When Wearing a Dark Suit With a Red Tie Outside a New York Court Room Says, "I'm a Hypocrite"

 "I don't find anything unusual about a fundamentalist theocrat who thinks the Bible is the supreme law of the land attending the legal proceedings of an adjudicated sexual assailant and world class fraudster and con-man for cooking the books to to cover up hush money payments he made to a porn star to conceal his adulterous affair.  Do you?"  Maryland Representative Jaime Raskin in The Beast

Do I find it unusual that a fundamentalist theocrat, a conservative, Evangelical Christian, and Republican, is choosing political expediency and partisan loyalty over patriotic American values and over the doctrine, theology and practice of his own Christian faith?  

No. I don't find it unusual. It's typical of the kind of hypocrisy demonstrated by fundamentalist, conservative, Evangelical Christians who are elected to public office. 

But I do find it deplorable.

This particular Speaker of the House is turning out to be the one who typifies the dishonesty, duplicity, and lack of moral character that has become the trademark of both American Evangelical Christianity and of the Republican party and its politics that has moved to completely undermine the Constitution and government of, by and for the people, and replace it with some form of Christian nationalist "theocracy."  I put that in quotes, because there is considerable doubt that what they would come up with would have anything to do with any god, much less the one whom they claim to believe in, and follow, identified by the writers of the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible.  

Just a few days ago, he survived a challenge by fellow Evangelical Christian Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Green to his leadership of the House.  He survived because Democrats refused to support her motion to vacate the speakership.  But instead of acknowledging their support, and thanking them for helping him continue to lead in the direction of those things in House business they both consider important and bi-partisan, he dons a red tie, and shoots over to New York City to support a corrupt former President, who exhibits characteristics and morals that are diametrically opposite of those of the Christian faith, as defined in the Bible he claims to believe is inerrant and infallible, who committed adultery against three wives, marrying, against Biblical precept, two women with whom he committed adultery, who has already been convicted of one sexual assault, out of the thirteen of which he's been accused, who is on trial for a whole list of fradulent acts to cover up an affair he had with a porn star while his third wife was home taking care of their newborn infant.  

The suit and tie he wore that matches Trump's typical dress is screaming out the message, "I am a hypocrite and my actions are deplorable!"  

Trump Has Made a Mockery of Those Evangelical Christians Who Support Him 

Trump has made a point, on multiple occasions, of denying the very core principle of Christian conversion, which is acknowledging the conviction of one's sinful nature conservative Christians claim is taught in the scriptire as having come directly from the Holy Spirit of God himself.  Trump has openly and publicly denied having done anything requiring God's forgiveness, in front of some of the more prominent Evangelical leaders who endorse him in spite of this blasphemous denial.  He brands himself as worldly, indulging in and wearing immorality proudly, as a badge of personal honor.  He claims to have had "hundreds" of affairs with women who, as he proudly declared in the widely played Access Hollywood video, let him "grab them by the pussy" because they can't resist a celebrity.  

His corruption in his business dealings boggles the mind.  The witnesses called to testify in the E. Jean Carroll trial, and in this one, are all people whom he befriended for the purpose of using, gutting their character and integrity in the process, if they had any to begin with, and then are discarded like trash after he gets the benefit of their service.  His character cannot be described by a single word found in any Biblical description of the character that is planted in the soul of someone who experiences the conviction and repentance of Christian conversion, as Evangelical Christians claim to believe.  

Those Evangelical Christians, especially those who are in positions of leadership, find themselves denying the Christian gospel in multiple ways in order to demonstrate their support and loyalty to Trump.  They've come up with some twisted, pseudo-Christian, pseudo-biblical cliches to attempt to justify and excuse their blasphemy, such as "God sometimes uses evil people to accomplish his purposes," which is a back-handed admission that Trump is evil, or the infamous "I'm not electing a pastor in chief, I'm electing a commander in chief," as if the Bible somehow teaches that Christians who are in a position to choose their own national leaders can use their vote to pick someone who doesn't reflect their own moral values, and God's just fine with that.  

That's deplorable.  And there's Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, a self-proclaimed Evangelical Christian, standing outside that New York courthouse sporting a red tie.  Thank you, Speaker Johnson, for telling us all, loud and clear, that you are a hypocrite, who you serve and where your real loyalties lie.  

Hypocrisy?  Well, everything that Evangelical Christian leaders, many of whom are still in leadership, said about President Clinton is still on the record, isn't it?

Why Are American Christians Ignoring Their Fellow Christian Brothers and Sisters in Gaza and the West Bank?

Christians in Palestine Ask Why US Believers Ignore Them 

"Western attitudes toward Palestine-Israel suffer from a glaring double standard that humanizes Israeli Jews while insisting on dehumanizing Palestinians and whitewashing their suffering."--Open Letter From Palestinian Christians to Western Church Leaders and Theologians, Leaders of Bethlehem Bible College, October 2023

The Greek Orthodox Church of St. Porphyrius, in Gaza City, a historic building dating back to 1150, the oldest and largest Christian church in the city, now lies in ruins, after an Israeli bombardment flattened the neighborhood.  The Israeli military claimed the bomb hit on the church was "an unintentional result of its fighter jets hitting a command and control center involved in attacks on Israel."  In spite of the randomness of this incident, it characterizes much of the conflict in the Middle East from the perspective of conservative, American Evangelicals.  

In Evangelical eschatology, the study of the "end times", the view that prevails is a relatively recent development in doctrine and theology, known as Premillennial Dispensationalism.  This perspective is the result of some of the more common errors made by American religious conservatives in their interpretation of the New Testament in a literal sense, ignoring the influence and development of its historical context and how that affects the ability to understand and apply accurately what the Bible's writers, mostly Jesus' apostles, wrote and which ended up in the canon of scripture.  

This view ignores the apocalyptic symbolism of the book of Revelation, on which it is focused, the application and timing of the prophecy Jesus made regarding the destruction of the Temple, which happened in 70 CE, and how to discern, from the symbolic language he used, as well as that in Revelation, written by his apostle, John, what those events meant and what Christ's "coming in judgment" might actually look like.  

Doctrine and Theology Out of Ignorance Leads to Lack of Sympathy for Fellow Believers

American Evangelicals have become experts at ignoring, downplaying, or re-interpreting any history with which they are not comfortable, and which does not fit with their narrative and the doctrine they have developed out of literal interpretations that distort the original author's intentions.  In a frenzy of self-righteously proclaiming themselves as the "correct" and accurate version of Christian faith, and their condemnation of non-Evangelical denominations and groups, including the Catholic and Orthodox churches, along with most mainline Protestants as apostate, they simply ignore, or condemn, other Christians whose theology doesn't line up with theirs.  That way, they can ignore any circumstances, such as the fact that Christian Palestinians are suffering through this war in the same way as their fellow Muslim Palestinians are also suffering.    

