Those Who Pay the Price are not the Perpetrators of the Problem

There's a historical context to the bloodshed that has become ingrained in the culture of the region generally referred to as the Middle East.  No matter who does what at this point, that context can't be changed.  There is a lot of history that has brought about everything that is happening there now.  So much seems to be ingrained in the region's history that keeps resurfacing, it seems impossible to find a solution to it, and massacres like the one we've just observed only serve to stir up more hatred and make things worse than they already are.  Actions create new resentments that call for more reactions.  It's a never ending cycle.  

Something goes haywire when one group of people, centered around their common culture, sees themselves as superior to other people, and entitled to rule the world.  Where does that thinking even come from?  How are people so conditioned to it that the human intellect, which we are taught to believe is the highest level of intelligence in the universe, cannot find a solution to the results of hatred?  It appears that one of the things we have that animals lack is the capacity to destroy ourselves and the world in which we live over ideology.  

Setting aside the history that has all contributed to the situation which now exists in Palestine between Israel and Gaza is impossible, since that's what has led to the current situation.  But getting past history is the only way to solve what has been and continues to be an egregious example of the inhumanity that is unfolding, once again, upon the people of the region.  

There is no excusing the brutal attack on Israel, perpetrated by Hamas out of Gaza.  No matter the reason for that, whether religious in the service of some imaginary god with human flaws, or as an act against economic and political oppression, it was horrific and should be condemned by everyone with any sense of human intellect, values, and emotions.  It was an act of evil, without any intention on the part of those who conducted it, of being anything else.  It should be condemned in the strongest terms, and those who planned and participated in it brought to justice.  

I'm still a little baffled by the fact that Hamas' leadership isn't actually in Gaza, even though they control it, but is in the rich emirate of Qatar.  The diplomacy there is puzzling.  Someone with more experience in the hypocrisy of diplomatic relations and alliances and who America's wealth is helping to enrich will need to explain that to me.  I don't get it. 

What I do get is that two million mostly impoverished people, who live in a densely populated, mostly run down, resource poor, seven mile wide strip of Mediterranean beach, most of whom had nothing to do with the attack on Israel or who even really cared about it, are going to pay for the attack by having to bear the brunt of the military might of the most well equipped and supplied military force in the Middle East.  And what will be achieved, on Israel's behalf, by the decimation of Gaza?  

Gaza is what it is because of unresolved problems related to the partition of Palestine back in 1948 when British imperialism designed the map of the middle east to benefit themselves and their economic interests, knowing that they were no longer the empire they once had been.  Much of the support from the west, particularly the United States, comes from the belief that the modern Jewish state is entitled to the land from the dimensions of Old Testament Israel and the theocratic covenant they had with God, because it fits with Bible prophecy.  

Even after the diaspora, and the Roman conquest of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. there was still a Jewish presence in Palestine.  The history of Judaism, which includes the divided Kingdom after Solomon, the dissolution of the Davidic monarchy when the Babylonian Empire conquered Judah, the diaspora, and the separate origins of Ashkenazim and Sephardim, precludes interpreting Bible prophecy to restore independent Israel to its covenant boundaries.  But an independent Jewish state in Palestine was justifiable under the circumstances.  Too much history worked against it, but it happened because the international superpowers made it happen.  Instead of stopping short with a solution for those who were displaced by what they eventually decided to do, they should have come up with a better solution than jamming two million people into a previously sparsely inhabited strip of Mediterranean beach wedged between Egypt and Israel.  

Israel may be able to lay its hands on a few Hamas fighters who haven't been able to get out of Gaza when they invade.  They may be able to temporarily disable their ability to attack from inside the enclave by rendering it virtually uninhabitable.  But long term problems require long term solutions.  And the real question is whether or not the people of Gaza deserve the suffering that they are experiencing and what's coming.  And the answer to that is that they don't.  

 

The Exodus From Christianity in America is Growing

Stephen Shoemaker: The Stampede Out of the Church and the People of Christ and God Outside its Walls

"The reason young people are leaving the church is not because they don't believe what the church teaches, but because the church does not believe what the church teaches."  Dr. Russell Moore, Editor of Christianity Today

Christian faith and practice has endured in spite of a long history of being diverted from its foundational doctrine and theology found in the New Testament.  No doubt the "church" as it exists today, housed in its own buildings and property for the most part, and often operating as a commercial enterprise, especially in this country, would not be recognizable to the Apostles who authored most of the Gospel accounts and the New Testament.  But the church is also becoming unrecognizable to many of those who have been part of it in its recent history.  I include myself in that.  

