thestream--2020-09-04--Antifa Supporter Suspected in Fatal Portland Shooting, Michael Reinoehl, Killed by Federal Authoriti

Antifa Supporter Suspected in Fatal Portland Shooting, Michael Reinoehl, Killed by Federal Authorities

Antifa supporter Michael Forest Reinoehl was killed Thursday night when federal authorities attempted to arrest him in connection with the fatal shooting of a conservative activist in Portland over the weekend , according to multiple media reports .
Three law enforcement officials told The New York Times that Reinoehl was killed in Lacey , Wash. , after a federal task force attempted to arrest him in connection to the shooting of Aaron Danielson , a member of the conservative group Patriot Prayer .
The Washington Post reported that a task force officer shot Reinoehl as he pulled a firearm while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Danielson , 39 , died after sustaining a gunshot wound to the chest in Portland on Saturday night .
He was with a group of Trump supporters who showed up at Black Lives Matter protests held in Portland .
Reinoehl , 48 , attended several Black Lives Matter protests in recent months , according to his Instagram page .
He was reported to be a person of interest in the Danielson shooting , though authorities previously refused to confirm he was a suspect in the case .
The Times reported Thursday that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the shooting .
Reinoehl appeared in a VICE News interview that aired minutes before The Times reported his death on Thursday .
Reinoehl did not directly admit to shooting Danielson in the interview , though he said he was “ confident that I didn ’ t hit anyone innocent.
” He suggested that he was protecting a friend prior to the shooting .
“ I had no choice .
I mean , I had a choice .
I could have sat there and watched them kill a friend of mine of color .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ do that , ” Reinoehl said in the interview .
Reinoehl expressed support for Antifa , a loosely organized left-wing group , in several social media posts , while comparing protests over police brutality to war .
“ I am 100 % ANTIFA all the way !
” he wrote in a post on Instagram on June 16 .
“ We do not want violence but we will not run from it either !
” Reinoehl wrote of protests that , “ like all wars there will be casualties ” Reinoehl had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possession of a loaded firearm , including at an incident at a protest in Portland on July 5 .
The Portland police department posted a photo on its Twitter account of Reinoehl being apprehended while a gun laid on the ground next to him .
A spokesman for the department told The Daily Caller News Foundation earlier on Thursday that Reinoehl was issued a notice to appear for the gun charge the day of the incident , but didn ’ t show up .
The city of Portland rejected a public records request @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , citing an ongoing investigation .
Reinoehl was cited on June 8 with illegal gun possession after he was pulled over driving 111-mph on Interstate 84 near Portland .
Reinoehl ’ s 11-year-old daughter was in the vehicle at the time , leading to a reckless endangerment charge .
The Portland police department did not immediately respond to a request for comment .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of our original @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Antifa supporter Michael Forest Reinoehl was killed Thursday night when federal authorities attempted to arrest him in connection with the fatal shooting of a conservative activist in Portland over the weekend, according to multiple media reports.
Three law enforcement officials told The New York Times that Reinoehl was killed in Lacey, Wash., after a federal task force attempted to arrest him in connection to the shooting of Aaron Danielson, a member of the conservative group Patriot Prayer.
The Washington Post reported that a task force officer shot Reinoehl as he pulled a firearm while authorities attempted to take him into custody.
Danielson, 39, died after sustaining a gunshot wound to the chest in Portland on Saturday night. He was with a group of Trump supporters who showed up at Black Lives Matter protests held in Portland.
Reinoehl, 48, attended several Black Lives Matter protests in recent months, according to his Instagram page. He was reported to be a person of interest in the Danielson shooting, though authorities previously refused to confirm he was a suspect in the case.
The Times reported Thursday that Reinoehl was being investigated in connection with the shooting.
Reinoehl appeared in a VICE News interview that aired minutes before The Times reported his death on Thursday.
Reinoehl did not directly admit to shooting Danielson in the interview, though he said he was “confident that I didn’t hit anyone innocent.” He suggested that he was protecting a friend prior to the shooting.
WATCH:
“I had no choice. I mean, I had a choice. I could have sat there and watched them kill a friend of mine of color. But I wasn’t going to do that,” Reinoehl said in the interview.
Reinoehl expressed support for Antifa, a loosely organized left-wing group, in several social media posts, while comparing protests over police brutality to war.
“I am 100% ANTIFA all the way!” he wrote in a post on Instagram on June 16. “We do not want violence but we will not run from it either!”
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Reinoehl wrote of protests that, “like all wars there will be casualties”
Reinoehl had been charged twice in recent months with illegal possession of a loaded firearm, including at an incident at a protest in Portland on July 5.
The Portland police department posted a photo on its Twitter account of Reinoehl being apprehended while a gun laid on the ground next to him.
Officers arrested a male at SW Broadway and Main St. who had a loaded firearm on his person. He fought with offices during the arrest. pic.twitter.com/RXgYHnB5ue — Portland Police (@PortlandPolice) July 5, 2020
A spokesman for the department told The Daily Caller News Foundation earlier on Thursday that Reinoehl was issued a notice to appear for the gun charge the day of the incident, but didn’t show up.
The city of Portland rejected a public records request for a police report of the incident, citing an ongoing investigation.
Reinoehl was cited on June 8 with illegal gun possession after he was pulled over driving 111-mph on Interstate 84 near Portland. Reinoehl’s 11-year-old daughter was in the vehicle at the time, leading to a reckless endangerment charge.
The Portland police department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Copyright 2020 The Daily Caller News Foundation
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


thestream--2020-09-04--Why I Won’t Say ‘Black Lives Matter’

Why I Won’t Say ‘Black Lives Matter’

I was riding today with a friend to buy oil and optics for my new AR-15 , and the subject came up : “ Should we say that ‘ black lives matter ’ ?
” In other words , should we use those words ?
Of course we affirm the truth that lies behind them .
But the organization which took that phrase as its lucrative trademark and name means something radically different .
( As I ’ ll unpack below . )
By repeating its name like a mantra , we ’ re helping that organization get richer and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more dangerous .
What ’ s more , leftist thugs are demanding that people incant the magic phrase like a religious formula , for instance threatening diners in Washington , D.C. For that reason alone , no one should do it .
Instead say something deeper and more meaningful , like “ Black lives are sacred , born and unborn.
” And demand that others say it back .
Most of them won ’ t , of course .
That violates their religion , which is Abortianity .
“ It ’ s Okay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another example to show what I mean .
Alt-right agitators have tried to popularize the phrase “ It ’ s Okay to Be White.
” Now do I believe that ?
Of course I do .
I have not the tiniest particle of self-hatred or guilt about my Irish and Slavic background .
I think even Joe Biden considers that Caucasians like him have a right to live .
To have kids , own property , even vote — as long as they vote for him .
But knowing that the people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should seek all-white ethnostates excluding others — if need be achieved by violence — would you really use it ?
I hope you wouldn ’ t .
You ’ d find a different string of words .
Maybe : “ Euro-Americans are as good as anyone else.
” Or something like that .
You ’ d be especially careful not to repeat a racial-extremist catchphrase if you saw the alt-right group behind it collecting hundreds of millions of dollars , and wielding street thugs to beat up political dissenters , and burn down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the GOP were being led around by the nose by a group called “ It ’ s Okay to Be White , ” and Republican mayors were letting the group ’ s militant wing rule their streets and trash their cities .
Would you really repeat that anodyne phrase , once you knew how poisonous and manipulative was its intent ?
Not if you had any self-respect .
At Least As Evil as the Alt-Right But how bad , really , is the organization raking in millions and ruling the streets under the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s at least as evil as the white nationalist groups whom President Trump disavowed in Charlottesville .
( Yes , he did .
Here ’ s the transcript .
The reporters are lying .
Again . )
See what Breitbart News uncovered back in June about the organization ’ s founders and leaders : Go ahead , watch the video where Cullors blithely calls herself that : She says “ we ’ re trained Marxists ” as blithely as Richard Spencer might say , “ we ’ re white nationalists.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away with it , as the pitiful Spencer isn ’ t .
That ’ s because communism , unlike Nazism or other forms of racism , still has academic prestige .
Its concentration camps were never liberated , nor the victims shown on TV .
Almost none of the architects of the 100 million deaths imposed by Marxists were ever put on trial .
Hollywood doesn ’ t make many movies about the Gulag .
The same day the powerful Shoah film Schindler ’ s List opened at thousands of theaters nationwide , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Famine 33 , opened too .
I ran out to see it .
It played in two theaters , in two American cities .
For two whole weeks .
( But this powerful film ’ s now on Youtube , and you should see it . )
Indeed the most populous country on earth , rich and swaggering China , is still ruled by “ trained Marxists.
” And it ’ s running concentration camps today , forcing Uyghurs to work as slave laborers making sneakers .
For Nike .
You know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really wants you to repeat the phrase “ Black lives matter.
” Not a Game but a Gate to Hell Maybe you don ’ t want to know this .
It makes your life too difficult .
It might ruin some professional sports for you , knowing that systemic Marxism has permeated their ranks .
Maybe your Woke sister or soft-headed pastor has already plastered the magic phrase all over the place .
And you ’ d rather not know what it really means .
You ’ d rather pretend that the Ouija @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ game , ” not a gate to Hell .
But a still small voice is telling you otherwise .
It ’ s warning you not to burn that little pinch of incense to Caesar .
It ’ s inviting you to wonder what it means to be a “ trained Marxist.
” Not just some college student who stumbled on “ The Communist Manifesto ” and for a while fell for its errors .
Nor some hapless Cuban or North Korean forced to repeat Marx ’ s dreary slogans .
No , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cynicism , ruthless power-seeking , atheism , and tyranny that is Marxism at its core .
Someone trained in the art of infiltrating innocent organizations and wielding anodyne phrases , as Communist parties have done since 1917 .
Someone less like a child caught up in playing with a Ouija board , and more like a priest of Satan .
For the sake of all the black lives ended by Marxism in Africa , all the Slavic lives snuffed out in Russia , all the Chinese lives ended by Mao , or aborted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tyranny , don ’ t play these murderers ’ game .
Don ’ t invite their dark spirits into you , by repeating their honeyed poison .
John Zmirak is a senior editor at The Stream , and author or co-author of ten books , including The Politically Incorrect Guide to Immigration and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Catholicism .
He is co-author with Jason Jones of “ God , Guns , & the Government .
”