So, it's awkward for conservative Evangelicals to acknowledge, among those suffering in Gaza, the presence of a Christian community that has existed in the Middle East for two thousand years.  Most of it, as expected, is Orthodox, which is one reason for their lack of Christlike consideration of their brethren.  And the fact that it exists among the Arabic, Palestinian population of the region is another. 

Christians claim that, in the current age, Jesus is the only path between human beings and their creator.  But in dispensational theology, they can ignore the words of Jesus, and the Apostles Paul and Peter, and still ascribe the long-gone Old Testament theocratic covenant to today's Jews, through the invention of a thing called a "dispensation," a period of time in which God's means of saving humans changes back to that old covenant.  The support for "dispensations" existing cannot be found in scripture.  The connections required to even vaguely develop such an idea are based on false interpretations of scripture in Daniel and Revelation.  

The presence of fellow Christians among the Palestinian population in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, presents a huge difficulty for premillennial dispensationalists.  In fact, the vast majority of Christians in Israel are Palestinians, including quite a few who are Evangelical Christians.  And that makes for huge contradictions of parts of the Bible, the words of Christ and of the apostles when it comes to treating the modern state of Israel as the re-establishment of the Old Testament theocratic state of Israel.  It's not that, not in any way, and sets Christians at odds with their Palestinian brothers and sisters (see I John 3).  

So, ignoring them, looking past them, or determining that because they're not Evangelical, they're not worth defending, becomes the only way to justify sticking to the false premises of Dispensational Premillennialism.  

Christian Doctrine is Derived from New Testament Scripture, so See What Jesus and the Apostles Said About War

"It is the duty of Christians to seek peace with all men on principles of righteousness."  

That's the first line of a statement on peace from the Baptist Faith and Message, 2000, the doctrinal and theological statement of the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation's largest Evangelical denomination.  

"In accordance with the spirit and teachings of Christ, they should do all in their power to put an end to war."  

There's a whole set of references in this section of the BFM from scripture, to support these statements about the evil and sinfulness of war.  Making peace is a virtue resulting from the spiritual presence of God in human community that leads to those who are considered peacemakers being called "Children of God,".  Clearly Jesus placed a high value on it.  So the position conservative Evangelicals, along with all other people claiming to be Christian, should be taking is not one that favors one side over the other, it's to use spiritual wisdom to bring about peace.  That's in the second half of this particular statement of faith: 

"The true remedy for war spirit is the gospel of our Lord.  The supreme need of the world is the acceptance of His teachings in all the affairs of men and nations, and the practical application of His law of love.  Christian people throughout the world should pray for the reign of the Prince of Peace."

So Christians should not be holding Israel's coattails and cheering them on in their invasion of Gaza, which includes the destruction of churches, and of centuries-old Christian communities.  They should be the primary movers and shakers in coming forward to make peace, as a demonstration of their love of the God in whom they claim to believe, and because their faith puts them in the position of a peacemaker.

Inside of Six Months to the Election: Do All You Can to Keep Trump Out of the White House

We are inside of the six month mark for November's election.  Every American voter who is opposed to seeing this dangerous, inept, incompetent, and totally corrupt, evil man, Trump, ever win elected office in this country again needs to do whatever it takes to keep that from happening.  For the next six months.  

Plan to Vote

I don't care whether voters have some beef with some minor issue like the price of gas or the price of their toilet paper.  Be realistic.  Is that a trade-off for what we would get if the orange headed menace makes it back to the Presidency?  We're not fighting this battle politically at that level because there are people who have sold their soul to this perpetrator of evil and those little nuances are meaningless.  Will the price of toilet paper matter when there's no more free speech, or when those who protest grievances to the government are shot down by the National Guard?  

For those who don't like the actions and policy the President has taken regarding the Israeli-Hamas war, how will staying at home, or voting for some third party candidate, achieve the result you desire?  First, be realistic.  Israel isn't going away.  Second, be more realistic.  The Palestinian population of Gaza and the West Bank will become refugees living somewhere in either the Sinai desert, or in the no-man's land between Jordan, Syria and Iraq if Trump is elected Pressident.  Those who are their advocates will be silenced, their resources no longer permitted to provide aid and whatever political resolution that is hoped for will not be achieved.  There's no guarantee that every problem will become immediately resolved under a second Biden administration, but a two-state solution, which will at least provide some opportunity for relief and some hope for a realistic future, is possible.  

Latino voters shouldn't think Trump has any plans to address their concerns.  Once he uses you, he loses you.  Listen to the rhetoric and believe it.  He considers all Latinos as immigrants, not Americans, not even Puerto Ricans who are citizens by birth. He's repeatedly said as much.  And these threats to station the military at the borders aren't just to beef up the border partrol.  The intention is to shoot those who try to come across.  How humane is that?  And how humane will it be when any members of Latino families are separated when birthright citizenship is repealed?  Not to mention the fact that Trump does not see opportunities for economic opportunity as applying to "immigrants," meaning all Latinos.  

He's a bigot, and his language in reference to Latinos is a clear indication of exactly how he feels.  America is a land of opportunity for Latinos, we are strengthened and made better by their presence, and your vote needs to keep it that way.  

For those who aren't happy with inflation, neither am I.  But we have a healthy economy and the President's administration is taking the steps to do something about it.  I trust his administration with a solution a whole lot more than I trust the economics of a second Trump administration.  Part of the problem can be fixed by making sure there's not a Republican majority in either house. 

Fighting Against the Antiquated Electoral College, a Vote for a Third Party Candidate is a Vote for Trump

We've still not managed to get rid of our antiquated, fear-based election system in choosing a President, so staying home isn't an option, nor is voting for a candidate who can't win.  That just gives votes to the other side.  Vote for Biden, and that is the best pathway that exists to keep America secure, and to keep us as a constitutional democracy of, by and for the people, not just the billionaires and their pretenders. RFK Jr. isn't going to solve any problems from behind a microphone, nor is Jill Stein or Cornell West.  They can't and won't win, but they can help Trump win.  So make it sure and certain, and cast that ballot for Joe Biden for President. 

Do More 

In every possible forum I have available to me, I advocate for Biden.  My barber and his partner bring it up all the time in the barber shop, especially when they know they've got another Biden supporter in the chair or in the waiting area.  Sometimes, it's been lively, and the most common outcome is that the Trumpies eventually fold up and go silent.  But the image is being projected that there's an active effort to keep the orange headed buffoon from winning the election.  And when his people aren't in the majority and can't control the narrative, or have to listen to facts instead of his lies, they're not happy about it.  