After being raised in a small, Southern Baptist church, by the time I graduated from high school, I found it difficult to take much of what I had been taught in church with any degree of seriousness.  Only one of the five or six Sunday School teachers I'd had over the years even graduated from high school, and only one of the three or four pastors I remember, who were all bi-vocational, had any formal theological training.  There wasn't a lot of consistency about what we believed, even with regard to what the church considered "essentials."  Faith practice was a matter of opinion, and some people had different opinions.  The pastor who was there when I left for college did a fine job of dismantling the theology and doctrine of his predecessor.  

So when I went to college, to a university that was affiliated with Southern Baptists, it was an eye-opening experience.  I'd heard people in church label any formal study of theology and doctrine at the college level, or in theological seminaries, even those operated by the denomination, as "liberal."  Compared to what I'd learned in church, the university's Biblical studies courses, of which 12 hours were required to earn any degree, were eye-openers, and I learned pretty quickly not to repeat things I'd learned in class there when I went back home for visits.  

Had it not been for the experience I had at the university I attended, I am almost certain I would have dropped out of church altogether.  But at that time, within the Southern Baptist Convention, existed a group of churches that could trace their origins to what is known as the "Charleston tradition," churches which were tied closely to British Baptists, with a set order of service, an educated clergy with specific study in theology to combine learning and piety.  During my freshman year, during a mid-semester time called Spiritual Emphasis Week, the guest speaker for chapel, and for dialogue sessions with students, was Dr. Kenneth Chafin, a pastor from Houston who became closely associated with the "moderate" movement in the Southern Baptist Convention during the shift that occurred starting in 1979.  

Dr. Chafin opened a door to understanding of my faith that I'd never experienced before, an emphasis on its values and principles being practiced in life as the expression of faith, for the purpose of uplifting and inspiring others, oriented toward fulfilling a life's purpose of service to humanity as a means of worship, rather than the inward focus on spirituality and the list of "do's and don'ts" offered by the alternative.  In that kind of Christian expression, faith is not a "crutch," but is a motivator to serve others as a means of bringing glory to God.  The Christian gospel makes it very clear that spiritual eternity cannot be earned and that living out life enhancing values in the present time is the focus.  Redemption is not dependent on a rigid doctrinal conformity that is unattainable, but is a matter of pure grace.

The problem with finding a local church that expresses this kind of faith practice, especially among conservative Evangelicals, including Southern Baptists, is that they are few and far between.  Most of them are scattered around in cities in the deep South.  In spite of the core principles of the Christian gospel, clearly outlined by Christ and the Apostles, conservative American Christianity continues to base belief and practice on superstition and with the more recent intrusion of far right wing politics, has incorporated conspiracy theory into its practice, while labelling some of the teachings of Jesus as being "woke and liberal."  

"The Church does not Believe What the Church Teaches" 

Russell Moore, currently editor of Christianity Today, which is still one of the most influential publications among American Christians in general, if its popularity among conservatives is fading, made the statement, cited by Stephen Shoemaker in the article that is linked from Baptist News Global, that young people are leaving the church because "the church does not believe what the church teaches."  Moore has recently referenced incidents in which conservative Christians have complained about the content of their own pastor's preaching, citing references to words recorded as having been spoken by Jesus, as sounding "woke and liberal."  

Ignorance of theology and doctrine among those who belong to churches that identify with various branches of American Evangelical Christianity, specifically those in churches that consider themselves conservatives, specifically fundamentalists, Pentecostals and Charismatics, is commonplace.  Whether it's a throwback to the culture out of which many of their denominations and churches were born, including frontier revivalism and the Second Great Awakening, or its the result of an anti-education bias because of the lack of trained and educated ministers and pastors during their formative years that has continued up to the present time, what most people accept as Christian Doctrine is a blend of superstition, their own biases and pre-suppositions, and a dependence on a literalist, "verse by verse" interpretation of a limited number of specific passages from the Bible, sans their historical and cultural context.  I can testify to having been taught that way in the church where I grew up, and from discernment of my own experience in the church.  