I was riding today with a friend to buy oil and optics for my new AR-15, and the subject came up: “Should we say that ‘black lives matter’?” In other words, should we use those words? Of course we affirm the truth that lies behind them.
But the organization which took that phrase as its lucrative trademark and name means something radically different. (As I’ll unpack below.) By repeating its name like a mantra, we’re helping that organization get richer and more powerful, and hence a lot more dangerous.
What’s more, leftist thugs are demanding that people incant the magic phrase like a religious formula, for instance threatening diners in Washington, D.C. For that reason alone, no one should do it.
1) In a scene that played out several times Monday, a Black Lives Matter protest that began in Columbia Heights confronted White diners outside D.C. restaurants, chanting “White silence is violence!” and demanding White diners show their solidarity. #DCProtests pic.twitter.com/fJbPM76vb0 — Fredrick Kunkle WaPo (@KunkleFredrick) August 25, 2020
Instead say something deeper and more meaningful, like “Black lives are sacred, born and unborn.” And demand that others say it back. Most of them won’t, of course. That violates their religion, which is Abortianity.
“It’s Okay to Be White”
Let me give another example to show what I mean. Alt-right agitators have tried to popularize the phrase “It’s Okay to Be White.” Now do I believe that? Of course I do. I have not the tiniest particle of self-hatred or guilt about my Irish and Slavic background. I think even Joe Biden considers that Caucasians like him have a right to live. To have kids, own property, even vote — as long as they vote for him.
But knowing that the people who coined the phrase really mean that whites should seek all-white ethnostates excluding others — if need be achieved by violence — would you really use it? I hope you wouldn’t. You’d find a different string of words. Maybe: “Euro-Americans are as good as anyone else.” Or something like that. You’d be especially careful not to repeat a racial-extremist catchphrase if you saw the alt-right group behind it collecting hundreds of millions of dollars, and wielding street thugs to beat up political dissenters, and burn down American cities.
For the sake of all the black lives ended by Marxism in Africa, all the Slavic lives snuffed out in Russia, all the Chinese lives ended by Mao, or aborted by force, or poisoned today by tyranny, don’t play these murderers’ game.
Seriously, imagine that the GOP were being led around by the nose by a group called “It’s Okay to Be White,” and Republican mayors were letting the group’s militant wing rule their streets and trash their cities. Would you really repeat that anodyne phrase, once you knew how poisonous and manipulative was its intent? Not if you had any self-respect.
At Least As Evil as the Alt-Right
But how bad, really, is the organization raking in millions and ruling the streets under the catchphrase “Black Lives Matter”? It’s at least as evil as the white nationalist groups whom President Trump disavowed in Charlottesville. (Yes, he did. Here’s the transcript. The reporters are lying. Again. )
See what Breitbart News uncovered back in June about the organization’s founders and leaders:
The co-founder of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, Patrisse Cullors, was the protégé of a communist-supporting domestic terrorist for over a decade, spending years training in political organizing and absorbing the radical Marxist-Leninist ideology which shaped her worldview. Eric Mann, who mentored Cullors for over a decade in community organizing, was a member of radical-left militant groups: Students for a Democratic Society and the Weather Underground, which bombed government buildings and police stations in the 1960s and 1970s. In a newly resurfaced video from 2015, Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors reveals that she and her fellow BLM founders are “trained Marxists.”
Go ahead, watch the video where Cullors blithely calls herself that:
Commies Still Chic, Unlike the Nazis
She says “we’re trained Marxists” as blithely as Richard Spencer might say, “we’re white nationalists.” But so far she’s getting away with it, as the pitiful Spencer isn’t. That’s because communism, unlike Nazism or other forms of racism, still has academic prestige. Its concentration camps were never liberated, nor the victims shown on TV. Almost none of the architects of the 100 million deaths imposed by Marxists were ever put on trial. Hollywood doesn’t make many movies about the Gulag.
The same day the powerful Shoah film Schindler’s List opened at thousands of theaters nationwide, the first film about the Ukrainian genocide, Famine 33, opened too. I ran out to see it. It played in two theaters, in two American cities. For two whole weeks. (But this powerful film’s now on Youtube, and you should see it.)
Indeed the most populous country on earth, rich and swaggering China, is still ruled by “trained Marxists.” And it’s running concentration camps today, forcing Uyghurs to work as slave laborers making sneakers. For Nike. You know, the fat corporation that really, really wants you to repeat the phrase “Black lives matter.”
Not a Game but a Gate to Hell
Maybe you don’t want to know this. It makes your life too difficult. It might ruin some professional sports for you, knowing that systemic Marxism has permeated their ranks. Maybe your Woke sister or soft-headed pastor has already plastered the magic phrase all over the place. And you’d rather not know what it really means. You’d rather pretend that the Ouija board somebody bought you is just a “game,” not a gate to Hell. But a still small voice is telling you otherwise. It’s warning you not to burn that little pinch of incense to Caesar.
It’s inviting you to wonder what it means to be a “trained Marxist.” Not just some college student who stumbled on “The Communist Manifesto” and for a while fell for its errors. Nor some hapless Cuban or North Korean forced to repeat Marx’s dreary slogans. No, someone trained in the dark catechism of cynicism, ruthless power-seeking, atheism, and tyranny that is Marxism at its core. Someone trained in the art of infiltrating innocent organizations and wielding anodyne phrases, as Communist parties have done since 1917. Someone less like a child caught up in playing with a Ouija board, and more like a priest of Satan.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
For the sake of all the black lives ended by Marxism in Africa, all the Slavic lives snuffed out in Russia, all the Chinese lives ended by Mao, or aborted by force, or poisoned today by tyranny, don’t play these murderers’ game.
Don’t invite their dark spirits into you, by repeating their honeyed poison.
Don’t parrot their prayer.
John Zmirak is a senior editor at The Stream, and author or co-author of ten books, including The Politically Incorrect Guide to Immigration and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Catholicism. He is co-author with Jason Jones of “God, Guns, & the Government.”


thestream--2020-09-04--‘Beyond Shameful’: Emotional Salon Owner Rips Into Pelosi for Claiming She was Set Up

San Francisco salon owner Erica Kious said Thursday that it is “ beyond shameful ” for Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to accuse Kious of setting her up .
“ For the speaker of the House of the United States to go on TV and falsely claim she was set up and publicly defame me and send out PR firms to spin more lies about Jonathan in support of the speaker ’ s own lies is bad enough , ” Kious said on a Thursday evening press call to reporters .
“ But for Speaker Pelosi to frame @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continued , “ under a total false narrative , while small businesses and workers all over California , the state , she represents in Congress , suffer and struggle just to survive , is beyond shameful.
” Kious provided Fox News with security footage showing a wet-haired Pelosi walking through eSalon in San Francisco on Monday at 3:08 p.m. as she attended her appointment for a wash and blow-out .
San Francisco hair salons have been closed since March and were permitted to open Sept. 1 for outdoor hair appointments only .
Pelosi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying she was a victim of a set up .
The salon owner said that Pelosi contacted Jonathan DeNardo , an independent contractor who rents a chair in eSalon , and asked if he could provide a hair service at her private residence .
DeNardo informed Pelosi that this was not possible , according to Kious , and instead offered to perform the service at the salon .
“ I have nothing to do with this and have never approved or rejected any particular client or service at the salon , ” she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not call me to seek authorization to do Mrs. Pelosi ’ s care .
The appointment has already been made by him.
” She said that DeNardo did call her to express his excitement about cutting Pelosi ’ s hair , during which call she told him that if Pelosi “ came to the salon and felt safe doing so , he should speak to her about trying to get other salons to open everywhere.
” This suggestion upset DeNardo , she said , who told her that Pelosi had bigger things to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her , she added .
“ Jonathan actually texted me and conveyed that he did have a discussion with her about not only not being allowed to open to do hair inside the salon , ” Kious said .
“ Not only was the speaker fully aware that salons were closed for such services , but she and Jonathan actually discussed that fact during her appointment .
The speaker ’ s excuse that she was set up is false.
” Kious repeatedly emphasized that if anyone set up Pelosi , it could only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that she does not believe DeNardo set up the speaker of the house and that Pelosi has made him the scapegoat of the situation .
“ I don ’ t owe anyone an apology , ” Kious said with emotion .
“ Mrs .
Pelosi owes the entire country an apology.
” Pelosi did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , please contact licensing @ dailycallernewsfoundation.org .

