The Geneva Convention created standards to protect civilian populations in time of war. Composed after World War II, it explicitly forbids the harm and killing of civilians in the prosecution of a war.

• Article 27 explicitly forbids willful killing of civilians, including through indiscriminate attacks or attacks on protected objects like hospitals and schools International Humanitarian Law Databases – ICRC.

As Hamlet famously stated the regulation has been” “more honored in the breach than the observance” Hamlet (Act 1, Scene 4).  Few armies consider any rules applicable in time of war. Certainly not the armies of the Twenty-first century.

Since the early bombardment of civilian targets (i.e. hospitals, schools, apartments) by Israel in 2023, the indiscriminate slaughter of innocent lives has become the norm of international war. In fairness, Israel was responding to the carnage of settlements in southern Israel on October 7, but the air strikes in Gaza have persisted unabated since then. Israel insists it is targeting hidden pockets of Hamas militants, but the daily toll of hundreds of  Palestinian collateral deaths defies all rationalizations.

When Israel began its offensive in Beirut, Lebanon on April 8, 2026 it abandoned all pretense of assaulting only militant Hezbollah fighters.

Several strikes occurred in busy commercial and residential locations during rush hour, causing widespread panic in the streets.^[39] Areas hit included southern Beirut, the port city of Sidon, the eastern Beqaa Valley, and the southern city of Tyre.^{[40][41]  [39]} 

Since the war of attrition in Gaza, such bombardments have become the norm in Israel’s ruthless pursuit of Hamas  and Hezbollah terrorists. Despite its public stance of self-defense, its military strikes have approached genocide in its purest form. As loud as our voices of protest have been, they have become muted by the building death toll of civilians. It is hard to sustain outrage over years of murderous attacks.

With its reign/ rain of terror on civilian populations in Ukraine, Russia has been the forerunner of systematic civilian attacks in this decade.  Since February, 2022 the indiscriminate bombing of Kyiv has continued unabated;  systematic attack on civilians across Ukraine has accelerated.

Yet Russia found a way to ramp up even these atrocities. After warning the citizens of Kyiv of an impending attack in early May, Russia paused while the people scurried to shelters. On May 24 Russia pounded Kyiv with hundreds of drones and dozens of missiles overnight and after daybreak. Most citizens had abandoned their  homes until the attack appeared over.

After the alert was lifted, sleepy families walked home as the sun cut through thick clouds of smoke over Kyiv. But shortly after 7 a.m., with some people already on their way to work, Russia hit the city with hypersonic ballistic missiles, Ukrainian officials said, leaving little time for people to seek shelter again. [https://www.reuters.com/world/ukraine-war-live-major-new-russian-attacks-hit-kyiv-other-cities-2026-06-02/]

This version of psychological terror of civilians reduces brutality to a level hardly envisioned by the Geneva Convention. Unable to gain ground on the battlefront, Russia has focused on the helpless civilian population. Russia’s naked objective is no less than the utter demoralization of citizens to bring Ukraine to its collective knees.

The United States has so far avoided this level of depravity, unless you count what appears an unintended leveling of a girls’ school in Tehran in March.  It is suspected that the bombing was the result of faulty intelligence, as N.R. Jenzen-Jones, director of Armament Research Services suggested:

The school was located within less than 100 yards of the perimeter of an Iranian Revolutionary Guard naval base, according to satellite images and publicly available information. The clinic was also located within the base perimeter, although both facilities had been walled off from the base. https://www.npr.org/2026/03/11/nx-s1-5744981/pentagon-iran-missile-school-hegseth

While the death of 165 young girls cannot be minimized, the judgment will probably not descend to a war crime.

However, the bombing of innocent civilians by our ally Israel deserves no excuses. Its claims of collateral damage will never exonerate its war crimes.  Americans can consider themselves complicit in that the weapons that were sold to Israel came from American manufacturers, and our government has tacitly condoned operations in Gaza.

Whether Russia, Israel or the United States ever face prosecution for war crimes is barely significant. What matters today is that our consciences and our outrage should be stirred by the  deepening terror of war.  War can reach more depth than the anticipated sacrifice of young men and women.  If we witness civilian murder without outrage, our consciences have been truly  roughened by violence. If we don’t stand against this level of degradation, we stand for nothing.