What's happened to bring most conservative, Evangelical doctrine and theology to its current point, which contains as much superstition and anti-biblical rhetoric as they claim Catholicism does, is the mix of revivalism, lack of an educated clergy, conflicting reformation theology at both ends of the spectrum, including Calvinism, which helps provide a nice dose of heresy, and the infiltration of right wing politics which is taken as a means of practicing faith by using its influence from its adherents.  It has, in some aspects, upgraded its outreach through social media and changed its worship to reflect more contemporary music choices and instrumentation, but in doing all of that, it has also brought in too much that isn't biblical or consistent with the Christian gospel, and so there's a lack of clarity about exactly what it is to which people are "converting."  Are they converting to the Christian gospel, or to the blended version of right wing doctrine and politics, neither of which lead to redemption and restoration to God.  

So why bother?  That's the response that they're getting. 

Shoemaker makes note of the fact that a majority of Americans are still considered "Christians" in a general sense of the term, but at the current rate of decline, that will fall below 50% sometime around 2070.  That's based on taking the membership figures provided by churches and denominations at face value.  Most Evangelicals, when discerning what they consider to be the "Christian" population of America, would leave out Catholics, most Mainline Protestants, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Quakers and other expressions of the broader definition of Christianity.  But there's also a huge discrepancy between how many people actually are involved in churches, compared to what they report for membership.  

The best example of number inflation in membership is the Evangelical, conservative denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention.  Their total membership peaked at 16.2 million in 2006, and has since fallen to 13.2 million, anticipated to drop below 13 million by next June.  But the actual number of people who can be found in worship or engaged in church ministries slipped under the 4 million mark during COVID, and hasn't recovered.  And even that figure went down by a million between its peak in 2006, and just before the pandemic in 2019.  So it is that two thirds of those who are on the membership rolls of Southern Baptist churches are non-participants in the local church expression of their faith.  

The biggest inflation of church membership is among the denominations and independent churches of the Pentecostal-Charismatic movement.  Some churches don't track actual membership, but report what they think is their average attendance, inflated by a factor of times three.  That's not an exaggeration.  Several years ago, I attended services at a new, non-denominational Charismatic church in Ft. Worth that claimed 13,000 people "to whom ministry is being given through the church."  Their auditorium held about 1,500, and the Sunday I was there, for the later of its two services, it was way less than half full.  The 13,000 figure was a monthly head count of everyone who came through the door, so the  majority of those were people who had been counted three or four times.  But the church reported that as its "membership."  

So generously estimating attendance and participation in all segments of Christianity in America at 40%, that easily drops the percentage of the population claiming to be Christian, of every conceivable definition of the term, to somewhere around 35%.  So Christianity is already a minority religion in the United States, though still by far the largest. 

Falling Away from Institutional Christianity

I count myself as one of those who, while intellectually and spiritually separating from the institutional church, still practice the full Christian gospel in a way that I believe follows its principles and values.  I still worship in church with my wife, who still considers that her primary means of faith practice, but I don't see that form of Christian expression as being either traditional in terms of what Christ determined to establish, or necessary to being Christian or redeemed, or vested with eternity, or whatever one calls that.  My faith follows those things that I believe the Christian gospel considers to be values and that's what I want it to look like outwardly, as well as to experience inwardly. 

It wasn't the political intrusion that pushed me away, though it did, in my own mind, provide evidence of the lack of spiritual connection between groups calling themselves "Christian" and considering themselves the church, and the Christian gospel as defined by Jesus and the apostles in scripture.  Being part of a like-minded group is important for support, for growth and including the commentary of those who are educated and knowledgeable of things like interpreting literature in context, looking at original language and drawing conclusions is as well.  That is a church as it is defined by the apostles in the New Testament.  

I often think how much different American culture and society would be if the Christian church within our nation were a real one.  Would we be hearing talk of Civil War, aimed at those who don't share the same values or beliefs?  Would we be so politically divided that we have people among us, fellow Americans, who are willing to set the house on fire and let it burn down because they are dissatisfied with their own miserable life?  Would we see an automatic reaction of taking the opposite side when someone who has been labelled as "liberal" or progressive comes up with an idea that would be good for everyone?  Would we see continued support for a politician who attempted to overturn the Constitution and set up a dictatorship?  

Everything is Political, So...

Does anyone think that the Republican blame game being directed toward President Biden is an attempt to cover for potential problems down the road that may uncover a link between Trump's disclosure of classified information, at all levels and in all places, including documents he kept at Mar-a-Lago, and the Hamas attack on Israel, being able to penetrate border defenses and security that is among the best in the world?  