San Francisco salon owner Erica Kious said Thursday that it is “beyond shameful” for Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to accuse Kious of setting her up.
“For the speaker of the House of the United States to go on TV and falsely claim she was set up and publicly defame me and send out PR firms to spin more lies about Jonathan in support of the speaker’s own lies is bad enough,” Kious said on a Thursday evening press call to reporters.
“But for Speaker Pelosi to frame herself as a victim,” she continued, “under a total false narrative, while small businesses and workers all over California, the state, she represents in Congress, suffer and struggle just to survive, is beyond shameful.”
Kious provided Fox News with security footage showing a wet-haired Pelosi walking through eSalon in San Francisco on Monday at 3:08 p.m. as she attended her appointment for a wash and blow-out. San Francisco hair salons have been closed since March and were permitted to open Sept. 1 for outdoor hair appointments only.
Pelosi responded to backlash over the footage by saying she was a victim of a set up.
The salon owner said that Pelosi contacted Jonathan DeNardo, an independent contractor who rents a chair in eSalon, and asked if he could provide a hair service at her private residence. DeNardo informed Pelosi that this was not possible, according to Kious, and instead offered to perform the service at the salon.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
“I have nothing to do with this and have never approved or rejected any particular client or service at the salon,” she said, adding that Jonathan “did not call me to seek authorization to do Mrs. Pelosi’s care. The appointment has already been made by him.”
She said that DeNardo did call her to express his excitement about cutting Pelosi’s hair, during which call she told him that if Pelosi “came to the salon and felt safe doing so, he should speak to her about trying to get other salons to open everywhere.”
This suggestion upset DeNardo, she said, who told her that Pelosi had bigger things to worry about. DeNardo later apologized to her, she added.
“Jonathan actually texted me and conveyed that he did have a discussion with her about not only not being allowed to open to do hair inside the salon,” Kious said. “Not only was the speaker fully aware that salons were closed for such services, but she and Jonathan actually discussed that fact during her appointment. The speaker’s excuse that she was set up is false.”
Kious repeatedly emphasized that if anyone set up Pelosi, it could only have been DeNardo, but also emphasized that she does not believe DeNardo set up the speaker of the house and that Pelosi has made him the scapegoat of the situation.
“I don’t owe anyone an apology,” Kious said with emotion. “Mrs. Pelosi owes the entire country an apology.”
Pelosi did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Copyright 2020 The Daily Caller News Foundation
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


thestream--2020-09-05--We Can See God’s Design for the Universe In Its Fine Tuning for Life

Why is the universe fine tuned for life ?
The question occupies scientists ’ minds .
The answer has everything @ @ @ @ @ who created us .

Why is the universe fine-tuned for life? The question occupies scientists’ minds. The answer has everything to do with the God who created us.
React to This Article What do you think of our coverage in this article? We value your feedback as we continue to grow.


thestream--2020-09-05--Did Jesus Teach the Separation of Faith and Politics? No!

When it comes to discussions about faith and politics , perhaps the most commonly quoted verse is Matthew 22:21 : “ Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar ’ s , and to God the things that are God ’ s. ” The point seems clear : The government and church are distinct domains with their own spheres of authority .
Since we are citizens of an earthly state , we ought to pay taxes to the government .
Our duties as citizens of Heaven lie elsewhere , right ?
Shouldn ’ t faith and politics be kept @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subtle political implications of what Jesus says .
In his excellent book Politics for Christians , Frank Beckwith explains : He [ Jesus ] first asks whose image is on the coin .
The answer , of course , is Caesar ’ s .
But an unsaid question begs an answer : What ( or who ) has the image of God on it ?
That is , if the coin represents the authority of Caesar because it has his image on it , then we , human beings , are under the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ image on us ( p. 64 ) .
Jesus is brilliant .
Coins bear the image of Caesar , and thus are under Caesar ’ s jurisdiction .
But since human beings bear the image of God , they are under God ’ s jurisdiction .
Caesar may have jurisdiction over governing , but since governments are comprised of people , God has jurisdiction over everything .
Even Caesar himself bears the imago dei , and is therefore under God ’ s greater jurisdiction .
As citizens of both Earth and Heaven , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to God .
Jesus is not teaching that we ought to live with divided loyalties to the government and church , but rather , that we have obligations to both .
What does this mean practically speaking ?
Well , since government ought to be concerned with the well-being of its citizens , and citizens bear the image of God , Christians ought to be concerned that government policy successfully accomplish this end .
The Bible holds both individuals and governments accountable for being just ( Micah 6:8 ; Psalm 72 ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ incorporating certain theological principles such as human sinfulness , equality , human value and the importance of the natural family for flourishing .
Since these principles are objectively true , government policies will only be effective if they are reflective of them .
Yet let me make myself very clear : This does not mean Jesus came to set up a theocracy .
He didn ’ t .
He established a church .
“ Christian state ” is an oxymoron .
It is a mistake for Christians to place their hope in government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to discard the responsibility Christians have to positively influence the political realm .
Jesus did not teach that faith and politics should be kept entirely separate .
They shouldn ’ t .
Since God is ruler over everything , our faith must inform our political beliefs and actions .
The crucial question is not if faith should inform politics , but how .
Sean McDowell , Ph.D. , is a professor of Christian Apologetics at Biola University , the National Spokesman for Summit Ministries , a best-selling author , popular speaker and part-time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twitter : @ sean_mcdowell and his blog : seanmcdowell.org .

When it comes to discussions about faith and politics, perhaps the most commonly quoted verse is Matthew 22:21: “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
The point seems clear: The government and church are distinct domains with their own spheres of authority. Since we are citizens of an earthly state, we ought to pay taxes to the government. Our duties as citizens of Heaven lie elsewhere, right? Shouldn’t faith and politics be kept separate?
The Political Teachings of Jesus
Such a conclusion misses the subtle political implications of what Jesus says.
In his excellent book Politics for Christians, Frank Beckwith explains:
He [Jesus] first asks whose image is on the coin. The answer, of course, is Caesar’s. But an unsaid question begs an answer: What (or who) has the image of God on it? That is, if the coin represents the authority of Caesar because it has his image on it, then we, human beings, are under the authority of God because we have his image on us (p. 64).
Jesus is brilliant. Coins bear the image of Caesar, and thus are under Caesar’s jurisdiction. But since human beings bear the image of God, they are under God’s jurisdiction. Caesar may have jurisdiction over governing, but since governments are comprised of people, God has jurisdiction over everything. Even Caesar himself bears the imago dei, and is therefore under God’s greater jurisdiction.
Citizens of Earth and Heaven
As citizens of both Earth and Heaven, Christians have obligations to the government and to God. Jesus is not teaching that we ought to live with divided loyalties to the government and church, but rather, that we have obligations to both.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
What does this mean practically speaking? Well, since government ought to be concerned with the well-being of its citizens, and citizens bear the image of God, Christians ought to be concerned that government policy successfully accomplish this end. The Bible holds both individuals and governments accountable for being just (Micah 6:8; Psalm 72).
Theology Matters
And this can only be accomplished by incorporating certain theological principles such as human sinfulness, equality, human value and the importance of the natural family for flourishing. Since these principles are objectively true, government policies will only be effective if they are reflective of them.
Yet let me make myself very clear: This does not mean Jesus came to set up a theocracy. He didn’t. He established a church. “Christian state” is an oxymoron.
It is a mistake for Christians to place their hope in government. And it is also a mistake to discard the responsibility Christians have to positively influence the political realm. Jesus did not teach that faith and politics should be kept entirely separate. They shouldn’t. Since God is ruler over everything, our faith must inform our political beliefs and actions.
The crucial question is not if faith should inform politics, but how.
Sean McDowell, Ph.D., is a professor of Christian Apologetics at Biola University, the National Spokesman for Summit Ministries, a best-selling author, popular speaker and part-time high school teacher. Follow him on Twitter: @sean_mcdowell and his blog: seanmcdowell.org.
Originally published at SeanMcDowell.org. Reprinted with permission.


