

DER SPIEGEL

From Russian Source

Novaya Gazeta Europe

From Spain

El Mundo

El País

From Switzerland

Neue Zürcher Zeitung

From Ukraine

UATV English

<< Previous Views Next Views >>

How To Avoid Becoming A Secular Pharisee

2026-06-19T00:01:00.000-04:00

I want to tie two seemingly unrelated quotes together. The first quote comes from Jesus's parable of the two men praying in Luke 18:9-14 (click here for the source):

9 Now He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt: 10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood and began praying this in regard to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, crooked, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’ 13 But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to raise his eyes toward heaven, but was beating his chest, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’ 14 I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other one; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

The second quote come from the speech that Martin Luther King Jr. gave protesting the Vietnam War (click here for the source):

'The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.'

Before I connect the two quotes together, we need to substitute a fill-in-the-blank for the word 'Western.' As a result, we come up with the following:

The ________ arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.'

Note that we can use any group's or individual's name in the fill-in-the-blank. For examples:

The Leftist arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just

Curt's arrogance of feeling that he has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just

And so we should see that this arrogance of feeling knows no personal, group, nor ideological boundary. From here, we should easily see the connection between the 2 quotes. In the former, we see the Pharisee who offers evidence of his own righteousness by how he is morally superior to the Tax Collector. The Pharisee proudly proclaims that not only is he morally superior to the Tax Collector, that he is without fault while the Tax Collector is without merit.

And what is said in the second quote? That the 'Western arrogance of feeling' proclaims that the West believes that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them. This does not just imply that the West believes that it is superior to other parts of the world, it claims that the disparity is so great that the West is completely self-sufficient while the rest of the world is dependent on the West. Just as a side note, do we still wonder why there are some Americans, the President for example, who are plagued with narcissism?

Those of us who believe in Christ should be alarmed at having such arrogance. We should be alarmed because arrogance is not only not smiled on by God in either the Old or New Testaments, such arrogance brings God's opposition and punishment. And so no believer should have such an arrogance of feeling, but many of us do anyway.

To the unbeliever, having such an arrogance of feeling is not necessarily a problem as it is for the Christian, and so many of them could enjoy being arrogant, but not all do. And so one of the many conditions that harms the reputation of the Gospel is when an individual or group of believers are arrogant while there are many unbelievers who are repulsed by that characteristic.

By now we should see how the second quote can be an example of the Pharisee's attitude expressed in the first quote. Though they are not identical, the two quotes have enough in common so that the person or group in question in the 2nd quote becomes an example of the Pharisee from the 1st quote. And since what the West was trying to teach others involved secular concerns, then we can conclude that one does not have to be religious to be a Pharisee. That those who have only secular interests can be Pharisees too.

The possibility of becoming a Pharisee should, for us who believe in Christ, strike fear in us because of what happens to the Pharisee in the end. We should also note that, for us believers in Christ, there is never a time whenwe can safely pray the prayer of the Pharisee nor is there a time when we no longer need to pray like the Tax Collector.

For unbelievers, the possibility of becoming a Pharisee means that one is emulating the characteristics of what they often criticize Christians for.

Many of my fellow believers will object to what has been written here by claiming that because they have Biblical worldview, in contrast to the worldviews of unbelievers, they have everything to teach unbelievers and nothing to learn from them because they have what unbelievers don't have. Here, James Boice's criticisms of Monasticism and the early Anabaptists apply here as well. We should note that those Monastics and Anabaptists believed that, because of how corrput unbelievers were, they had nothing to learn from unbelievers, Boice said that the attitude of the Monastics and early Anabaptists failed both to appreciate the effects that God's common grace could have on people in government and on those influencing culture as well as it 'overestimated' the godliness of devout believers including themselves (see pg 104 of Two Cities, Two Loves: Christian Responsibility In A Crumbling Culture). And so those fellow believers who conclude that they have everything to teach unbelievers because of their own adherence to a biblical worldview have deceived themselves about both their godliness and the contributions that unbelievers can contribute.

At this point, we should point out the carrot that arrogance holds out in front of us. That carrot consists of feeling good about oneself. That carrot consists of feeling a sense of significance. In fact, feeling superior to others can be especially gratifying especially when others consist, in part, of those whom we do not respect or even despise. In addition, being arrogant can lead us to feeling entitled over others. However, because being arrogant can make some feel significant, challenging a part of those beliefs that makes them feel significant, regardless of the facts and logic one employs, can be perceived as a personal attack by those who feel superior to others.

Certainly there are individuals and groups from all over the ideological spectrum that could accurately be used in the above fill-in-the-blank. And there are other times in which our own names could accurately put in the fill-in-the-blank. But because of the current situation, we need to look at the Evangelical support for President Trump and his policies. Why? It is because of both what Trump has said and done, especially during his 2nd term as President, and the level of support he gets from religiously conservative Christians.

Note that Trump had campaigned on the claim that only he can fix it with it being the nation with its problems. Trump had hats made saying: 'Trump Was Right About Everything.' Or consider the title of a Charlie Kirk book: The MAGA Doctrine: The Only Ideas That Will Win The Future. Don't both Trump's self-proclamations and the book title sound way to similar to what was said in the second quote? And, if so, can't both Trump's self-proclamations and Kirk's book title cause those who embrace those sentiments to speak like what was said in the 2nd quote?