Let's be honest and up front.  It's pretty clear that the Biden Administration is not to blame.  No evidence exists to support those claims, which read like a laundry list of invented nonsense.  It's such a habitual way for Republicans to respond that it's a ho-hum yawn of boredom in response.  From my perspective, that indicates something might be wrong within their own ranks, some mistake somewhere may have led to this happening, for which they bear responsibility.  Their attempt to get ahead of it all, duly noted and responded to by the Biden Administration, could very well be an attempt to cover up either their own, or their admired potential nominee's blunder.  More than likely, it's the latter. 

If a Democrat were in the same position, there's no doubt that Republicans would be openly connecting the mishandled classified documents to the information leak leading to the attack on Israel.  The presence of Russian officials in the White House during the prior presidential term, his son-in-law's receipt of large amounts of money from the Saudis, and his own friendliness toward them, on his property, where classified documents were not properly stored, and his propensity to share classified information freely, because he could, would all be major news headlines now, on going, cycle after cycle, droning on until the words were meaningless.  

But nothing like that is happening now.  Of course, there's a lot of speculation but no real connection has been established yet, and Democrats, who tend to show a lot of integrity, aren't jumping on the blame bandwagon.  Maybe that's to their own detriment, and maybe not, though at this point, with all that Trump has done, I doubt there are very many people who haven't at least thought about this.  If a connection is made, I hope it gets its due media coverage, all day, every day, in every way.  

For the kind of attack that took place this past weekend, Hamas would need to have help from somewhere on the inside.  That's not just a breach of security after probing for weak spots, that just doesn't happen in Israel.  They had to have inside information, and help.  The fact that it happened under Netanyahu's leadership, not under the "liberal" government, is a statement in and of itself, about the whole issue.  Conservatives are rarely truthful and forthcoming, so it is not likely the source of the breach, wherever it was, will ever be known. 

I just hope Democrats aren't shy about exploring all of the possibilities and continue to emphasize the possibilities, under the circumstances of indictments of the former President in a classified documents scandal.  Don't take blame that isn't yours.  

One of the strategies of the defense in court is to open up the possibility that someone else could have committed the crime, whether there's actual evidence that they did or not.  This helps convince juries of reasonable doubt and it is not considered dishonest or deceptive.  Nor should it be in this case.  If all possibilities, including heaping blame on Democrats, are out there for consideration, then all possibilities are open for discussion.  

The Credibility of the American Justice System Comes Down to This

Will We, the People, get a fair trial when it comes to the crimes committed by former President Donald Trump?  

So far, the ability to manipulate justice in America, which, in my perspective, has been characteristic of the courts in this country going back to its founding in 1789, has depended on the influence of wealth.  Like everything else in a free market economy, the legal system has a supply and demand factor.  A good team of lawyers costs money, and increases the odds of either winning a case, or beating the system, whichever the outcome favors.  

We now have a former President facing indictments for allegedly committing a number of crimes against the people, related to tampering with the ability of Congress to certify an election by inciting an insurrection, stealing classified documents from the White House without authorization, attempting to coerce state officials in Georgia to falsify election results and intimidate election worskers, and now, in his personal business, committing massive fraud.  

He has already gotten away with multiple other crimes against the people, documented in the more than 500 pages of the Mueller Report, including collusion with a foreign power to sway the results of an election, with substantial supporting evidence.  The special investigator in that case, Robert Mueller, left the door wide open for the Justice Department, then under the corrupt leadership ofTrump appointee Bill Barr, to convene grand juries and issue indictments, which never happened.  Money and influence spoke quite loudly, and We the People lost a big part of what makes the Constitution work for us.  

No one was willing to risk their own selfish ambition to be a patriot and save the integity of the government.  On one side, hands were thrown up and concession was made to the fact that the sitting President can't be held accountable for crimes, and "there's nothing we can do."  The other side just let it all blow over, ignored it and went on about their business.  The credibility of American justice failed that test.  

It can't fail the next one.  If it does, We the People lose our Constitutional democracy.  It will not survive.  

Opinion, from where I sit and observe, runs the spectrum from "this is a big media show but in the end, there is no way someone like Donald Trump will ever be held accountable for anything he's done.  That would upset the status quo, and open the door to break the influence and hold of money and wealth over this country, and that's never going to happen," to "this is looking good and the guy is finally going to get what he deserves."  Being optimistic helps me sleep at night.  There are people who have, finally, stood up to take action and make things move along.  Even the Justice Department, which dragged its feet and hemmed and hawed and dawdled and fussed after Congress laid out a spectacular investigation with mountains of evidence ready to go, has finally moved.  I only hope it was in time to save us.  