thestream--2020-09-05--Know Your Enemy, and Don’t Underestimate Him

Our nation faces a crisis of public order and political legitimacy unprecedented since 1861 .
We need to face honestly and prayerfully the threats marching in our streets and colluding behind the scenes .
In any protracted struggle , we must seek the Golden Mean between brashness and defeatism .
On the one hand , you must emphasize the genuine advantages your side enjoys , to keep people ’ s hopes high enough that they continue resisting .
So they turn out to vote , for instance .
You at all costs don ’ t want them to sink into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hope is to surrender and beg for mercy .
I was working to boost our spirits in my column where I cited Matthew Banta , the crybaby would-be arsonist whom police busted in Wisconsin .
Remember him ?
He ’ s the Antifa rioter who wielded a flame-thrower , in the hope of burning down buildings .
The same guy , when cops busted him , collapsed in a fetal ball and started sobbing like an infant .
I contrasted him with the cool-headed Good Samaritan Kyle Rittenhouse .
He ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ putting out the fires they set , so they mobbed him and tried to kill him .
Even though he was prone on the ground , assailed with a wooden skateboard and fired at by the rioters , he save his own life by shooting his assailants , without injuring any innocents .
It would be comforting to think that the civil unrest the left has promised us , however we vote in November , would play out along such lines .
Antifa , as callow and cowardly cry-bullies , would push us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good people ” out there would step forward and coolly resist .
The Antifa thugs , after the first round of fighting , would crawl back to their mother ’ s basements to lick their wounds and whine on Facebook .
Maybe file lawsuits against people who shot at them in self-defense .
It ’ s a hopeful scenario , one that I ’ ll confess helps me to get to sleep at night .
But there ’ s another danger , that of overconfidence .
If we get smug , we might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be shocked when our efforts fail — or even blow up in our face .
Or we might naively think that someone else , someone out there besides ourselves , will do the heavy lifting .
And by the time we realize that there ’ s nobody here but us , it will already be too late .
We often hear the dangers of appeasement .
That ’ s mostly from people like the neoconservatives , who have political and financial interests that hinge on America throwing its weight around .
They speak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history .
But for most of them there ’ s only one moment in history and just a single lesson .
For them it is forever September 1938 , and we are always at Munich .
Any leader who counsels caution , compromise , or disengagement from foreign problems they cast as Neville Chamberlain .
That is ( on their reading of history ) , a timid appeaser who overestimates his enemies , and hands them huge advantages ( such as wealthy Czechoslovakia ) by betraying vital allies .
All in the hope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ words ) “ feeding the crocodile in the hope of getting eaten last.
” There are other moments in history , of course .
One that too few of our leaders still remember is August 1914 .
That ’ s when the leaders of a peaceful , prosperous Europe followed their short-term interests straight into an inferno that almost destroyed our civilization .
Each nation that marched into World War I was convulsed with enthusiasm and self-confidence .
Citizens cheered as their armies marched off to war , fully expectiing them to come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaders , or their people , or the press who led mass opinion , had any idea of the price each nation would pay , they would have been desperate to negotiate some compromise .
By the time the price was clear , though , it was far too late .
It ’ s in that spirit of trying to help each of us soberly assess the threats that we face that I ’ d like to present to you another Antifa warrior .
He ’ s not a laughable nitwit like the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the cold , devoted ideologue of the kind that “ trained Marxists ” in Black Lives Matter specialize in producing .
Men like him took over Russia in 1917 , China in 1949 , and Cambodia in 1975 — in each case seizing power and launching genocides .
In each case no “ mainstream ” analysts imagined the destruction right down the road .
Those who were far-sighted enough to issue warnings got written off as cranks .
We have no idea how many thousands more like this warrior are out there , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ funded by whoever is paying to fly these terrorists all across America , and put them up in hotels .
Meet , then , Michael Reinoehl .
He ’ s the Antifa soldier who in cold blood gunned down Trump supporter Aaron Joseph Danielson for taking part in a Patriot Prayer rally in Portland last week .
As The Sun reports : The shooting came as a caravan of Trump supporters clashed with Black Lives Matter protesters in Portland , as multiple arrests were made in the 95th night of demonstrations following the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the moment the man was shot at Southwest 3rd Avenue and Southwest Alder Street .
In one video taken from across the street , a man appears to yell : “ We got a Trumper right here.
” One man on a skateboard moves past as another man crosses by him .
A man then opens fire , shooting a gun twice as the shots ring out .
The gunman and another man nearby then sprint away from the scene .
He Tried to Fight Federal Marshals It wasn ’ t Democrat-led local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal marshals — whom Joe Biden would control if he wins in November .
When they confronted Reinoehl , he didn ’ t curl up in a ball and cry .
He came at them with a gun and threatened to kill them .
So the marshals shot him dead .
The liberal news source Vice did a flattering profile of Reinoehl after his killing of Danielson , but before authorities found him .
It turns out Reinoehl was an Army veteran , so he had significant combat training .
He had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black Lives Matter riots for several nights .
He characterized the Christian Trump supporters who appeared as “ far-right , ” a running theme in mainstream media accounts , offered without any evidence .
Reinoehl claimed that the shooting was in self-defense , because Danielson might have tried to “ knife ” him or his friend .
No knife was found on the scene .
Danielson had a handgun , which was lodged in his waistband , since he never drew it .
He did hold up a can of bear repellent mace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are charging Reinoehl with second-degree murder .
Hours before marshals found him and he forced them to shoot him , Reinoehl told the Vice reporter , “ I see a civil war right around the corner.
” God help us , and grant us peace .
But we must be prepared .
John Zmirak is a senior editor at The Stream , and author or co-author of ten books , including The Politically Incorrect Guide to Immigration and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Catholicism .
He is co-author with Jason Jones of “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
”

Our nation faces a crisis of public order and political legitimacy unprecedented since 1861. We need to face honestly and prayerfully the threats marching in our streets and colluding behind the scenes. In any protracted struggle, we must seek the Golden Mean between brashness and defeatism.
On the one hand, you must emphasize the genuine advantages your side enjoys, to keep people’s hopes high enough that they continue resisting. So they turn out to vote, for instance. You at all costs don’t want them to sink into despair, and decide that their only hope is to surrender and beg for mercy.
Don’t Panic, Don’t Despair
I was working to boost our spirits in my column where I cited Matthew Banta, the crybaby would-be arsonist whom police busted in Wisconsin. Remember him? He’s the Antifa rioter who wielded a flame-thrower, in the hope of burning down buildings. The same guy, when cops busted him, collapsed in a fetal ball and started sobbing like an infant.
I contrasted him with the cool-headed Good Samaritan Kyle Rittenhouse. He’s the young man who enraged Antifa mobs by putting out the fires they set, so they mobbed him and tried to kill him. Even though he was prone on the ground, assailed with a wooden skateboard and fired at by the rioters, he save his own life by shooting his assailants, without injuring any innocents.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
It would be comforting to think that the civil unrest the left has promised us, however we vote in November, would play out along such lines. Antifa, as callow and cowardly cry-bullies, would push us all too far. Then the “good people” out there would step forward and coolly resist. The Antifa thugs, after the first round of fighting, would crawl back to their mother’s basements to lick their wounds and whine on Facebook. Maybe file lawsuits against people who shot at them in self-defense.
It’s a hopeful scenario, one that I’ll confess helps me to get to sleep at night.
Don’t Underestimate the Enemy
But there’s another danger, that of overconfidence. If we get smug, we might strike too soon or too clumsily and be shocked when our efforts fail — or even blow up in our face. Or we might naively think that someone else, someone out there besides ourselves, will do the heavy lifting. And by the time we realize that there’s nobody here but us, it will already be too late.
We often hear the dangers of appeasement. That’s mostly from people like the neoconservatives, who have political and financial interests that hinge on America throwing its weight around. They speak in sonorous tones of the lessons of history. But for most of them there’s only one moment in history and just a single lesson. For them it is forever September 1938, and we are always at Munich.
We have no idea how many thousands more like Michael Reinoehl are out there, protected by blue-state mayors and governors, funded by whoever is paying to fly these terrorists all across America
Any leader who counsels caution, compromise, or disengagement from foreign problems they cast as Neville Chamberlain. That is (on their reading of history), a timid appeaser who overestimates his enemies, and hands them huge advantages (such as wealthy Czechoslovakia) by betraying vital allies. All in the hope of (in Churchill’s timeless words) “feeding the crocodile in the hope of getting eaten last.”
The Opposite of Appeasement
There are other moments in history, of course. One that too few of our leaders still remember is August 1914. That’s when the leaders of a peaceful, prosperous Europe followed their short-term interests straight into an inferno that almost destroyed our civilization. Each nation that marched into World War I was convulsed with enthusiasm and self-confidence. Citizens cheered as their armies marched off to war, fully expectiing them to come back victorious by Christmas. Had those leaders, or their people, or the press who led mass opinion, had any idea of the price each nation would pay, they would have been desperate to negotiate some compromise. By the time the price was clear, though, it was far too late.
It’s in that spirit of trying to help each of us soberly assess the threats that we face that I’d like to present to you another Antifa warrior. He’s not a laughable nitwit like the weeping arsonist. He seem more like the cold, devoted ideologue of the kind that “trained Marxists” in Black Lives Matter specialize in producing. Men like him took over Russia in 1917, China in 1949, and Cambodia in 1975 — in each case seizing power and launching genocides. In each case no “mainstream” analysts imagined the destruction right down the road. Those who were far-sighted enough to issue warnings got written off as cranks.
We have no idea how many thousands more like this warrior are out there, protected by blue-state mayors and governors, funded by whoever is paying to fly these terrorists all across America, and put them up in hotels.
Antifa’s First Combat Death
Meet, then, Michael Reinoehl. He’s the Antifa soldier who in cold blood gunned down Trump supporter Aaron Joseph Danielson for taking part in a Patriot Prayer rally in Portland last week. As The Sun reports:
The shooting came as a caravan of Trump supporters clashed with Black Lives Matter protesters in Portland, as multiple arrests were made in the 95th night of demonstrations following the death of George Floyd. Video shows the moment the man was shot at Southwest 3rd Avenue and Southwest Alder Street. In one video taken from across the street, a man appears to yell: “We got a Trumper right here.” One man on a skateboard moves past as another man crosses by him. A man then opens fire, shooting a gun twice as the shots ring out. The gunman and another man nearby then sprint away from the scene.
He Tried to Fight Federal Marshals
It wasn’t Democrat-led local police who tracked Reinoehl down, but federal marshals — whom Joe Biden would control if he wins in November. When they confronted Reinoehl, he didn’t curl up in a ball and cry. He came at them with a gun and threatened to kill them. So the marshals shot him dead.
The liberal news source Vice did a flattering profile of Reinoehl after his killing of Danielson, but before authorities found him.
It turns out Reinoehl was an Army veteran, so he had significant combat training. He had been serving as “armed security” for Black Lives Matter riots for several nights. He characterized the Christian Trump supporters who appeared as “far-right,” a running theme in mainstream media accounts, offered without any evidence.
Reinoehl claimed that the shooting was in self-defense, because Danielson might have tried to “knife” him or his friend. No knife was found on the scene. Danielson had a handgun, which was lodged in his waistband, since he never drew it. He did hold up a can of bear repellent mace just before Reinoehl shot him.
They Stalked the Trump Supporters
The Oregonian reports:
Reinoehl is seen hiding in an alcove, reaching into a pouch or waistband, as Danielson and a friend, Chandler Pappas, walk south on Third Avenue. Homicide Det. Rico Beniga wrote that Reinoehl “conceals himself, waits and watches,” as Danielson and Pappas walk by south on Third Avenue. After the two men pass, Reinoehl followed them, walking westbound across the street moments before the gunshots were fired, police said.
Police are charging Reinoehl with second-degree murder. Hours before marshals found him and he forced them to shoot him, Reinoehl told the Vice reporter, “I see a civil war right around the corner.”
God help us, and grant us peace. But we must be prepared.
John Zmirak is a senior editor at The Stream, and author or co-author of ten books, including The Politically Incorrect Guide to Immigration and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Catholicism. He is co-author with Jason Jones of “God, Guns, & the Government.”


thestream--2020-09-05--Should Faith Have Its Reasons?