If so, then perhaps the Evangelical community needs to reexamine the kind of commitment that it has made to both Trump and the MAGA Doctrine. The claim that some believers have all of the knowledge while unbelievers have none should raise a score of red flags because of the arrogance that such a claim carries with it. The recommended reexamination does not imply that one must necessarily leave the Trump and MAGA followings, though I would strongly recommend it, such a reexamination should cause Christians in the Trump and MAGA followings to adamantly stand for drastic change in both their leader and their their groups. That change must include promoting hybrid approaches and solutions to our nation's problems rather than just Trump and MAGA ones. Those hybrid solutions must have contributions from unbelievers who hold to different ideologies than MAGA ones. That is because, as the Scripture say, 'GOD IS OPPOSED TO THE PROUD' (which is part of I Peter 5:5). And looking down on others as inferiors is a first and almost certain indicator that one is arrogant. On the other hand, recognizing the contributions that those outside one's group can make is evidence, though not necessarily proof, that one is not arrogant.

For those fellow believers who insist on Christian Nationalism, arrogance cannot be one of their traits. In fact, arrogance should never be a part of any Christian's life. And we should note that for those of us believers who have escaped the clutches of yearning for Christian Nationalism, we have our own sins to battle. We can neither entertain the notion that we are superior to any Christian Nationalist nor think that we have nothing to learn from them. We too should seek hybrid approaches and solutions to our nation's problems. This should cause us to avoid the all-or-nothing thinking that Trump and many MAGA followers employ--a kind of thinking that provides the cognitive foundation for authoritarianism. And that authoritarianism would make believers do what both Jesus and Peter warned against: the lording it over of others.

Views From The Outside For June 16, 2026

2026-06-16T00:01:00.000-04:00

Views From The Outside

So far, news sources include:

International

Médecins Sans Frontieres

UN News

From Canada

Le Devoir

Le Journal de Montréal

Toronto Star

CBC

From England

BBC

Reuters

From France

France24

Les Echos

Le Monde

From Germany

DER SPIEGEL

From Russian Source

Novaya Gazeta Europe

From Spain

El Mundo

El País

From Switzerland

Neue Zürcher Zeitung

From Ukraine

UATV English

<< Previous Views Next Views >>

Views From The Outside for May 26, 2026

2026-05-26T00:01:00.000-04:00

Views From The Outside

So far, news sources include:

International

Médecins Sans Frontieres

UN News

From Canada

Le Devoir

Le Journal de Montréal

Toronto Star

CBC

From England

BBC

Reuters

From France

France24

Les Echos

Le Monde

From Germany

DER SPIEGEL

From Russian Source

Novaya Gazeta Europe

From Spain

El Mundo

El País

From Switzerland

Neue Zürcher Zeitung

From Ukraine

UATV English

<< Previous Views Next Views >>

How Can America Be A Christian Nation?

2026-05-22T00:01:00.000-04:00

A national Christian prayer event occurred in our nation's capital this past weekend. The basic concern of the event was about how to rededicate our nation to Christ. Such an event sounds harmless enough, but was it really?

Rededicating the nation to Christ meant that those in the event want our nation to return to being what it used to be: a Christian nation. And so, the event was really about Christian Nationalism.

How was our nation a Christian nation? It certainly wasn't the aim of The Constitution. We should notice that not only was there an absence of any statements in that document which affirms America being a Christian nation, there are a couple of statements that contradicts such a notion. In addition, the Constitutional debates indicate that basing the nation's federal government on any religion was something to be avoided at all costs.

But what we should note, however, is that in several of the state constitutions, were statements that endorsed some form of Christianity as a state religion. In addition, we should note that in terms of culture and the religious self-image of many of the people, we could call our nation a Christian nation.

There is something else we should note, however. That our nation's Christian self-image was due to demographics. That is that, because of Christendom, the demographics were so affected so that many people identified as Christians. And this is an important point because our nation's religious demographics ain't what they used to be. And so how close ~~can~~ should we return to the past.

There is something else to note. That if we claim that America was a Christian nation at its beginning, then we Christians own some unsavory history from the past. That dubios history revolves around racism. Our nation was at least partially based on racism. It's in our early practices such as race-based slavery and the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans from the land. It was in the federal laws governing citizenship. They stated that only free white men could become citizens of the U.S. And even after Black men could become citizens, which was after the Civil War, we had Jim Crow and Redlining among other practices.

And so if America was to return to the good old days, would we also include a return to the racism of the past? Or would we employ new forms of racism? We should note that we don't call the current move toward Christian Nationalism in America, we call it 'White Christian Nationalism.'

There are two ways by which we could call America a Christian nation today. The first way is if the majority of Americans were actual Christians. The problem with that way is that we cannot manipulate people into becoming Christians. Making a person a Christian is the work of the Holy Spirit and we have no control over the Spirit. And so we have no control over making the majority of Americans Christians.