Will the American justice system hold out against this onslaught against Democracy?  And is this a matter of principle winning over corruption, or is it simply going to come down to a decision that is dependent on which side invests the most resources and has the best lawyers money can buy?  That sounds like a very cynical question, but it's a relevant one given the circumstances.  The former President actually made the claim that he could break the law and get away with it, mostly because he has broken the law much of his life, and has gotten away with it.  He has wealth and wealth is influence and influence can trump justice.  

There is always the court of public opinion.  But that's not the place for a fair trial.  There is incredible ignorance about Trump and what he's done, unbelievable, but it's there nevertheless.  That's our own fault, but at this point, I don't see that there's much that can be done about it.  Adolf Hitler made his way to power over a Constitutional democracy by laying claim to belief in the ignorance and the short memory of the masses, and that wound up leading to the destruction of the country.  I hope we're not going to be in any position to compare our own level of ignorance to that.  

I have confidence in the people who are in charge of our democracy right now, especially the Biden Administration and most notably, the President himself.  There's real resolve there, to make government work the way it should.  On the other hand, we have a justice department that has been weakened by the appointment of losers, and I'm not using that term as an insult, I really mean it, to the federal bench and to the Supreme Court who ultimately hold justice in their hands.  But the people who are ultimately going to be accountable for making this work is We the People.  And we need to be willing to do whatever it takes to protect democracy and justice from its enemies.  

With Declining Attendance and Membership, Churches are Being Taught to "Prioritize Politics"

Churches Taught to "Prioritize Politics"  

When the founding fathers, primarily James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, gave thought to the principle of religious liberty that was written into the Constitution, they came to the same philosophical point from different perspectives. Madison, who had a theological education, had seen the way that churches which were not part of the official "state church" in Virginia, including the fairly numerous Baptists, among others, had been persecuted for organizing and operating "unauthorized" churches.  He saw that establishing a state church in America would lead to more of the same kind of persecution, something many people had come to America to escape in Europe.  

Jefferson saw religion as a matter of personal conscience for which individuals were answerable only to God.  

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others," he said.  "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god.  It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."  

To the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, he wrote: 

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof', thus building a wall of separation between church and state."  

So churches were set free from control by the civil government, and the civil government was set free from any obligation to financially support the church or take any action to help it carry out its ministry.  That was, from both perspectives at the time, an ideal situation.  With the exception of some isolated cases, for the first time since the early 300's, the Christian church was able to function in an atmosphere of freedom, and become that group that Christ himself established, beyond the old covenant theocracy, which the writer of the book of Hebrews called "obsolete," and outside the control of civil authority that used the church for their own benefit.  

Like every other American, Christians are free in this country to meet for worship, fellowship, instruction, and to practice their faith by ministering to the needs of others and by evangelistic outreach, to gather an audience that is willing to listen to the claims of the faith and experience conversion if they so desire.  As Jefferson said the constitution established, government oversight extends to actions only, not to opinions.  Theoretically, government protects religious practice as much as it protects people from coercion when it comes to religious practice.  

Using the Power of Politics to Do Evangelistic Work is an Admission of Failure 

There's no question that Protestant Christianity has had a powerful influence on American government over the course of history, much of it privileged over that of other faiths, especially the Catholic church, because of their numbers and influence.  They've never been a majority of the population, but following the Second Great Awakening, between 1790 and 1850, they were the largest religious plurality.  Even now, the percentage of Christians in government belonging to one of the denominations or branches of Protestant Christianity, including the Evangelicals and Pentecostal/Charismatics is significantly greater than their total membership in society.  

As their numbers have waned considerably since declines in mainline denominations set in during the 1960's, and have now expanded to include all branches of Protestants, in recent years, most notably Evangelicals, the use of political power has replaced dependence on "spiritual power" to keep the influence of conservative Christianity high, even as church attendance and membership reach historic lows.  And with the decline in attendance, which is paralleled by a decline in the dollars put in offering plates, and the starving out of parachurch ministries, which I call "parasite" ministries, the push to use political power to enforce doctrine and practice by law has become more intense.  

Along with this shift to dependence on government power to protect church influence in the culture has come a shift in orthodoxy.  Christian nationalism has always been there, the product of an "Anglo-Israelism" that developed in Victorian England at the height of empire, the belief that English-speaking peoples of the world were destined to inherit the kingdom of God on earth from the Israelite throne of David.  But it is now intersecting with white supremacy, and a more Americanized version of the destiny of English speaking people, to produce a false theology that many Evangelicals fail to realize is heresy, and is killing, literally, their churches.  