Should Faith Have Its Reasons?

Not long ago , a cable TV show host , who is an outspoken atheist , had on his show a relatively well-known Christian pastor .
In a discussion about morality and faith , which was overall friendly , the host asked the pastor why “ faith ” is a good thing .
This appears innocent enough and is , I think , a good question .
I wonder how many of us would have a good answer for this question .
But the host didn ’ t leave it there .
Here is how the full question was asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Why is the purposeful suspension of critical thinking a good thing ?
” Now this is of course a leading question , since the host is attempting to force the pastor to answer the first question in light of the definition found in the second .
It can be difficult to give a straightforward answer to these sorts of complex questions .
So it is an unfair question but really it is only sort of unfair , given the way that many Christians talk about faith .
Many Christians seem quite happy to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that reason is incompatible with faith ) or a-rational ( that reason is harmful or irrelevant to faith ) .
Sometimes the thought seems to be that faith , in a way , takes over or fills the gap when our reasons run out .
Or , even worse , reason is detrimental for faith .
It ’ s like a seesaw .
The more reason one has , the less faith .
The more faith , the less reason .
Many Christians seem to embrace the idea that faith and reason are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rational pursuits on one hand ( science , political platforms , etc . )
and your faith pursuits on the other , and never the twain shall meet .
On this latter notion , evidence against ( or for ) the claims of Christianity are irrelevant since evidence has nothing to do with faith .
On my view , it is a very serious mistake to think of faith as irrational or a-rational .
However , I want to be clear at the outset that there can be an overreliance on reason , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its more academic sense .
No one needs a well worked out , logically sound argument with premises that entail a specific conclusion to have reason for belief .
You won ’ t last long if this is your criterion for rational belief .
If you find yourself standing in the way of oncoming traffic , please don ’ t try to formalize an argument before stepping aside !
The seeing of oncoming traffic should be reason enough .
It is also important to mention that one can be very rational in believing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to articulate what one ’ s reasons are .
I think most committed Christians have reasons to believe that Christianity is true .
Most Christians have things like religious experiences , answered prayers , an experience of God ’ s providence in a time of need , the testimonies of others of these things , and so on .
Moreover , the world testifies of God ’ s existence , in both its mere existence and its design .
If cornered , one may not be able to , on the spot , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t follow that one doesn ’ t have them .
On my view , Christians are far more rational in their faith than even they realize .
They just haven ’ t reflected carefully enough to be ready to give that defense .
So with our understanding of “ reason ” sufficiently broadened , I want to make the claim that to think reason either runs contrary to faith , floats freely of faith or that faith is an otherwise blind , reason-less pursuit are not biblical views .
I have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of an assignment , to come up with one example from Scripture of so-called “ blind faith ” and I goad them a bit by saying that I don ’ t think they will find even one instance … but good luck trying .
There is always at least one enthusiastic student who can not wait for the next time we meet and will offer a narrative such as Abraham offering up Isaac as a sacrifice , in Genesis 22:1-19 , as an example of blind faith .
The thought seems to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world not to go through with the sacrifice but chose to blindly place his faith in God .
Again , it is of course the case that Abraham did not have a formalized argument for sacrificing Isaac but is it true to say that he had no reason at all ?
Even though the command would have been horrifying , as a dad , it seems to me that Abraham made a very rational choice .
What reason did Abraham have ?
We should keep in mind that God spoke verbally to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) and told him to sacrifice his son .
By this time , Abraham had come to believe ( for good reasons ! )
that God is the one and only almighty God .
It wasn ’ t so long before this event that Abraham and Sarah had had Isaac .
Every child is of course a miracle but it is on a whole different level when Abraham is 100 years old and Sarah is in her early 90 ’ s .
This undoubtedly expanded Abraham ’ s understanding ( to say the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to do and even more importantly it expanded his understanding that God is steadfastly faithful to fulfill his covenant promise .
In a word , God proved himself to Abraham to be trustworthy or what we may call faith-worthy .
With all of this as backdrop , when the almighty God of the universe shakes the sound waves and tells you to do something , is it not eminently rational to act accordingly no matter how crazy the request sounds to us ?
It ’ s true that he had some competing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the reasons he had for going through with the sacrifice .
This is not unlike Peter ’ s cognitive situation on the Sea of Galilee .
In Matthew 14:25-32 , Peter demonstrates his faith in the person and power of Jesus by jumping out of a perfectly good boat and , as a result , Jesus enables him to walk on water .
But Peter starts looking around at some competing reasons suggesting walking on the water in a violent storm is not such a good idea and he quickly cedes his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not as if Peter lacked reasons for trusting Christ , given all that Peter had seen and come to believe about him .
His doubt was the irrational choice .
So it seems to me that these are examples of responses of reasonable faith ( or the lack thereof as it turns out for Peter ) rather than examples of blind faith .
One reason that I am so confident my students will never find any examples of blind faith is that I am not sure it is a coherent notion .
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or something for no reason at all ?
Take for example , the “ faith fall ” you maybe did or have seen in a high school youth group .
This is where one student stands on a table or chair with his or her back to a group of peers whose arms are interlocked together .
Without looking , the student is meant to fall into the arms of the student ’ s peers .
This is sometimes said to illustrate faith because the student who falls is not looking and has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her peers .
But how blind is this ?
I very much doubt any of us would take the fall unless we knew there were a pile of arms behind us .
In other words , the student has pretty good reasons for thinking that this will go well .
For it to be blind , you would need to just fall at some random moment in the hopes that a group of peers had strategically gathered behind you .
I don ’ t recommend this for your next youth meeting , nor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for our pursuits of God .
It is ALWAYS more rational to trust the God of the universe and submit ourselves to him !
Travis M. Dickinson , Ph.D. , is associate professor of philosophy and Christian apologetics at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary , in Fort Worth , Texas .
He writes at The Benefit of the Doubt blog .
Originally published at TravisDickinson.com .
Reprinted with permission .
A version of this article originally appeared on theologicalmatters.com which is no longer on the web .