That's just a chance to communicate a message.  This is our country too, and we're not going to give it away again.  

I contribute.  It's not much, it won't make or break a campaign, but it adds up to the others, millions of small donations, that are contributing and helping.  One of the strategies the Biden administration is using is what the Obama campaign called its "ground game."  They're spending money on getting people registered and getting the registered to the polls.  They're making sure the registered are informed.  

I write this blog online and promote it.  It does have a following, about 4,500 readers a month, averaging sometimes as many as 150 hits in a day when a controversial subject is posted.  And it does get comments, some from supporters, some from enraged Trumpies who, for the most part, make it easy to respond and inform.  

I will volunteer to make phone calls.  During the last two elections, 2020 and the mid-terms, I helped the Democratic party in Southeast Wisconsin canvas voters and get them to the polls.  I spent the day before the election knocking on doors.  Although my personal effort was probably small, the Democratic vote in those two counties was much improved over 2018 and 2016.  In fact, during the special election for the state Supreme Court, when Democrat Janet Protasiewicz was elected, by an 11% majority, the democratic vote total in the region exceeded the GOP for the first time since 2012.  

For some people, being an antagonist comes naturally, while it's hard for others.  But I've found it satisfying, when the rare opportunity presents itself, to show up at GOP town halls and gatherings and bring facts and figures along to correct the politician's lies and exaggerations.  I usually only get one opportunity to ask a question and bring up an incorrect assertion that needs correcting, but there are always people afterward who come up and are thankful for the information.  

Be a Defender of Democracy

We seem to be slow to learn the lessons of history and slower to take steps to protect and defend our democracy from its internal enemies.  The fact that a former President can illegally attempt to use his power to organize an insurrection intended on preventing the peaceful transition of power guaranteed in the constitution and go unpunished for almost four years after the fact, and then, be able to hide behind circumstances and delay prosecution because of a political quirk no one imagined when the constitution was written is a flaw that has unimaginable consequences.  

Do we, as Americans, believe in being a nation of law and order?  Isn't that a conservative political claim?  How can that be, when the law is ineffective and unable to prosecute a former President who abused his power and appointed corrupt judges to the federal bench, for a lifetime, who he expects to rule in his favor instead of rule by the law?  It's going to take a cycle of elections, starting with this one, to get politicians in place with enough power and authority to clean out the corruption in the federal justice system and make it work for the people to whom it is subject.  

The re-election of President Joe Biden is the light at the end of this dark tunnel.  This is a democracy under a constitution of, by and for the people.  We still have the ability to vote to protect the power we have and to use it to defend ourselves from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and Trump and his cronies are a domestic enemy.  We need to convince ourselves that we can still be a democracy and save our democracy by giving this evil demagogue the electoral beating of his life.  He's never won the full confidence of the American people and we need to make sure he doesn't even come close in November.

Here We Go Again: When Will Democrats Get Their Act Together and Win This Election?

Axelrod: Biden's 'Pride' May Cost Him the Election

Let's talk.  

From any conventional political perspective, the 2024 election should be in the bag, tied up and already delivered at the feet of President Joe Biden, along with Democratic party majorities in both houses of Congress.  At this point, I don't really trust the polling data.  What used to be matter of course in that business has been missing its mark in multiple primary elections, special elections and, with 40 some odd polling sources, with a vastly different way of measuring voter intent and factoring in variables, and probably a good dose of Russian interference, I'm not really sure of exactly where things stand.  The media is content to declare this a close race, neck and neck, because that sells.  

Honestly, I think, based on everything that has transpired in the political world over the last four years, that Biden will win it, with room to spare.  I also think that issues, especially a woman's right to choose when it comes to health care and reproductive rights, are going to be a bottom up issue in producing majorities that will put Democrats in control of both houses.  I'm almost always certain in my confidence that this is how it will go.  I do have some expertise, and an educational background in American history and politics, years of observing the political process, and some discernment when it comes to reading the signs, and there are reasons for my optimism. 

President Biden could not have picked a better candidate for the opposition if he'd been told he could choose the most beatable, unelectable, despicable Republican in the party.  The man is under more than 80 federal and state indictments for multiple felonies of which a plethora of evidence proving his guilt has already been exposed and publicized.  He's served one term in office that was, from every political, economic and social perspective, an unmitigated disaster.  His inept handling of everything that came his way, and his bungling of a national crisis that had the potential to be the one thing that actually saved him, was the worst demonstration of political incompetence we've seen in the White House, including the Presidencies of John Tyler and James Buchanan.  

Not only that, but the presumptive Republican nominee is a moral degenerate who cheered on an insurrection against the United States Constitution and government that he himself instigated and launched with a speech in front of the White House.  He has denied and turned his back on the religious beliefs of his most loyal supporters and insulted their leaders by refusing to acknowledge any kind of Christian conversion experience.  He's twice divorced, re-marrying the women with whom he had affairs leading to the breakup of his marriages, has openly degraded women by identifying them as nothing more than sex objects and on top of all of it, bribed his staff to pay off a porn star he bedded in order to keep that information from the voters.  

And, of course, we know that's not all.  Who knows what he's already done with the documents he absconded from the White House?  

So this should be a shoe-in, right?  So why isn't it?  Or, why is it not appearing that way?  

Along Comes David Axelrod to Throw Cold Water on Everything

Why do Democrats do this to themselves?  

Sometimes, I wonder if, since the party's record of getting turnout when it needs it isn't all that great, the leadership doesn't do things like this to scare people into voting.  The media has trumpeted Biden's low job approval record since the end of his first year in office.  If they are as liberal as the right seems to think, then the only reason I can think of that would justify the continued pounding on that, which encouraged the Trump cult, is to make sure Democrats defy the odds and turn out in large numbers to prevent disaster.  

Is that what this is?  Is Axelrod, who obviously does know how to  win elections some people consider to be unwinnable, trying to prime the pump, get things moving, and make sure Democrats turn out like they should, along with the large segment of independent voters who have already determined they aren't going to support Trump and are demonstrating it by turning out in special elections, and in the mid-terms, to elect Democrats?  

Or, is our party leadership content to play like the political status quo on which they've always depended still exists, and, satisfied with the power and position they currently have, and let the clock keep ticking on the perception that we are precariously perched on a cliff and there's just nothing we can do about it except clench our teeth, close our eyes and hope the election comes out in our favor.  That always seems to be our approach, and I don't understand why that is always the case.  