Conservative Evangelicals claim to believe the Bible is inerrant and infallible, and that it is the written "word of God," authoritative in all matters defining human sinfulness, God's redemption and by default, science.  They believe that the root of all human problems is sin, defined as separation from God, and that the only resolution for this is spiritual redemption provided by the gospel of Jesus Christ, which means acknowledging that Jesus was the divine son of God, that his death was the atonement for all human sin, and that his resurrection makes resolving human sin possible because of its miraculous, spiritual nature. 

That belief is solely a matter of conscience.  It cannot be legislated.  We have 1500 years of church history where the church and state were linked and where church leadership enriched themselves by supporting monarchs who benefitted from the church's blessing to prove that this not only does not work, but it is inhumane, working against the betterment of humanity and society, and takes the essence of the nature of humanity away, turning people into slaves, which is exactly the opposite of what the Christian gospel promotes.  

Under the Constitution, Christians are free to preach this, as Jefferson said, "unrestricted opinion," though the government's ability with regard to action does place some restrictions on "actions".  But when, in American history, either in the past, or in the present, has the Christian church ever been restricted by government from doing anything it wants?  The only such incidents that are ever pointed to are places where Christians were so imposing and where they interfered with the rights of others.  Christianity, regardless of its branch in this country, is still highly favored and privileged over all other religions and especially over the non-religious. So go peddle your "persecuted" argument in China or North Korea.  

For certain intruders have stolen in among you, people who long ago were designated for this condemnation as ungodly, who pervert the grace of our Lord into licentiousness and deny our only master and Lord, Jesus Christ.  Jude v. 4

The Solution to the Decline is Not Teaching Churches to "Prioritize Politics" 

Churches engaging in political activity for the purpose of increasing their influence is not just a misplaced priority.  It is a departure from its Biblical mission and purpose.  It is a sinful waste of time and resources and an admission of their failure to figure out what's really going on that is causing people to leave in numbers not seen in the history of Christianity in a free society.  

There have been several approaches to the loss of membership, staggering in its scope and in how little time it has taken to lose so many of its former members.  One is to simply deny that it is happening.  Throw those denominational membership records out the window, plug your ears and go la la la la la until it goes away.  That would be lying, but that doesn't seem to be one of the sinful problems of humanity the church is seeking to change anymore.  Conservative Evangelicals have become comfortable supporting pathological lying.  Denial is easy after all that.  

A second approach is to minimize it.  The birth rate has been declining and people aren't having as many kids.  This is true, and it has had an effect on church attendance and membership.  But the members who are leaving churches are adults.  The highest number of departures occur sometime between a young person's 18th birthday and their 23rd birthday, especially if they are in college.  Membership data from churches themselves show that only 10% of Americans between 18 and 35 years of age identify with a church beyond family ties. 

Prioritizing politics is not going to replace evangelism.  Churches are declining because they have replaced evangelism with something else, like entertainment value, a corporate, commercial mentality or politics.  If you ask those people between 18 and 35 why they left, most of the surveys and studies that are done will tell you that more than half of them will answer, "Because of the push of secular politics."  So if people are leaving churches because they prioritize politics, that would be the wrong approach to take to increase its influence.  

As Jude says in his little epistle, the church has been invaded by intruders.  So it seems to me, the way to resolve its current problems, at least in this country, is to get rid of the intruders.  

Democrats Need to Get a Grip on Reality According to BTRTN

Born to Run the Numbers: Has America Lost its Mind? 

This particular piece is one of the best I've read on BTRTN for quite a while.  It's pretty direct, not a lot of hedging in explanation, and I think the message is clear and for the most part, on target.  It raises some legitimate questions, in some cases it begs the question, so to speak and it appears to drive for a conclusion to support the question it asks in the title, "Has America lost its mind?"  

There is no question about it, that some Americans have clearly lost their mind, become radicalized and are now a danger to democracy and freedom.  There are many reasons for this, the biggest, as far as I am concerned, is how dumbed down this country has become under the opiate influence of social media and conspiracy theory, a clear sign that the criticism of our educational system over the past thirty years is justified.  There are some particular points in this BTRTN piece that I think are worth a discussion, some thought and motivation to take action. 

BTRTN:  "The American experiment in democracy does not demand much of our citizens, but it does require at least a modicum of effort, at least some attempt at independent thinking, objectivity and logic.  But we appear to be, collectively, and with deep consequence, incapable of it."