Not long ago, a cable TV show host, who is an outspoken atheist, had on his show a relatively well-known Christian pastor. In a discussion about morality and faith, which was overall friendly, the host asked the pastor why “faith” is a good thing. This appears innocent enough and is, I think, a good question. I wonder how many of us would have a good answer for this question. But the host didn’t leave it there. Here is how the full question was asked: “Why is faith good? Why is the purposeful suspension of critical thinking a good thing?”
Now this is of course a leading question, since the host is attempting to force the pastor to answer the first question in light of the definition found in the second. It can be difficult to give a straightforward answer to these sorts of complex questions.
How Christians Talk About Faith
So it is an unfair question but really it is only sort of unfair, given the way that many Christians talk about faith. Many Christians seem quite happy to talk about faith as necessarily irrational (that reason is incompatible with faith) or a-rational (that reason is harmful or irrelevant to faith). Sometimes the thought seems to be that faith, in a way, takes over or fills the gap when our reasons run out. Or, even worse, reason is detrimental for faith. It’s like a seesaw. The more reason one has, the less faith. The more faith, the less reason.
Many Christians seem to embrace the idea that faith and reason are completely separate pursuits. There are your rational pursuits on one hand (science, political platforms, etc.) and your faith pursuits on the other, and never the twain shall meet. On this latter notion, evidence against (or for) the claims of Christianity are irrelevant since evidence has nothing to do with faith.
What is Reasonable Faith?
On my view, it is a very serious mistake to think of faith as irrational or a-rational. However, I want to be clear at the outset that there can be an overreliance on reason, especially if we think of reason in its more academic sense. No one needs a well worked out, logically sound argument with premises that entail a specific conclusion to have reason for belief. You won’t last long if this is your criterion for rational belief. If you find yourself standing in the way of oncoming traffic, please don’t try to formalize an argument before stepping aside! The seeing of oncoming traffic should be reason enough.
I am not sure [blind faith] is a coherent notion. What would that look like to trust someone or something for no reason at all?
It is also important to mention that one can be very rational in believing something even if one is not able to articulate what one’s reasons are. I think most committed Christians have reasons to believe that Christianity is true. Most Christians have things like religious experiences, answered prayers, an experience of God’s providence in a time of need, the testimonies of others of these things, and so on. Moreover, the world testifies of God’s existence, in both its mere existence and its design. If cornered, one may not be able to, on the spot, articulate these reasons, but it simply doesn’t follow that one doesn’t have them. On my view, Christians are far more rational in their faith than even they realize. They just haven’t reflected carefully enough to be ready to give that defense.
So with our understanding of “reason” sufficiently broadened, I want to make the claim that to think reason either runs contrary to faith, floats freely of faith or that faith is an otherwise blind, reason-less pursuit are not biblical views.
The Blind Faith Challenge
I have often challenged my students, as something of an assignment, to come up with one example from Scripture of so-called “blind faith” and I goad them a bit by saying that I don’t think they will find even one instance … but good luck trying. There is always at least one enthusiastic student who cannot wait for the next time we meet and will offer a narrative such as Abraham offering up Isaac as a sacrifice, in Genesis 22:1-19, as an example of blind faith.
The thought seems to be that Abraham had all the reason in the world not to go through with the sacrifice but chose to blindly place his faith in God. Again, it is of course the case that Abraham did not have a formalized argument for sacrificing Isaac but is it true to say that he had no reason at all? Even though the command would have been horrifying, as a dad, it seems to me that Abraham made a very rational choice.
Abraham’s Reasons
What reason did Abraham have?
We should keep in mind that God spoke verbally to Abraham (give that one a second) and told him to sacrifice his son. By this time, Abraham had come to believe (for good reasons!) that God is the one and only almighty God. It wasn’t so long before this event that Abraham and Sarah had had Isaac. Every child is of course a miracle but it is on a whole different level when Abraham is 100 years old and Sarah is in her early 90’s.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
This undoubtedly expanded Abraham’s understanding (to say the least!) of what God is able to do and even more importantly it expanded his understanding that God is steadfastly faithful to fulfill his covenant promise. In a word, God proved himself to Abraham to be trustworthy or what we may call faith-worthy.
With all of this as backdrop, when the almighty God of the universe shakes the sound waves and tells you to do something, is it not eminently rational to act accordingly no matter how crazy the request sounds to us? It’s true that he had some competing reasons, but they pale in comparison to the reasons he had for going through with the sacrifice.
Peter and a Perfectly Good Boat
This is not unlike Peter’s cognitive situation on the Sea of Galilee. In Matthew 14:25-32, Peter demonstrates his faith in the person and power of Jesus by jumping out of a perfectly good boat and, as a result, Jesus enables him to walk on water. But Peter starts looking around at some competing reasons suggesting walking on the water in a violent storm is not such a good idea and he quickly cedes his trust away from Christ.
It is not as if Peter lacked reasons for trusting Christ, given all that Peter had seen and come to believe about him. His doubt was the irrational choice. So it seems to me that these are examples of responses of reasonable faith (or the lack thereof as it turns out for Peter) rather than examples of blind faith.
The Incoherence of Blind Faith
One reason that I am so confident my students will never find any examples of blind faith is that I am not sure it is a coherent notion. What would that look like to trust someone or something for no reason at all? Take for example, the “faith fall” you maybe did or have seen in a high school youth group. This is where one student stands on a table or chair with his or her back to a group of peers whose arms are interlocked together. Without looking, the student is meant to fall into the arms of the student’s peers. This is sometimes said to illustrate faith because the student who falls is not looking and has to “blindly” trust his or her peers.
But how blind is this? I very much doubt any of us would take the fall unless we knew there were a pile of arms behind us. In other words, the student has pretty good reasons for thinking that this will go well. For it to be blind, you would need to just fall at some random moment in the hopes that a group of peers had strategically gathered behind you. I don’t recommend this for your next youth meeting, nor do I recommend understanding faith as reason-less for our pursuits of God.
It is ALWAYS more rational to trust the God of the universe and submit ourselves to him!
Travis M. Dickinson, Ph.D., is associate professor of philosophy and Christian apologetics at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, in Fort Worth, Texas. He writes at The Benefit of the Doubt blog.
Originally published at TravisDickinson.com. Reprinted with permission. A version of this article originally appeared on theologicalmatters.com which is no longer on the web.


thestream--2020-09-05--We May Disagree on Our Beliefs, But We’re Still Human

Skeptics and atheists like to charge Christians with not thinking things through as we should .
We ’ re not curious about other beliefs .
We hardly think deeply into how our own could be true .
I ’ ve got the same sort of question for atheists .
They ’ ve got serious issues they ’ ve never dealt with .
I ran into that some time ago on my Thinking Christian blog .
A commenter there named Benjamin Cain said the God Christians worship is a “ human-like , ” “ monstrous , ” “ psychopathic , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” This God is a wizard-like figure waving the equivalent of a “ magic wand.
” Cain is not alone ; Richard Dawkins led the way in The God Delusion .
Plenty of others beat Dawkins to it , though not so famously .
But I wonder whether Cain realizes this isn ’ t really a statement about God ; it ’ s about Christians .
He must think that either we are content to follow a God of that character , or else we don ’ t realize our god is like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if Cain is right , and we choose to follow him .
( Don ’ t worry , there ’ s a reason I ’ m using the lower case for “ god ” here : This isn ’ t the God in whom we believe . )
Now let me pose the question skeptics should pay more attention to : Is this view of Christians even remotely believable ?
Have Christians Missed This “ Truth ” About God All These Years ?
Let ’ s take these options in reverse order .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ we don ’ t realize that ’ s the kind of god he is .
Now , I ’ d call that strange .
It would mean that we ’ ve missed it for centuries .
We ’ ve missed it in all the libraries ’ worth of debate , dialogue , and discussion we ’ ve carried out on the Bible .
We ’ ve missed it in the hundreds of commentaries we ’ ve written in every language .
We ’ ve missed it in millions , no doubt , of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
How likely is that ?
How could Jerome have missed it when he translated the Bible into Latin ?
Was Augustine too dense to catch it ?
How about Aquinas ?
Galileo , who held to his belief in Scripture even when disputing a very small segment of its meaning ?
Kepler ?
Brahe ?
Berkeley ?
Newton ?
Faraday ?
Were they all idiots ?
Did it take Cain and his contemporaries to catch it ?
Do we owe them a debt of gratitude for showing how subhuman we ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exactly what this is : It ’ s viewing Christians as less than human .
Are Christians Content With a God Like This ?
Cain has only one other choice .
We must know what an awful god we follow , as I ’ ve just shown , yet we do it anyway , so it must be because we like him that way .
But that , too , is painfully , obviously wrong .
I don ’ t just mean it ’ s disgusting , though it is .
I mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cain doesn ’ t know this , but for Christians down through the centuries , to “ follow ” our God has meant to imitate his character .
That was Mother Teresa ’ s stated life intention .
It was Martin Luther King , Jr. ’ s too .
Same with Joan of Arc .
Florence Nightingale .
Dietrich Bonhoeffer .
Clara Barton .
William Booth .
The converted John Newton .
William Wilberforce .
Francis of Assisi .
St. Patrick .
Ambrose , Bishop of Milan .
Maybe they missed the memo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
( Maybe they were subhuman idiots , in other words ? )
Were Christians following this “ awful god ” when they became world leaders in expanding education , literacy , and medicine ?
Is that why Christians have led the way from the very beginning in caring for people , not just in their own communities and countries , but in every culture of the world ?
Doctors Without Borders may not be a Christian program , but it ’ s following a trail blazed by Christian missionaries .
The same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Even today , Christian humanitarian giving outstrips non-Christians ’ giving , at least in the U.S I don ’ t mean to imply that Christians are perfect in following God ’ s way of self-sacrificial love .
This isn ’ t about perfection .
It ’ s about being at least human , not subhuman .
I know skeptics disagree with some of our major moral positions , but they have to grant that Christianity has done ( at least ! )
more good in the world than we ’ d have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we believe in .
Cain really only has two options , and they ’ re both obviously wrong .
So that should raise questions in his mind , as well as other skeptics ’ , if they ’ re thinking about it at all .
Not every skeptic thinks what Cain thinks about God , but most skeptics have problems with Christianity at some point or other .
And a lot of them jump to conclusions with it , when they ought to display the same curiosity they want Christians to display .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , maybe they , too , could ask .
Maybe something like this : “ I don ’ t get you Christians .
If my view of Christianity is true , then it seems like you must be idiots to believe in it ; but I don ’ t see you being that stupid in your work , your families , your education .
What gives ?
” That ’ s just one specific suggestion .
Overall , the principle is , treat one another as actual human beings , not as categories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Try to learn .
Hold your position if you think it ’ s right , but don ’ t treat the other side as less than human .
And Now At Last : What This Whole Article Was Really About That ’ s my suggestion for skeptics .
And now , since I ’ m guessing many of my fellow believers have read all the way through this , enjoying this criticism of atheism , I can finally tell you why I really wrote this .
Skeptics aren ’ t likely to listen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Christians might , though .
So I suggest you read this through again , asking yourself , “ Is there any way I ’ m making a similar mistake , in my dealings with non-believers ?
” I ’ ll be honest — I see it happening .
A lot .
Mostly online , of course ; we wouldn ’ t do it in person .
I still think atheism is wrong , but I believe atheists are human , made in the image of God , believers and unbelievers alike .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ one another as human beings , and treat each other that way .
Tom Gilson ( @ TomGilsonAuthor ) is a senior editor with The Stream and the author or editor of six books , including the recently released Too Good To Be False : How Jesus ’ Incomparable Character Reveals His Reality .