The Democratic party, and the Biden candidacy, are being given some of the best advantages toward winning an election, in landslide fashion, that have been seen in an American Presidential election since Franklin Delano Roosevelt clobbered Herbert Hoover in 1932.  But instead of leadership that is stepping up, grabbing it and taking advantage of it, we have David Axelrod coming along, providing excuses for why the President might not win, and offering advice that seems to fall off into silence from party leadership.  

We're Too Passive, We Play the Game by Past Expectations and We Can't Seem to Grasp the Narrative

We're Democrats.  This seems to be our way.  

The President has come out swinging.  I love the rhetoric he's using to directly attack Trump on his political and economic failures, his incompetence and the inept manner in which he handled the job when he had it.  That needs to be boosted and supported by the DNC, who needs to get aggressive in its attacks on Republicans and their inability to govern.  In almost four years, no one in the Democratic party has succeeded in taking the attention off of Trump, who gets himself in the news cycle several times each day, and get President Biden in front of the cameras as much as a sitting President should be.  

Someone please explain to me why that is so, and why it is that Democrats haven't been able to change that?  

Perhaps Axelrod's remarks are aimed at helping the President.  It just doesn't appear that way.  If there ever was an election when all of the Democratic heavy hitters needed to be out on the campaign trail, this would be it.  I agree with Axelrod's assessment of the way the message needs to be delivered.  We have the single most accomplished President in six decades now in the White House, who has made all the right moves and done all the right things and has managed difficult times well.  His policies have prevented recession and brought prosperity, and his fight with inflation has worked well.  How to we grab the narrative so that it resonates with the voters? 

I've even heard talk from some of the more objective media about conceding places that Biden won last time, just to make sure he gets just enough electoral votes.  Playing by the traditional campaign rules isn't going to work because the other side doesn't play by any rules and all of that give and take, back and forth that used to define Presidential campaigns is gone.  We MUST win this one, or there will never be another one to win, at least, that's the threat.  

I don't like these insertions of doubt and uncertainty into the campaign on our side.  I think a look of confidence and assurance is the better image.  Instead of reflecting the doubts that feed the media narrative that Biden is too old, that he's not going to be progressive enough, which are the only themes the other side has to fight with, why can't Democrats grab control of the narrative and use it to beat Trump into the ground, which is what it should already be doing?  

This is a Critical Election

We must win.  We can't have doubt prevent that.  The other side is going to do everything they can to assure a win, including cheating or accusations of voter fraud again, hoping that sticks.  Democrats must be willing to fight that every step of the way.  We have advantages on our side that candidates as recently as Barack Obama, Al Gore and Bill Clinton never had given to them, wrapped up like presents from the other side.  And all of that should lead to a decisive victory.  

So let's act like it's going to.  Let's have some leadership who is capable of bringing about the undermining and downfall of Donald J. Trump, based on his total and complete inability to handle the job.  

Elections are won by turnout.  And no matter how many Americans Trump has managed to delude with all of the MAGA nonsense, there should be far more Democrats and independents who see this for what it is and turn out in large enough numbers on election day to give Trump and the GOP a beating they'll remember for generations.  

Trump's Hush-Money Trial is a Disaster for Conservative, Evangelical Christian Trump Followers

America's conservative Evangelicals have endured some pretty spectacular scandals among the higher profile, self-proclaimed "leaders" who have committed some heinous, evil, contemptible public sins which demonstrate a level of hypocrisy and deceit, and uncover the insincerity of evangelists, preachers and ministry leaders whose interest has been in increasing their financial fortune at the expense of gullible, and often ignorant, followers.  The scandals have affected a broad swath of American conservative Evangelicalism--I'll leave out the term "Christian"--from the Fundamentalists to the Charismatics and Pentecostals.  

Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker joined the ranks of prostitutes and adulterers with their disclosed and confessed sins.  The Falwell empire, Jerry Junior and his wife Becky, doubled the adultery and Ted Haggard, a pastor and former president of the National Association of Evangelicals, engaged in homosexual behavior.  Currently, the nation's largest Evangelical denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, experienced the uncovering of a clergy sexual abuse scandal dating back more than 50 years, and adding to the scandal has been a very reluctant and resistant response, passing off responsibility while accusing victims of being a satanic distraction to the work of the pastors and church leaders who abused them.  

And this is just a small sample of the scope of sexual scandal among American Evangelicals.  

Hypocrisy in Evangelical Support For Trump Should Not Be Surprising

You'd expect that there would be a few high profile Evangelical "leaders" who would be disturbed enough by the vulgar, horrific scandal involving a totally unrepentant former Republican (party of family values, remember?) President and a pornographic film star having an affair during and immediately following the pregnancy of the former President's wife with their youngest son, to, at the very least, try some kind of pathetic excuse or attempt to excuse the behavior.  They can't accuse the media of making this up, because Trump himself has revealed the affair, bragged about it and declared that he doesn't have to ask forgiveness for it because he did nothing wrong.  

But there's been nothing.  We can hear crickets chirping in the background, when the cheers and accolades for this same former President are not pouring forth from his Evangelical sycophants and followers.  They've thrown Jesus under the bus, given their loyalty to a corrupt, adulterous politician and sold their soul for the proverbial bowl of soup, to use a Biblical expression.  

Some of the so-called leaders who are still around developed a whole theological system for the purpose of criticizing and condemning former President Clinton for his mis-steps and affairs, claiming that such behavior was characteristic of a kind of dishonesty that disqualified him to serve as President.  There was none of the excuse making, no statements like, "We're electing a commander in chief, not a pastor in chief," or "God sometimes uses evil people to accomplish his purpose."  

By any standard of measurement, Trump is far more immoral and anti-Christian than Clinton was.

Trump himself has slapped Evangelical supporters in the face by saying "no, thank you" to the core principles and practice of their faith, basically saying, "that's OK for you, but I've made my own god who allows me to live how I want."  It's no secret that he's never paid any attention to any Evangelical principle or doctrine before, in any aspect of his life, basing his image on a perception of worldliness that has included flaunting extra-marital affairs, including two high profile ones that led to his divorcing his two previous wives.  

So the court drama that is playing out right now, and sucking up a huge amount of media attention, is laying out all of the aspects of Trump's affair with Stormy Daniels, along with his attempt to buy her silence, which, since he waited until he was running for President to do, was a felony.  This is a nasty place for Republicans who want to claim the mantle of both family values, and law and order.  It's not "law and order" to support bribery that subverts the country's justice system and there's no value at all, especially not Evangelical values, in the adulterous affair that cause the bribery in the first place.  