First of all, I am glad to see that I'm not the only person who thinks this.  The critical thinking skills required to participate in and support American democracy should be taught and caught before students reach the 5th or 6th grade, and that's not intended to be insulting, that's the way it was designed, on purpose.  On the other hand, let's face it, as hard as it is, especially for those of us who are engaged in the education sector, and for those of us who, as political liberals, place a high level of trust in public education, that's where we have really failed.  

If the electorate were as educated as someone like John Dewey intended or expected, then the candidacy of Donald Trump would have fallen on its face before it ever gained any momentum.  Frankly, if it were as educated as the money and effort we put into it says that it should be, Ronald Reagan would have been beaten by Jimmy Carter as badly as LBJ smacked Goldwater and the Bushes would have watched politics from their Kennebunkport living room, a long way from the White House.

We hosted a 17 year old Swiss foreign exchange student during the 2016 election year, while we lived in rural Western Pennsylvania.  He was fairly fluent in English, but after four weeks in the public high school, where his impression of America vanished over the vapid nature of the curriculum and academic requirements and quality of the instruction, which included comments about student rudeness and disrespect toward teachers and the whole thing being "a waste of time," we moved him to a private school with a better academic program.  

"No wonder Donald Trump is getting attention," he observed.  

BTRTN:  "The Republican-controlled House of Representatives nearly shut down the government, causing needless anxiety for millions of Americans, including our military, because of a handful of lunatics, led by the despicable Matt Gaetz, who has no business holding one of the 435 seats in the House."  

Gaetz represents Florida District 1, which is made up of the counties in the far western panhandle of the state in the Central time zone.  I've been there several times, a flat, sultry, hot wasteland with dumpy, dirty towns and small cities that looks a lot like the Mississippi Delta, where flashy vacation hotels line the beaches, separated by coastal waterways from the run down housing of impoverished, underpaid service workers.  

It's my understanding that tourism and the military are the backbone of the local economy there.  I can understand Gaetz running and getting elected as a Republican in a heavily Republican district the first time around.  But seeing his anti-government antics in Congress, his rudeness and disrespect of witnesses in hearings, and some big hints that if he got the chance to vote to shut government down, and turn off the tap of local paychecks, he would, the fact that he was re-elected makes me wonder if anyone pays attention any more, or whether they just vote party and forget about it.  

Voting Republican is seen as a faithful expression of being conservative and Christian in this country, so the fact that he gets a lot of Evangelical support in an area where there are a lot of Evangelicals is not surprising.  His morality and the questions around his behavior with younger women aside, the ability most white Evangelicals have to justify their votes for candidates who mock their morals and values by flaunting their worldly immorality is evidence of unbelievable hypocrisy.  

Watch him "question" witnesses in congressional hearings.  He's like a child with severe ADHD who cannot sit still and who can't focus on the answer after he asks a question.  That is, if he ever gets around to asking a question rather than making a political statement.  

BTRTN:  "It would be easy to say that the American people deserve better than what Congress is offering.  But do we?  We were the ones who elected a GOP majority in Congress including each and every one of these lunatics."  

It is beyond my understanding to even try to figure out why Democrats, when we gain political victories that give us control of Congress, seem unable to do what it takes to hold on to that victory.  We know why we lose mid-term elections.  It's because many of our voters don't bother to go cast ballots.  Some of the pollsters and commenters refer to this as "lack of enthusiasm."  It took the reversal of Roe v. Wade, and the aftermath of the single most corrupt and disastrous Presidency in American history--and that's not hyperbole--to retain, by the narrowest of margins, control of the senate.  And while some people think that the "red wave" which never materialized was some kind of victory, we lost control of the House.  Yes, by a narrow margin, but nevertheless, we lost it.  

The party, once again, has failed to get control of the narrative.  Are there not people, expert in this field, who see the daily routine of Trump did this, Trump did that, Donald Trump said this, Donald Trump said that, as the pattern of media coverage?  Why are our politicians, most notably the President and some of our more articulate, progressive, "lightning rod" members of the House and Senate not getting the same kind of face time?  Is this a problem at the DNC headquarters?  

BTRTN:  The Democrats are obsessing unhelpfully over their own President and whining about the lack of alternatives for 2024.  