Skeptics and atheists like to charge Christians with not thinking things through as we should. We’re not curious about other beliefs. We hardly think deeply into how our own could be true. I’ve got the same sort of question for atheists. They’ve got serious issues they’ve never dealt with.
I ran into that some time ago on my Thinking Christian blog. A commenter there named Benjamin Cain said the God Christians worship is a “human-like,” “monstrous,” “psychopathic,” “jealous, irrational, sadistic tyrant.” This God is a wizard-like figure waving the equivalent of a “magic wand.” Cain is not alone; Richard Dawkins led the way in The God Delusion. Plenty of others beat Dawkins to it, though not so famously.
But I wonder whether Cain realizes this isn’t really a statement about God; it’s about Christians. He must think that either we are content to follow a God of that character, or else we don’t realize our god is like that. This is our god, if Cain is right, and we choose to follow him. (Don’t worry, there’s a reason I’m using the lower case for “god” here: This isn’t the God in whom we believe.)
Now let me pose the question skeptics should pay more attention to: Is this view of Christians even remotely believable?
Have Christians Missed This “Truth” About God All These Years?
Let’s take these options in reverse order. Maybe Christians follow this horrific god because we don’t realize that’s the kind of god he is.
Now, I’d call that strange. It would mean that we’ve missed it for centuries. We’ve missed it in all the libraries’ worth of debate, dialogue, and discussion we’ve carried out on the Bible. We’ve missed it in the hundreds of commentaries we’ve written in every language. We’ve missed it in millions, no doubt, of sermons and homilies on the entire Bible.
How likely is that? How could Jerome have missed it when he translated the Bible into Latin? Was Augustine too dense to catch it? How about Aquinas? Galileo, who held to his belief in Scripture even when disputing a very small segment of its meaning? Kepler? Brahe? Berkeley? Newton? Faraday?
Were they all idiots? Did it take Cain and his contemporaries to catch it? Do we owe them a debt of gratitude for showing how subhuman we’ve always been? Because that’s exactly what this is: It’s viewing Christians as less than human.
Are Christians Content With a God Like This?
Cain has only one other choice. We must know what an awful god we follow, as I’ve just shown, yet we do it anyway, so it must be because we like him that way.
But that, too, is painfully, obviously wrong. I don’t just mean it’s disgusting, though it is. I mean it’s obviously false.
Maybe Cain doesn’t know this, but for Christians down through the centuries, to “follow” our God has meant to imitate his character. That was Mother Teresa’s stated life intention. It was Martin Luther King, Jr.’s too. Same with Joan of Arc. Florence Nightingale. Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Clara Barton. William Booth. The converted John Newton. William Wilberforce. Francis of Assisi. St. Patrick. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Maybe they missed the memo about what kind of god they followed? (Maybe they were subhuman idiots, in other words?)
Were Christians following this “awful god” when they became world leaders in expanding education, literacy, and medicine? Is that why Christians have led the way from the very beginning in caring for people, not just in their own communities and countries, but in every culture of the world? Doctors Without Borders may not be a Christian program, but it’s following a trail blazed by Christian missionaries. The same goes for virtually all international humanitarian aid. Even today, Christian humanitarian giving outstrips non-Christians’ giving, at least in the U.S.
Decency, Not Perfection
I don’t mean to imply that Christians are perfect in following God’s way of self-sacrificial love. This isn’t about perfection. It’s about being at least human, not subhuman.
I know skeptics disagree with some of our major moral positions, but they have to grant that Christianity has done (at least!) more good in the world than we’d have done following the beastly god they think we believe in.
Cain really only has two options, and they’re both obviously wrong. So that should raise questions in his mind, as well as other skeptics’, if they’re thinking about it at all.
Not every skeptic thinks what Cain thinks about God, but most skeptics have problems with Christianity at some point or other. And a lot of them jump to conclusions with it, when they ought to display the same curiosity they want Christians to display. Instead of telling us what we believe, maybe they, too, could ask. Maybe something like this: “I don’t get you Christians. If my view of Christianity is true, then it seems like you must be idiots to believe in it; but I don’t see you being that stupid in your work, your families, your education. What gives?”
That’s just one specific suggestion. Overall, the principle is, treat one another as actual human beings, not as categories. Use respect. Ask questions. Try to learn. Hold your position if you think it’s right, but don’t treat the other side as less than human.
And Now At Last: What This Whole Article Was Really About
That’s my suggestion for skeptics. And now, since I’m guessing many of my fellow believers have read all the way through this, enjoying this criticism of atheism, I can finally tell you why I really wrote this.
Skeptics aren’t likely to listen to a columnist here at The Stream. Christians might, though. So I suggest you read this through again, asking yourself, “Is there any way I’m making a similar mistake, in my dealings with non-believers?” I’ll be honest — I see it happening. A lot. Mostly online, of course; we wouldn’t do it in person.
I still think atheism is wrong, but I believe atheists are human, made in the image of God, believers and unbelievers alike. We should all be able to regard one another as human beings, and treat each other that way.
Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) is a senior editor with The Stream and the author or editor of six books, including the recently released Too Good To Be False: How Jesus’ Incomparable Character Reveals His Reality.


thestream--2020-09-05--Why the Problem of Evil is Still a Problem — For Skeptics, Too

God has a problem .
Skeptics and atheists love to point it out .
They claim there is evil in the world that God either can ’ t destroy or won ’ t destroy .
If he can ’ t destroy it , then he ’ s not all powerful .
If he won ’ t destroy it , then he ’ s not all good .
Either way , that ’ s not a God they can believe in .
Responses to the Problem of Evil This challenge is nothing new .
It ’ s been around for millennia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Christians have typically offered a theodicy — a theological explanation of why God allows evil .
For example , some say evil is a necessary consequence of human free will , or that God allows evil to accomplish a greater good or that God uses evil to mold us into better people .
Non-believers rarely find these theodicies compelling .
I ’ m not surprised .
No matter how logical a theodicy might sound , the amount of misery is existentially too grievous to accept .
How can a good and powerful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person ’ s 80-year existence ?
Skeptics find the problem of evil so repugnant and our solutions so hollow because they refuse to accept a fundamental reality that every Christian believes in : life after death .
It ’ s an essential truth that ’ s part of a coherent Christian worldview .
Because believers accept this truth , the solution to the problem of evil is palatable .
But because skeptics reject this truth , the solution to the problem of evil remains unconscionable .
Christian doctrine teaches that our existence extends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s people will live forever in paradise , free from evil , pain and suffering .
If you don ’ t believe that , the problem of evil remains an intractable problem .
Even Christians have a hard time truly internalizing the reality of an eternal paradise after their death .
When they do , however , it makes theodicies more convincing .
The apostle Paul , for example , endured incredible evil , suffering and pain .
In his letter to the church in Corinth , Paul describes how he went without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He was imprisoned , flogged , beaten , pelted with stones , shipwrecked three times and received 39 lashes ( it ’ s thought that 40 lashes would kill you ) on five different occasions ( 2 Cor .
11:23–27 ) .
Paul ’ s misery surpassed what most people endure in a lifetime .
Yet , in the same letter , he describes his horrific experiences as “ momentary , light affliction ” ( 2 Cor .
4:17 ) .
First , it ’ s remarkable he describes his experience as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is going on in Paul ’ s mind to enable him to downplay the significance of so much evil .
Second , he describes his plight as “ momentary.
” It does , in fact , occur only for a relative moment .
He says his trials produce “ an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison.
” Notice that Paul compares the evil he endures in this life to a future paradise that will last an eternity .
Lutheran pastor and theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer shared Paul ’ s perspective .
His @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he suffered great evil for it .
On the last day of his imprisonment , he delivered a devotional on Isaiah 53 for his fellow inmates .
Before being led away for execution , he told a fellow prisoner , “ This is the end , but for me it is the beginning of life.
” Bonhoeffer was later stripped naked and hanged .
Bonhoeffer understood not only the fleeting nature of his earthly life but also the eternal state of the next .
Though he experienced evil during his earthly days , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eternity with God that would begin soon after his physical death .
What Bonhoeffer understood is the truth that skeptics reject .
It ’ s almost impossible to put the problem of evil into perspective if you believe we only exist from the cradle to the grave .
Even a meager amount of evil during an 80-year life can seem unfair and unnecessary .
If our earthly existence is all there is , a theodicy will seem like a poor excuse for a capricious God who is impotent to prevent evil .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the essential truth that our existence extends beyond our physical death .
No amount of evil , pain or suffering in a human lifetime will overwhelm you if it ’ s compared to an endless paradise .
Even if you experience evil for 50 years , how will that compare after you ’ ve lived for 5,000 years without a single tear ?
What about after 5 million years in a perfect paradise ?
No matter the evil in your life , it will dwindle into insignificance as you compare it to an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eternity .
I get it that skeptics reject that truth — a future eternal state .
But if you ’ re going to demand a solution to the problem of evil , you need to consider the coherence of the Christian worldview .
You can ’ t presuppose a story about a God who allows evil but then deny the story ’ s ending — because in the story , God solved the problem of evil 2,000 years ago .
If we accept that solution , the only evil we will face is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ existence .
After that , evil will never touch us .
We won ’ t even hear it whimper .
It will be vanquished from existence .
Alan Shlemon is an author and speaker for Stand to Reason .
He trains Christians to share their convictions in a persuasive , yet gracious manner .
He has been a guest on both radio and television , and has spoken to thousands of adults and students across the country at churches , conferences , and college campuses .