Scott Pelley, the lead reporter for Sixty Minutes, finally blew the lid off the politically-corrected plans of CBS to revise 60 Minutes and especially criticized the dismissal of two veteran reporters, Sharon Alfonsi and Cecilia Vega. He called the date of their firing “Black Thursday.”

In an explosive meeting on Sunday afternoon (May 31) , Pelley’s  outburst attacked a series of editorial and administrative changes, including the removal of a segment reported by Ms. Alfonsi about the brutal treatment of migrants in a Salvadoran prison, with CBS saying that it needed more reporting. The report aired later with a qualifying statement from President Trump.

CBS had previously announced the cutting of The Tonight Show with Stephen Colbert citing economic considerations. Such consequential programming changes suggested a political drift of CBS that could have been inspired by the Trump administration.

In an extraordinary exchange, Mr. Pelley, his newscaster’s baritone sometimes shaking in anger, told Nick Bilton, the new executive producer, that he had “slender” qualifications for his new job and questioned the network’s commitment to the future of the program, according to a recording of the meeting obtained by The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/01/business/media/cbs-60-minutes-scott-pelley-nick-bilton.html campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20260601&instance_id=176493&nl=breaking-news&regi_id=58015410&segment_id=220785&user_id=c0905f751b354fe438caeb62c91726b3

The meeting spoke volumes of the power of the federal government to influence media programming. 60 Minutes has long been the journalistic standard for careful, but critical news commentary and has never shied away from criticizing institutions and people in high places.  When the President turned his gaze on 60 Minutes he faced an experienced and principled journalistic team. He had shown his clout with the business side of the program, but the journalistic team has been less accommodating.

The power of media intimidation should not be underestimated. The hovering shadow of the FCC and the ample battalion of  lawyers in the present administration melts conviction of free expression by attrition.  Any attempt to question the status-quo is dampened by the shroud of prosecution and the implied threat on licenses.

The attack on the free press never comes from the front. It argues questions of bias, so hard to prosecute, but so easy to undermine the courage of executive powers. The pressure on CBS, ABC and the Washington Post (under Steve Bezos) all tested the power of the free press. Only ABC/Disney showed the resolve to stand up to the intimidation of federal authorities, especially the Federal Communications Commission. Censorship is more than a phobia.

Without the outbursts of journalists like Scott Pelley, these skirmishes pass unnoticed.  The unprincipled administration of media outlets go-along to get-along.  Without the biting satire of Stephen Colbert the termination of entertainment programming soon passes from memory, and new formats and accommodating performers are welcomed. The voices of opposition are weakened and silenced.

If one point of view can be squelched, so can its opposition. Politics ebbs and flows while programming spans administrations. Sixty Minutes has covered eleven administrations since Lyndon Johnson in 1968. Whether we agree with the content of programming we should be disturbed by how it is challenged and eliminated.

No media persecution has shown itself like the scrutiny of this administration.  We should be concerned that it considers news programming fair game. When the media are attacked, we stand to lose valuable perspectives. The whole idea of a free press has been compromised. That cannot happen in the 250th anniversary of the home of the free. We should stand wth Stephen Colbert and Scott Pelley against the bullies who cannot tolerate questioning or criticism.

Send a message to the media bullies.  Restore the victims: Stephen Colbert, Sharon Alfonsi and Cecilia Vega.

Prosecution of Thoughtcrimes

One resolution I am trying to keep is “Don’t get cynical.” Cynicsim is a cop-out for someone who doesn’t want to pursue the elusive prey–the truth. I suspect one reason I succumb to just one person’s truth is that I have given up the struggle for any truth at all. Too often we choose to believe one source, and then that source proves to be wrong or just lying. Then we conclude that we can never know the truth. We subscribe to one person’s version of the truth.

I will never find any truth if I condemn myself for being wrong. The person I most trust is the person who says, “Once I believed—Now I believe.” People who change their minds are not fickle or foolish. They are honest and humble enough to say, “ I was wrong.” Maybe you will be wrong about the same opinion twice, even more! Not a big deal. Just keep searching for the elusive prey.

Ernest Hemingway said, “The most essential gift for a good writer is a built-in, shock‑proof, shit detector.” That is how we should listen to the media today. I try not to leap to conclusions based on yesterday’s, even last week’s news story. I arrive at some semblance of truth if I follow a series of stories, notice the corrections of facts and assumptions, and look for reliable sources. The truth is out there, if you are willing to keep your eyes and ears open. And, as I said in yesterday’s blog:” Don’t let Anyone Tell You What to Think-Including Me” [https://wtucker.edublogs.org/2026/05/26/dont-let-anyone-tell-you-what-to-think-including-me/.