I get the open mindedness, the freedom of expression and the diversity that are all Democratic party values.  But those things do not have to create voter suppression, or fragmentation or divisiveness.  The biggest danger is the creeping fascism of the right, and the mechanisms they are organizing, including help from Russia and money from Saudi Arabia, which get some warnings and tongue clicking, and not much else.  More than most Republicans, many of whom seem unaware of, or who simply ignore the horrific, anti-patriotic, anti-American things Trump keeps doing, many Democrats do know.  But they'd rather sit around and hold discussions on talk shows about how to peel off support for their own brand of liberalism than unite the party and defeat, once and for all, this enemy of the people's government. 

"But we're not getting our way!"  "It's taking too long!" 

How much attention will be given to the more liberal, progressive wing of the Democratic party if Trump happens to get re-elected in 2024?  And what part of the "way" isn't being addressed that makes it worth sabotaging the whole Trump opposition to achieve?  I've heard some ridiculous whining from people who throw out false claims and conspiracy theories that are just as false, and just as dangerous as what the right puts out.  Discernment is a key.  We should be the party of facts and truth.  And we should be smart enough to discern between Russian planted propaganda and reality.  

Joe Biden has been one of the most effective Presidents since the Second World War.  That's a fact.  And whether various constituencies in the Democratic party realize it or not, he's been as effective for them as Barack Obama.  He's a seasoned politician who knows how government works and even in this age of partisan rancor and ridiculousness, has achieved bi-partisan success.  And no matter what the agenda is, he's an incumbent with a strong backup plan.  

The party leadership at the DNC needs to pull this together.  We need to see as much of Joe Biden on television as we do Donald Trump.  We need to put out the talking points over and over and over again.  And bottom line, we need an organization that will go after every Democratic and independent anti-Trump vote, even in deep red counties in deep red states.  

BTRTN:  Democrats need to get a grip on their own reality and back the one candidate we have who can ensure we will never see another Trump presidency, and that is Joe Biden.  

  

Have we had Enough of This Yet?

If any other person in this country had been as active on social media in attempting to taint a jury pool, in threatening open violence and in attacking the prosecution who charged them, as well as the judges who are potentially going to hear the case in their court, as Donald Trump has been since he was indicted by several grand juries in various locations, that person would be under an enforced gag order and would be held in custody awaiting a speedy trial.  

I have no idea who is responsible for the bending-over-backward, favorable treatment being given to this man who is under indictment for some really serious crimes which will almost certainly involve prison sentences if he is found guilty.  If what we've seen so far is accurate, and it certainly has that appearance, the evidence of crimes committed is overwhelming.  But he's getting away with making threats and inciting violence.  A United States Army General is taking steps to protect his family and himself because of the casual words of this man, which should be, in any interpretation of the Constitution, against the law.  But it's being allowed to happen without a consequence.  

The latest unconstitutional blabber to come forth from failed President 45's mouth is his idea that those who are engaged in rioting by smashing store windows should be shot on sight, without due process, and placing the value of merchandise above the value of a human life.  So much for being pro-life, huh?  These people are, by the way, being arrested when evidence warrants it, some, who have committed acts considered to be a danger to the community, held for trial.  Threatening harm or death to someone else, regardless of what they're doing, isn't protected free speech.  

This is Trump, Shooting Someone in the Middle of Fifth Avenue and Getting Away With It

He said it and he meant it and he was obviously right.  He has no respect for the judges in either Georgia or Washington, DC who say they mean business, and he expects the third judge, the one he appointed, will do whatever he says because he appointed her long before she was qualified or ready, and expects her to be corrupt in his favor.  

He is doing exactly what he said he would do back in 2016, when he first started running.  He has gotten away with things all his life because he is privileged, white, and rich.  He has found the America that exists for him is not the same one the rest of us live in and he has learned that he can buy and influence his way around any obstacle, legal or otherwise, and get away with it, because we let him get away with it.  The media promotes it to get ratings, and stupid people go along with it.  

Funny, isn't it, that I hear conservatives whining and griping and complaining about how crime is the result of Democratic party policy which ignores it or lets people off the hook or has too many ways for someone to get out of accountability, yet here is someone that half the party is seriously thinking about supporting for another run to the White House, an incoherent, babbling, insane fool incapable of dealing with the slightest opposition.  That's really incomprehensible. 

But what is even more so is the fact that he's getting away with it and no one seems to have either the responsibility or the fortitude to stand up to it and put him in his place.  I don't know about other people's opinion, but I'm really losing confidence in the ability of these judges to conduct a fair trial and get a reasonable outcome that he hasn't already tainted.  It's ridiculous for Republicans to talk about law and order as long as this guy is running for President unaffected by the indictments swirling around him.  

But isn't there more that can be done besides tongue clicking and a few loud comments in the media?