God has a problem. Skeptics and atheists love to point it out. They claim there is evil in the world that God either can’t destroy or won’t destroy. If he can’t destroy it, then he’s not all powerful. If he won’t destroy it, then he’s not all good. Either way, that’s not a God they can believe in.
Responses to the Problem of Evil
This challenge is nothing new. It’s been around for millennia, but so have many thoughtful responses. Christians have typically offered a theodicy — a theological explanation of why God allows evil. For example, some say evil is a necessary consequence of human free will, or that God allows evil to accomplish a greater good or that God uses evil to mold us into better people.
Non-believers rarely find these theodicies compelling. I’m not surprised. No matter how logical a theodicy might sound, the amount of misery is existentially too grievous to accept. How can a good and powerful God allow so much evil in one person’s 80-year existence?
Life After Death
Skeptics find the problem of evil so repugnant and our solutions so hollow because they refuse to accept a fundamental reality that every Christian believes in: life after death. It’s an essential truth that’s part of a coherent Christian worldview. Because believers accept this truth, the solution to the problem of evil is palatable. But because skeptics reject this truth, the solution to the problem of evil remains unconscionable.
“This is the end, but for me it is the beginning of life.”
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Christian doctrine teaches that our existence extends past our physical death. God’s people will live forever in paradise, free from evil, pain and suffering. If you don’t believe that, the problem of evil remains an intractable problem. Even Christians have a hard time truly internalizing the reality of an eternal paradise after their death. When they do, however, it makes theodicies more convincing.
The Apostle Paul
The apostle Paul, for example, endured incredible evil, suffering and pain. In his letter to the church in Corinth, Paul describes how he went without food, water, sleep and clothes. He was imprisoned, flogged, beaten, pelted with stones, shipwrecked three times and received 39 lashes (it’s thought that 40 lashes would kill you) on five different occasions (2 Cor. 11:23–27). Paul’s misery surpassed what most people endure in a lifetime. Yet, in the same letter, he describes his horrific experiences as “momentary, light affliction” (2 Cor. 4:17).
First, it’s remarkable he describes his experience as a “light” affliction. Something is going on in Paul’s mind to enable him to downplay the significance of so much evil. Second, he describes his plight as “momentary.” It does, in fact, occur only for a relative moment. He says his trials produce “an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison.” Notice that Paul compares the evil he endures in this life to a future paradise that will last an eternity.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Lutheran pastor and theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer shared Paul’s perspective. His anti-Nazi dissidence got him arrested, and he suffered great evil for it. On the last day of his imprisonment, he delivered a devotional on Isaiah 53 for his fellow inmates. Before being led away for execution, he told a fellow prisoner, “This is the end, but for me it is the beginning of life.” Bonhoeffer was later stripped naked and hanged.
Bonhoeffer understood not only the fleeting nature of his earthly life but also the eternal state of the next. Though he experienced evil during his earthly days, these harms were dwarfed by the blissful eternity with God that would begin soon after his physical death.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
What Bonhoeffer understood is the truth that skeptics reject. It’s almost impossible to put the problem of evil into perspective if you believe we only exist from the cradle to the grave. Even a meager amount of evil during an 80-year life can seem unfair and unnecessary. If our earthly existence is all there is, a theodicy will seem like a poor excuse for a capricious God who is impotent to prevent evil.
Evil Will Be Vanquished
But the calculus changes completely when you accept the essential truth that our existence extends beyond our physical death. No amount of evil, pain or suffering in a human lifetime will overwhelm you if it’s compared to an endless paradise. Even if you experience evil for 50 years, how will that compare after you’ve lived for 5,000 years without a single tear? What about after 5 million years in a perfect paradise? No matter the evil in your life, it will dwindle into insignificance as you compare it to an increasingly longer blissful existence that stretches into eternity.
I get it that skeptics reject that truth — a future eternal state. But if you’re going to demand a solution to the problem of evil, you need to consider the coherence of the Christian worldview. You can’t presuppose a story about a God who allows evil but then deny the story’s ending — because in the story, God solved the problem of evil 2,000 years ago. If we accept that solution, the only evil we will face is what we are allotted during our earthly existence. After that, evil will never touch us. We won’t even hear it whimper. It will be vanquished from existence.
Alan Shlemon is an author and speaker for Stand to Reason. He trains Christians to share their convictions in a persuasive, yet gracious manner. He has been a guest on both radio and television, and has spoken to thousands of adults and students across the country at churches, conferences, and college campuses.
Originally published at STR.org. Reprinted with permission.


thestream--2020-09-06--You Gotta Have Faith

You Gotta Have Faith

I used to be one of those people who argued with the talking heads on television .
I was a political junkie from my earliest days , so there I would be on a Saturday morning , thanking Bill Buckley on the other side of the screen for correcting his Firing Line guest ’ s wayward thinking or telling Eleanor Clift on “ The McLaughlin Group ” that there is another way to think about things ( as if she didn ’ t know that on her own , or , well , could hear me ) .
Over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot more peaceful about things and watch a lot less television .
These days , with people seeming to treat politics like a sport — or a never-ending reality TV show — it ’ s good to remind yourself there still is a lot more to life .
( Also , there is the fact that I have a few platforms now where I can communicate an opinion or insight to actual people reading .
Thank you . )
The Abuse of Religion in Politics But lately , I ’ ve reverted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ typically on my phone now .
And it ’ s principally in response the use and abuse of religion in politics .
I love my Catholic faith , and over the years have sat at Mass alongside people with whom I don ’ t agree on some fundamental things .
For a period of time in college , I would frequently be at Mass with Ted Kennedy at St. Joseph ’ s on Capitol Hill .
He would quietly sit in the back and not go up to Communion .
I always prayed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and respected the humility on display that wasn ’ t necessarily what I ’ d see on the Senate floor or at a campaign rally .
The point is , faith is the most important thing alongside life and family , and so , of course , it ’ s important to politics .
But we had better be careful about trying to conform God to our political image .
God is bigger and better than Donald Trump , Joe Biden or any political party , than everything of this world .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been laced with anxiety for many .
When Joe Biden decided to quote Pope John Paul II , I found myself reverting to my screen-yelling days .
The only healthy response is to re-read John Paul II ’ s “ Gospel of Life.
” In it , he quoted the Second Vatican Council : “ Whatever is opposed to life itself , such as any type of murder , genocide , abortion , euthanasia , or willful self-destruction … whatever insults human dignity , such as subhuman living conditions , arbitrary imprisonment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the selling of women and children ; as well as disgraceful working conditions , where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons ; all these things and others like them … poison human society , and they do more harm to those who practice them than to those who suffer from the injury .
Moreover , they are a supreme dishonor to the Creator.
” And , yes , that quote includes deportation among its list of evils .
To be pro-life is about more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quote JPII to me without challenging the Democratic party and the nation on abortion when you are in the position to do so .
Catholics and all our fellow Christians and people of faith must do better in the public square .
It ’ s a matter of integrity and we owe it to the common good .
The Darkening of the Conscience At the end of the aforementioned section of “ Evangelium Vitae , ” JPII writes : “ not only is the fact of the destruction of so many human lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ final stage extremely grave and disturbing , but no less grave and disturbing is the fact that conscience itself , darkened as it were by such widespread conditioning , is finding it increasingly difficult to distinguish between good and evil in what concerns the basic value of human life.
” See how that ’ s where we are today ?
We need to stop hiding behind euphemisms and bombast .
Pope John Paul II ’ s words are a road to healing and renewal .
They show why faith is important to politics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ angels , not to make God a campaign slogan .
Kathryn Jean Lopez is senior fellow at the National Review Institute , editor-at-large of National Review magazine and author of the new book A Year With the Mystics : Visionary Wisdom for Daily Living .
She is also chair of Cardinal Dolan ’ s pro-life commission in New York .
She can be contacted at klopez @ nationalreview.com .

I used to be one of those people who argued with the talking heads on television. I was a political junkie from my earliest days, so there I would be on a Saturday morning, thanking Bill Buckley on the other side of the screen for correcting his Firing Line guest’s wayward thinking or telling Eleanor Clift on “The McLaughlin Group” that there is another way to think about things (as if she didn’t know that on her own, or, well, could hear me).
Over the years, I’ve gotten a lot more peaceful about things and watch a lot less television. These days, with people seeming to treat politics like a sport — or a never-ending reality TV show — it’s good to remind yourself there still is a lot more to life. (Also, there is the fact that I have a few platforms now where I can communicate an opinion or insight to actual people reading. Thank you.)
The Abuse of Religion in Politics
But lately, I’ve reverted to hollering at the screen again — albeit typically on my phone now. And it’s principally in response the use and abuse of religion in politics. I love my Catholic faith, and over the years have sat at Mass alongside people with whom I don’t agree on some fundamental things. For a period of time in college, I would frequently be at Mass with Ted Kennedy at St. Joseph’s on Capitol Hill. He would quietly sit in the back and not go up to Communion. I always prayed for him when I saw him, and respected the humility on display that wasn’t necessarily what I’d see on the Senate floor or at a campaign rally.
The point is, faith is the most important thing alongside life and family, and so, of course, it’s important to politics. But we had better be careful about trying to conform God to our political image. God is bigger and better than Donald Trump, Joe Biden or any political party, than everything of this world.
Yelling at Joe Biden
The pandemic and unrest of the recent months has been laced with anxiety for many. When Joe Biden decided to quote Pope John Paul II, I found myself reverting to my screen-yelling days. The only healthy response is to re-read John Paul II’s “Gospel of Life.” In it, he quoted the Second Vatican Council: “Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or willful self-destruction … whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others like them … poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practice them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonor to the Creator.”
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
And, yes, that quote includes deportation among its list of evils. To be pro-life is about more than opposing abortion. Don’t quote JPII to me without challenging the Democratic party and the nation on abortion when you are in the position to do so. Catholics and all our fellow Christians and people of faith must do better in the public square. It’s a matter of integrity and we owe it to the common good.
The Darkening of the Conscience
At the end of the aforementioned section of “Evangelium Vitae,” JPII writes: “not only is the fact of the destruction of so many human lives still to be born or in their final stage extremely grave and disturbing, but no less grave and disturbing is the fact that conscience itself, darkened as it were by such widespread conditioning, is finding it increasingly difficult to distinguish between good and evil in what concerns the basic value of human life.” See how that’s where we are today? We need to stop hiding behind euphemisms and bombast.
Pope John Paul II’s words are a road to healing and renewal. They show why faith is important to politics — to call us to our better angels, not to make God a campaign slogan.
Kathryn Jean Lopez is senior fellow at the National Review Institute, editor-at-large of National Review magazine and author of the new book A Year With the Mystics: Visionary Wisdom for Daily Living. She is also chair of Cardinal Dolan’s pro-life commission in New York. She can be contacted at [email protected].