Silence is More Condemning Than the Immorality Itself

It's not judgmental to conclude that the continuing support of Trump, even as a secular politician, by people who claim to believe in the Christian gospel because they accept the Bible as the inerrant, infallible written word of God, is a hypocritical denial of the truth of the Christian gospel.  It doesn't matter that his leadership is secular, not spiritual.  Supporting Trump is raising up a leader over one's own nation who has openly denied the conviction of the Spirit and has put himself at odds with Jesus and the Christian gospel as a result of it.  

And I got that from a well-known Evangelical "leader" who was addressing the possibility of the United States having a Mormon President.  Of course, that was long before Mitt Romney became the GOP nominee, and when that happened, they hypocritically abandoned their convictions then, too.  

There's a Price Being Paid Among Trump Supporting Evangelicals

When voters go to the polls in November, there will be 7 million fewer individuals who self-identify as Evangelicals in the United States, or at least, who claim membership in a church that identifies as Evangelical.  The largest Evangelical denomination in the country, the Southern Baptist Convention, just reported this week on a decline in membership taking them below the 13 million mark for the first time since 1960.  More than three million members, and a million and a half in average weekly attendance, have departed Southern Baptist churches in the decade that started with 2015.  That's more than 20% of the total in just ten years.  Other Evangelical denominations, and the overall category of independent, non-denominational churches, combined for a loss of almost four million, in the same decade.  

The name of the game among Evangelicals when it comes to explaining membership losses is denial.  Either it's something that their enemies have made up, it's not happening,  or it's not accurate, or it just means churches aren't reporting membership figures any more.  But some of those who are leaving are coming out because they don't like that their churches have been turned into political action committees and they don't like someone who deliberately sets a personal example of worldliness held up as an idol, which is what has happened with Trump.  

They are preaching the wrong gospel.  And their credibility, already damaged by their own inability to communicate a Christian gospel based on God's grace, and to realize that their mission cannot be achieved by an alliance with secular politics, is gone.  

As an American, the decision about which politicians to support, and to vote for, is a matter of personal conscience, requiring discernment, an understanding of the way a constitutional democracy works and operates, and a realization that religious faith is a matter of personal conscience which cannot be forced upon other people by law.  They must also believe it, accept it and then practice it in order to experience the life transformation it claims to provide.  Supporting a politician who lives counter to the values of American democracy and Evangelical faith is hypocritical.  Stop it.  

Drawing the Line Where Protests Against Israel's Attack on Gaza Become Anti-Semitic

Public protests are the product of a society that values freedom of expression.  That's written into the United States Constitution.  So, college students, gathering in a specific place on their campus to protest, regardless of what they are protesting, is protected free speech under the Constitution.  Or is it?  

From a personal perspective, there are some conditions which need to be met, and which can be called "social courtesy," or the recognition that respect for the rights of others must be a consideration those who wish to protest give to others who may be affected by some aspect of their protest, other than simply being offended by the content.  As an educator, while I respect the right of students to protest on a school campus, I also believe that the protest should not interfere with the rights of other students, those who choose either not to protest, or who disagree with the content of the protest, to continue to pursue their education without interruption.  That's a simple display of respect and recognition for the rights of others that goes a long way toward legitimizing the protesters and validating their cause. 

A second condition that I believe must be met is that a protest must not resort to violence to get its way.  That zaps the legitimacy of the cause, especially if the protest is against a war.  Usually, violence in a protest is precipitated by an incident which causes feelings to run high, or because there are infiltrators in the protest with a different agenda, desiring a different outcome.  In the past, law enforcement sometimes precipitated violence in protests, especially during the Vietnam War era, and though there has been considerable training in showing restraint and avoiding conflict when involved in protests, that still does happen on occasion.  

Respect for the diversity and differences among the human community is a third condition I believe must be met to legitimize protest as a means of free expression.  Those against whom the protest is being directed may be guilty of crimes, or discrimination, or bigotry.  But their race and ethnicity, not something over which they've had control, are off limits, as is their religion, their sexual preference or any other aspect of their personal lifestyle and the culture from which they come.  There's a distinct difference between protest, insult and insurrection.  

Perception of Protesters Distracts From the Message of the Protest 

There have been arrests, clashes with school security and law enforcement, and some ugly racial incidents, that have marred the image of "peaceful protests." In some cases, pro-Israeli protesters are present, and that increases the possibility of violent clashes.  The protests at Columbia, and at UCLA, which got a lot of media attention because they are in New York and Los Angeles, cities that are the focus of negative attention from conservative media sources, were criticized for damage to the building that was occupied, and for a massive amount of trash that was left behind.  Reports of some protesters expecting food to be delivered to them helps create an image of the protest that distracts from its intentions.  

The far right wing media is just looking for ways to discredit the protesters as a bunch of violent, spoiled liberal children, and to split the Democratic party on this particular issue.  That's laughable in light of their defense of the Capitol building's attackers on January 6th, but it's not an excuse to be careless.  A lot of the rhetoric starts out with accusations of violence and racism against protesters, so it is vitally important for protests to defy those accusations by keeping order and not letting their protests get to the point where they can be accused of violence or racism.  

There have been multiple accusations of anti-Semitism associated with the protests.  That comes largely from the influence of right wing Evangelicals who focus on a gross misinterpretation and misapplication of Genesis 12:3 by claiming that anyone who utters a critical word against the modern state of Israel, regardless of what they are doing, is subject to being cursed by God.  Criticizing and protesting against a war being carried on by the modern state of Israel does not meet the definition of the term "curse" in Hebrew, written in Genesis, nor do those verses apply at all in any context to the modern political state known as Israel.  

No doubt there are those among the protesters who are anti-Semitic.  Anti-Semitism is, by definition, hostility toward and discrimination against persons of the Jewish race, though Arabs are also Semitic, by racial definition, and many of them are also descendants of Abraham.  Some protests have individuals who do express anti-Semitism by definition, but the vast majority of them are protesting what they see as a military over-reaction, extending into vengeance, of the IDF at the orders of the Israeli prime minister and its far right wing Likud party's majority government.  I do not see protesting a violent war that has an inordinate number of civilian casualties and this large of a field of destruction of civilian property being waged by Israel as anti-Semitic.  

Yes, There's a Lot of Violence in the World

Claiming that other violence and genocide in the world goes either unnoticed by these protesters, or that they unfairly target Israel and don't care about the others because they are anti-Semitic is not a legitimate criticism.  There is a lot of other violence, and genocide, happening in the world, and that's probably an accurate description of humanity on this planet at any time in history.  This one, however, is getting protests, not because Israel is a Jewish state, or really having anything to do with Jewish nationality or identity, but because it is violence which the United States has the leverage to moderate, or control, and perhaps stop it from happening.  