And so the second way is to change our nation's laws so that they resemble Church laws to a significant degree. And though there are Church laws that are already a part of the laws of our land, not all are.

The above has always been a challenge for the Church. What Church laws should also be laws governing society? And this is where it gets sticky for Christian Nationalists and society because not all agree on the same set of laws. Do we want so many Church laws to also be a part of the laws the govern society? At what point in instituting Church laws, are we showing privilege to Christianity over other religions? And which Church laws would cause people to violate their own religious practices?

When answering those questions, we should note again that religious demographics ain't what they used to be. That we don't have the Christian consensus in America that once existed. And so we have to then consider the amount of control that we Christians should have to exert over unbelievers to pass and enforce the Church laws that we want to become the law of the land. Such is an important consideration because both Jesus and Peter tell us not to 'lord it over' others.

In addition, the Apostles' approach to fulfilling the Great Commission was through teaching and preaching only. Jesus once said that if people do not accept the preaching of the disciples, that His disciples were to move on. There is also a misreading of the Great Commission as seen below (click here for the reference):

16 But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated to them. 17 And when they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. 18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. 19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to follow all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

The issue here has to do with the Greek word for 'nations.' For some take that to mean to force each nation to be Christian. The Greek word for nations here is 'ἔθνη.' According to the Greek-English lexicon of Bauer, Arendt and Gingrich, the form of the Greek word there means outsiders. That instead of talking about discipling each nation, the disciples were ordered to preach to those outside their group. And, indeed, the use of the form of the word for nation, 'ἔθνη,' often means outsiders both in the Greek Septuagint, which is the Old Testament in Greek, and in the New Testament. And such an understanding would relieve the pressure to feel compelled to make each nation a Christian nation, since such is not in our control in the first place.

There is another issue to consider here. The modern movement toward Christian Nationalism promoted by some of my fellow believers in Christ, was given its greatest impetus by the Obergfell decision in 2015. Many Christian ministers and leaders opposed the legalization of same-sex marriage. Some said that it should be prohibited because such would interfere with the flourishing of society. After the decision was announced, many Christian leaders advocated that Christians should take a semi-monastic approach to society, which is they sequestered themselves into groups of like-minded believers, until such a time when they could be assured that society no longer had a negative view of the faith. The Benedict Option was such an example. We should note that Aaron Renn described Christianity as going through 3 stages of acceptance by society. According to him, the negative perception of the Church started in 2014 , which was part of the time when the Obergfell decision was being considered.

That decision recognized a greater equal status for the LGBT community in society. Apparently, many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians then feared that if same-sex marriage was considered equal to heterosexual marriage in society, the property values of marriage would drop. In addition, many of my fellow Christians feared that if society welcomed the LGBT community as equals, that such an acceptance would have a corrupting influence on the Church

But it was also more than the fear of what would happen to heterosexual marriage. With the emergence of the LGBT community from the margins of society came a shock to many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians. Society had changed too much and too quickly for them. Many of my fellow believers no longer recognized the nation in which they were living. And considering how patriotic many of those fellow believers are, they were not just in shock, they were grieving for the loss of what once was. This loss speaks predominantly to white religiously conservative Christians because for many Black fellow believers, what had been also lost over time was Jim Crow culture and laws. It's not that there is no more systemic racism with the current gerrymandering at the expense of representation for Blacks in the House of Representatives serving as just another reminder that systemic racism lives. That is because the loss of representation for Blacks in the House was not enough of an impediment to stop the current gerrymandering in red states. It is that even though there was less systemic racism, thing had been changing. In the end, more whites felt negatively about the drastic changes in society.

Christian Nationalism concerns itself with societal laws that affect culture for both unbelievers and believers. What garnered such a high percentage of Evangelical votes for Trump is that he took the side of many religiously conservative Christians, as well as that of Putin (or wannabe Emperor Putintine), in the culture wars. The emergence of the LGBT community from the margins of society created the same reaction in my fellow Christians that the bourgeoisie dictatorship did in Marx. Marx thought that the only way to overthrow the oppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie was to replace the bourgeoisie dictatorship with a proletariat one. Such was an example of Marx's black-white thinking on that oppression. He never, that I know of, thought that one way of eliminating the oppression by the bourgeoisie was to get the bourgeoisie and proletariat to collaborate together. And so for many of my fellow believers, the appropriatae response to the emergence of the LGBT community from society was to return that community to the margins of society.

An alternative response would be to replace the culture wars with cultural coexistence as equals and then depend on evangelism and other forms of teaching, as well as discipline in the Church only, as ways of fulfilling the Great Commission. Such a dependence seems to be the way of the Apostles to fulfill the Great Commission.

The tragic thing here for the conservative Church in America, this call to some degree of Christian control over society just might be a front for installing an oligarchy. For that seems to be the battle in Europe. That Democracy with equality is being challenged by authoritarianism with hierarchy that take the form of ethnocracy. And not all examples of ethnocracy are religiously based. But regardless of the form, using ethnocracy as a façade appeals to many conservative voters.

And so some leading the charge for Christian Nationalism are using that label to monopolize conservative votes to support oligarchy. And that would make oligarchy a preferable form of governing to Democracy with equality.