The manner in which the military operation is being carried out is causing too many civilian casualties.  And that's a problem.  Though the right wants to put this, as they do everything else, in a political and ideological "us vs them" basket, always defining Israel as "the good guys" and putting all Palestinians in with the Islamic militants and terrorists, because they are Islamic, that's not necessarily what's causing the protesters to raise their voices.  There are plenty of Israelis who are opposed to the manner in which their military force is conducting this war.  

Of course, the situation is one which has been causing violence ever since the British Empire made the territory of Palestine a protectorate instead of an independent state as was the rest of the middle eastern territory ceded by the Ottoman Empire after World War 1.  The intention to set it aside and open the territory up to Jewish immigration, which increased faster than realized as a result of the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis, naturally caused controversy that has let to several wars, the displacement and impoverishment of millions of people, and to the current situation into which terrorist organizations developed out of a sense of powerlessness.  

It's not hypocritical, or anti-Semitic, to protest against this particular war and the excessive civilian casualties it is producing, as opposed to not protesting the Sudan civil war that is also responsible for a large number of civilian deaths, because those who hear and see these protests have a lot more influence over the Israeli-Hamas war than they do over the others.  It's not difficult for a news source looking to prove their point to find anti-Semitic protesters, including radical Muslims for whom the destruction of the Israeli state is a political and religious goal.  But it's less difficult to find Islamophobic, racist, hateful agitators and bigots among the far right wing protesters who are taking Israel's side.  I'm sure that those who take this seriously wouldn't appreciate being classified or characterized that way.  

Some Closing Thoughts

Any discussion or protest that leaves out the horror and the brutal, inhumane, violent, vicious terrorism of the October 7th attack, the taking and holding of hostages, the sexual violation and torment of women and children, the brutal murders, torture and total lack of humanity of the Hamas attack is subject to questions about its anti-Semitic nature.  If there's righteous anger over the attacks on Gaza and over the civilian deaths there, then there must be the same righteous anger over the October 7th attack.  And I think that's where the line on defining a protest as anti-Semitic or not can be drawn.  If those protesting are one-sidedly condeming Israel while letting Hamas off the hook or leaving them completely out of the discussion, then they're anti-Semitic by complete definition of the term.  

I'm also noticing a tendency in the right-leaning media in this country to pull this in and try and make a political issue out of it to raise doubts over Biden's leadership capability in order to try and suppress his potential vote total in the fall.  Finding fault lines among differences in race, ethnicity, culture and religion to create the image that the Democratic party is "fracturing" over this particular issue is a big part of what we're seeing in the media right now.  I would not be surprised if there's some Russian interference happening as well.  

However, it's pretty clear that issues in middle eastern conflict are not high on the voters list, and it seems to be even more clear that while younger voters are found on both sides of the issue, it's not causing the lack of enthusiasm for voting that some pollsters and news commentators want to make us think is happening.  It's certainly not doom and gloom, and, thanks to the commentators and reporters who work for MSNBC for digging it out, it does not seem to be the kind of issue that spells disaster for Democrats in November.  In fact, it looks like it might actually be something that brings voters in.  Biden, while not setting aside long standing American policy regarding Israel, is also doing more than anyone else to work for a permanent cease fire, increase the humanitarian aid to Gaza's residents and use the influence and power of the United States to resolve this particular conflict at the negotiating table. 

He's steered clear of accusations of anti-Semitism, and has affirmed the decades-old commitment to a two state solution in Palestine.  His opponent wants to bulldoze Gaza and build beach resorts.  So when it comes down to it, staying home or voting for Trump is not going to help this cause that Democrats want to pursue.  

  

Dragging Christian Nationalist Views Into Politics Calls Evangelical Christian Credibility Into Question

Baptist News Global: And a Biblically Illiterate Congressman Shall Lead Them

As we approach the 2024 election, with the news media still trumpeting uncertainty about the outcome, there should be rising concern about the infusion of Christian nationalist perspectives into the campaign rhetoric.  The alarm bells should already be ringing about the potential threats a second Trump administration poses to Constitutionally guaranteed individual liberties and to American constitutional democracy in general.  Throw the various aspects of Christian nationalism and white supremacy into that mix and it brings me to the point where I just don't understand how half the country could still be so deluded and so uninformed.  

The addition of perspectives on a foreign war, the conflict between Israel and Gaza, have added a whole new element of concern to the potential loss of freedom we are facing.  The linked article from Baptist News Global, reporting on the exchange, in a congressional hearing, between Representative Rick Allen, a Georgia Republican, whose spewed out ignorance should come as no surprise, and Columbia University President Dr. Minouche Shafik, is an egregious example of exactly what we may be facing if the ignorance and misinterpretation of the Bible that leads to Christian nationalism is ever elevated to the point where it has the favor of the political power of the Presidency.  

Though my purpose in writing here is to point out to those Christians who do read this blog, and who do, from time to time, express doubts and reservations about conservative, white Evangelical support for a politician whose lifestyle exhibits the exact opposite of the characteristics of Evangelical Christian theology and practice, it is also to affirm, for those Americans who are either outside the church altogether, or who are in Christian traditions that aren't going down the heretical path created by the blending of far right wing politics with fundamentalist, conservative, Evangelicalism, that the latter are promoting a false, errant view of Christian faith and practice.  That includes the idea that the founding fathers intended for the United States to be a Christian nation in the same way Israel was a theocracy in the Old Testament, and that the modern state of Israel is a restoration of that theocracy, which justifies what it is doing to Gaza.  

There's also the idea, as Representative Allen asserts, that because of modern Israel's special status, the United States is motivated to protect Israel, and to provide it with all the weaponry it needs to blow Gaza to smithereens and scatter its civilian population because God will withdraw his blessing from the United States if it doesn't support Israel.  Even though that completely and totally contradicts just about everything Jesus taught as his gospel, which is all the substance of what the United States should be, when it comes to Israel, no doctrine or theology applies to them.  They are, according to some conservative Christian eschatology, part of another "dispensation" which will bring them salvation by a different means than the Christian church teaches applies to the rest of us.  

False Eschatology and False Views Related to the Modern State of Israel 

The incoherence of Representative Allen's questioning Dr. Shafik on the subject is, perhaps, the best illustration we currently have to point to the problems created by blending far right wing Christianity with far right wing politics.  Allen's remarks are a rambling testimony of ignorance of both the Bible he claims to believe and claims as the "word of God," and the United States Constitution.  Dragging that particularly ignorant perspective into a position on the Israeli-Hamas war, and subsequently on the campus protests against it by college students,  Allen bases his entire perspective on false, uninformed, incorrect beliefs about what the Bible actually says, and what the constitution actually says.  

The piece in Baptist News Global does an excellent job of pointing out exactly where Allen is mistaken. 

If I'd been one of Congressman Allen's English teachers, I'd be embarrassed for anyone to know it.  And if he belonged to the same church I did, I wouldn't admit it.  Allen, through the incoherence, appears to be interpreting a few scattered biblical prooftexts through a doctrinal position on eschatology, or the study of "end times" theology, known as pre-millennial dispensationalism.  

In terms of the overall picture of Christian theology and doctrine, pre-millennial dispensationalism is a relatively new development, mostly 20th century origins, that depends on a literal interpretation of related Bible passages and completely ignores the cultural context in which the words were written, and their original intent and meaning.  It falsely connects passages that were never intended to be connected, altering any chance at getting an accurate perspective but creating an entirely new conclusion based on something never intended to be understood in that way.  

The errors made by those whose interpretation of the Bible comes out as pre-millennial dispensationalism are found in their complete lack of consideration of the multiple historical contexts in which the Bible was written.  Each book in the Bible was written to people in a specific time and place, and addresses their specific spiritual and historical context.  There are no hidden meanings, double meanings or dualist interpretations that make the words of the Bible mean something different, for different people in a different age, than they meant originally.  

So, citing a scripture from Genesis 12:3, from the historical period when the Jewish race was only just beginning to develop, and applying it in the same literal way to the modern state of Israel, is an errant use of scripture.   Though many fundamentalist Christians would insist that it is, the modern state of Israel in no way resembles the early, tribal people the scripture in Genesis is referencing.  In fact, the words recorded there are a promise from God to Abraham, about his future descendants, not specific to those who would eventually form into the Israelite nation.  Some Palestinians, too, can trace their ancestry back to Abraham, through his son Ishmael, who is not excluded from this prophetic statement.  

Biblical Illiteracy Affects Attitudes About the Israeli-Hamas War in Gaza

From a Christian perspective, while the 66 books of the Protestant Bible that are recognized as canonical constitute what is defined as the inspired, written word of God, they are not meant to be interpreted literally, word by word, or "verse by verse" as some Christians define their interpretation.  There is a clear theological context which determines how the whole Bible is seen from the current point in human history.  

The Baptist Faith and Message of 1963, a doctrinal statement produced by the Southern Baptist Convention, in Article I, The Scriptures, states, "The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus."  The current, 2000 version further elaborates that "All scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is himself the focus of divine revelation."  So in interpreting any part of the Bible by Christian practice means that the words of Jesus must be consulted and interpreted with regard to determining the meaning of any other passage of scripture. 

Jesus did make a clear statement regarding his view of what was considered the authoritative religious doctrine of his time, found in the Old Testament. 

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets.  I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill.  For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass away from the law until all is accomplished."  Matthew 5:17-18, NRSV

That's a key, interpretive statement from Jesus, the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted.  And that criterion is saying, clearly, that all prophecy, which at his time was found in the Old Testament, was fulfilled in him.  He was the object of it, and is saying that the law is also fulfilled in him.  The modern state of Israel is not, in this regard, a "restoration" of the theocracy of Israel or the monarchy of the Old Testament.  That covenant relationship was replaced by the Christian gospel, the end of the old covenant, predicted by Jesus, was fulfilled in 70 CE by the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, exactly as he predicted.

There is no covenant connection between the modern state of Israel and the covenant theocracy of the Old Testament. There's no passage in the Bible that even alludes to such a restoration. Modern Israel is a secular state, by design, a democracy with a parliamentary form of government modeled after the UK, not homogenously Jewish, granting religious liberty to its citizens, 21% of whom are Arabs practicing Islam.  About 2% of Israelis are Christians, and the vast majority of the Christians are also Arabs of Palestinian origin.  Although 75% of Israeli citizens are Jewish, mostly Ashkenazi, or "German influenced", only about 20% of Israeli Jews practice any form of Judaism. 

But pre-millennial dispensationalists take a complicated and convoluted turn and twist through prophecies found in Revelation, the gospel accounts and the Old Testament book of Daniel, to come up with what I call an Armageddon Calendar that leads to the second coming of Christ and elevates the modern state of Israel into a "restored" Davidic kingdom that becomes the center focus of prophetic, end times events.  

As a result, it becomes a matter of course to allow Israel the right to destroy all of its neighbors who don't get with the program, because they deserve it and because they are already ungodly Arab Muslims worthy of destruction because the won't acknowledge Christ, and because they are in the way of his return.  And in defending Israel's right to blow Gaza to smithereens and murder many of its civilian population, it's these Old Testament verses from the Bible that are cited.  

Let's Set the Religious Record Straight

In spite of all of the complications involved in the manner in which the state of Israel came into existence in 1948, Israel's right to exist has been established.  There is little that can be done to change those circumstances at this point.  

The attack on October 7th against Israeli civilians was clearly for terrorist purposes.  No military objectives were achieved and no war was declared.  Israel has the right to defend itself against such attacks, and the right to make sure it is safe from similar attacks in the future.  

It is not anti-Semitic to protest against Israel's war against Hamas when the perception has reached the point that it is no longer about defending its people, but seems to carry with it the goal of vengeance, which is not acceptable.  It's OK to point out when something looks like it has gone out of the bounds of responsible defense.  It's clear that no resolution is coming out of what's happening now.  

The student protests occurring in the United States, largely peaceful unless some right wingers show up to cause trouble, are practicing constitutionally guaranteed free speech.  As long as they do not block access to education on campus, and permit those students who choose not to become involved the personal freedom to do so, and do not disrupt the educational purpose of the institution where they are taking place, leave them alone, please.  

Members of the United States Congress who want to have a hearing so they can have a platform for their views should not open their mouths unless they know what they are talking about, lest they embarrass themselves and the office they serve.  

 

Peace in Israel is Elusive; It Defies Rational Thinking

There is far more to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than the terrorist attack by Hamas on Israel on October 7th, and the bombing, destruction and invasion of Gaza by the IDF that followed.  It goes back even further in history than the events surrounding the rise of European fascism leading to World War 2 and the antisemitism which led to the Holocaust, eventually causing the opening up of Palestine, under British control, to increased Jewish immigration and the formation of a Jewish state.  

It's complicated, and that's far too simplistic of a description.  There are multiple, powerful, intense interests that keep crossing each other, including the struggle for dominance between the totalitarianism of Russia and China, and the free market democracies led by the United States and Western Europe, the struggle for validation and affirmation between three major world religions which centers on Jerusalem, and the open questions of racial and cultural superiority in determining who has the right to ownership and residency of land and the resources that go with it based on history or modern precedent.  

It's not antisemitic to give consideration to whether or not the current attack by Israel on Gaza is simply Israel defending itself, or whether it has turned into a display of vengeful destruction that is a disproportionate response to the ugly, inexcusable terrorism perpetrated by Hamas against Israel on October 7.  And it is not anti-Palestinian to call the Hamas attack terrorism, and to consider whether or not Palestinian leadership in Gaza gave aid and abetted the terrorists in their attack, and must shoulder the blame and accept the consequences for subjecting the civilian population in Gaza to this attack. 

It is not un-patriotic, un-American or antisemitic to protest the full scope of the Israeli attack on Gaza, nor to see it as excessive retribution, any more than it is to march in support of Israel, believing that it has a right to exist, and to defend itself.  By the same token, it is against all principles of American liberal progressivism to demand preference and full loyalty and support for one side, while disparaging and demeaning the other side.  The goal of progressive liberalism, applied to this particular conflict, is peace, equally applied to all, including the full recognition of human rights and the equality of all people.  

Resolution Must Recognize Reality

A peaceful resolution of all issues which have led to war and conflict for most of the last two centuries must recognize the fact that there are some things which cannot be changed.  The state of Israel is not going away.  Circumstances created it, the world powers supported it, financed it and militarily and politically protected it, and the alliances of the major world powers lined up by supporting either Israel, or one of the Arabic political factions.  

Until the modern era, there was only a very small presence of Jewish communities in Palestine.  Since the Roman conquest and destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, the vast majority of the world's Jewish population lived outside of Palestine, mostly where the survivors of the Roman destruction travelled and settled, including the Eastern Mediterranean, Greece, the Egyptian coastline, Asia Minor, now Turkey, and even westward into Italy and Spain, and northward into what is now Eastern Europe.  The vacuum left behind by their fleeing Roman oppression completely changed the racial, ethnic and cultural makeup of Palestine, the Promised Land.  

So what we are facing here is the unique historical situation where a group of people, displaced from their ancient homeland in ancient times more than 2,000 years ago, with just a remnant of the population remaining, who kept their ethnicity and cultural identity intact through religious practice wherever they were scattered, have been restored to their ancient homeland by the circumstances of world events and the force of political and economic power.  This restoration occurred in spite of the fact that there were people of a different religious and cultural heritage, though similar ethnic background, living in this same place.  

I can't think of a similar situation anywhere else in the world where an independent, sovereign nation existed in ancient times, was conquered and its people scattered, yet they managed to preserve their culture, through a powerful connection to their religion, and to some extent, also preserved their ethnicity, though there are some variations and mixing that did take place, especially in deep Eastern Europe.  Or where those people, from the various places to which they were scattered, would gather together again in their ancient homeland that they had not ruled or occupied for over 2,000 years.  

Yet, that is the situation surrounding the modern existence of the state of Israel.  And that is exactly the situation that has led to the current conflict between Israel and Hamas.  This is just the most recent in a series of wars, conflicts and terrorist acts that have occurred as a result of crowding a small piece of territory with adherents of two of the three world religions who claim sacred sites within the same small quarter of the same city.  

The reality that must be recognized is that the people who now live on this small patch of land at the junction of three world religions, and three continents, must figure out a way to coexist, carry on their business, and somehow, economically, socially, culturally and racially, recognize individual rights and collective equality.  It's either that, or continue to experience destruction, war, terrorism, and serve as a constant, potential catalyst for a major world war.  

Legitimate Questions

Violent human behavior means the one committing the violence has given up on resolving a problem from a rational perspective which aspires to the application of a higher set of values derived from the discipline of an educated intellect.  If peace is to be achieved, then one of the sides in a conflict must be committed to introducing it, and then remaining committed to it in order to make it work.  That's a high road to take, some might say it is too high for human beings to achieve.  

It was the major world powers, primarily the UK and US, who opened the door to the influx of Jewish immigration into Palestine following the Second World War and the aftermath of the Holocaust, and it has been the United States who has taken over the role of the pre-war British Empire in terms of influencing world politics.  So the first question is whether the United States, who is the chief financial supporter of Israel, has the ability to pressure the Israeli government into taking the initiative to make peace and making the sacrifices required to achieve it.  There is no question that the United States has the power to make this happen, but with our political situation being what it is at the moment, the question is whether our politicians will do it.  

We've facilitated Middle Eastern peace between Israel and its neighbors before.  President Jimmy Carter brokered the biggest peace deal to date when he got Israel and Egypt to the negotiating table at 

Camp David and facilitated that peace deal, which still holds.  It will depend on the leadership of the Democratic party to make this happen in the future, since the GOP does not recognize the legitimacy of any Palestinian claim or sovereignty.  

So, to those of you protesting Israel's destruction of Gaza, keep that in mind when the November election rolls around.  If you really are interested in the people of Gaza, and in pressuring the US to put a stop to the destructive bombing and killing, staying home because Biden hasn't jumped to your command or voting for Trump out of protest will definitely affect the ability of the US to pressure Israel into making peace.  It will lead to the complete destruction of Gaza and the loss of any hope for the Palestinian people in Gaza or the West Bank.  

It's not anti-Semitic to protest against Israel's attack on Gaza.  At this point, six months since the brutal attack on Israel, and the murder of over a thousand Israelis that resulted, Hamas has not surrendered, been captured, or been eliminated as an opponent to an independent and sovereign state of Israel.  It's becoming pretty clear that's not going to happen.  The result of the war has been the murder of over 30,000 civilians, a small percentage of whom were military combatants or terrorists, the majority of whom were innocent civilians who happened to get in the way of the fighting and bombing.  Being opposed to that, to the point of protesting against it, doesn't constitute a denial of the right of Israel to exist.  

The Quakers have proposed a peace plan that would require, as noted above, one of the sides being committed to make it work.  The desire for peace cannot be coerced, because whatever it was that motivated the coercion is the thing that is desired, not peace itself. I'm not optimistic when it comes to depending on human intellect and reason to establish peace.  I don't know if humanity is yet capable of understanding how to make this happen.  When we have a politician in this country whose run for the White House is attracting followers because of the opportunities he offers to commit violence and bring destruction on their enemies, it's hard to see peace happening.  

The twentieth century was the bloodiest in human history and the twenty-first is shaping up to be even worse, unless there is a commitment to peace and powerful peacemakers.