I am not one to mix religious faith with politics, but I admit my politics is shaped by my faith. The corruption and hypocrisy of the national Republican Party has led me to consider the next election a moral crusade. At the top of the Party is a man who slanders his opponents on social media, sues good people for opposing him, undermines democracy by blaming a loss on election fraud, bullies people within his own party to ratify his plans, and transparently lies by contradicting his own emphatic statements from one day to another. I hope I am addressing moral, rather than political grievances here, because I am not intentionally trying to be partisan.

By no means am I saying the Blue Party is more moral. I’m sure we will find all the hypocrisy the Red Party can dig up by the next election, and it shouldn’t surprise us. Politics has become a bloodsport, so we can expect some bloody candidates for office. And yet I still believe in democracy. In this country that means you have to choose your poison, when it comes to elections. I also believe we can judge between lies and truth, if we listen to all with an open mind.

To vote your conscience, look for candidates that are trying to unify America, not sling mud at their opponents. Look for candidates who appeal to the “better angels” of voters, as Abraham Lincoln used to say. Look for candidates whose behavior matches their speech. Look for candidates who don’t lie. You have to decide what’s true, and you will have to make some assumptions.”Don’t let Anyone Tell You What to Think-Including Me.” [See https://wtucker.edublogs.org/2026/05/26/dont-let-anyone-tell-you-what-to-think-including-me/]. Don’t give up mining for the truth, even if you have to change your mind occasionally. That’s how public truths emerge today.

Part of getting to the truth is exposing your own biases. Biases are opinions that have to be evaluated. You can have biases yet not be deceived. Admitting your biases is on the path to the truth.I try to get my biases out there. Here comes some biased thinking, on which I will end today’s sermon.

Nate Cohn, the statistics guru for the NY Times, makes some fascinating observations this morning on voter demographics in Texas. Possibly he was inspired by the victory of President Trump’s candidate in Texas, Ken Paxton. Paxton, a man with scandalous public reputation, will face a Presbyterian seminarian in Texas, who is running a much less partisan campaign. James Talarico is one reason to choose Blue in the upcoming election.

See summary of Cohn’s article below or read today’s column at https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/27/upshot/paxton-talarico-texas-polling.html

A Blue Texas May Be More Than a Dream for Democrats

(Summary)

Texas could turn blue in 2026 due to demographic shifts and the nomination of Ken Paxton, who has political liabilities. Democrats are gaining support among young, nonwhite, and Hispanic voters, making Texas a plausible battleground. While Texas Democrats face challenges, the absence of an incumbent and Paxton’s damaged reputation could give them an advantage.

In your spare time pay attention to the Paxton-Talarico race in Texas and see what you can learn about decency and truth. Or ruthlessness and deception. The next national election will be a moral crusade. Find your side. Prepare to admit your mistakes.

Listening to the media in this decade has been mind-boggling, because even the truth can be warped to make one side look better than another. Sorting out policies and bills in Congress is more than most of us can handle, so we just accept the Party Line. That is a shame, but what can we do?

One thing you CAN do: Don’t let politicians or so-called experts tell you how to vote. If you passed sixth grade you probably know that critical thinking means thinking for yourself. If you cannot apply that to the language of bureaucrats, one thing you can do is not allow just one of them to tell you how to vote. Make up your own mind with whatever God gave you to think.

Maybe you already do this, so I apologize to the critical thinkers out there. But if you just listen to one person tell you how to vote, you are giving up your right to choose and that right is sacred in America.

This is an ongoing issue in the Republican primaries, but if you doubt this check other sources than me. Here’s what I learned:

Senator Bill Cassidy (LA) did not always vote with the President. Mr. Trump supported a challenger, and Mr. Cassidy, a two-term Republican, finished third in a primary in Louisiana on Saturday.

As you may recall, Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger refused to acquire ten thousand votes in 2020, so that Mr. Trump would take Georgia instead of Democrat Joe Biden, Jr. This year, Mr. Raffensperger ran for Georgia governor, and Mr. Trump backed Lt. Gov. Burt Jones, a candidate opposing Mr. Raffensperger. It worked: Mr. Raffensperger came in a distant third in the primary on Tuesday. The President meddled in a state election.

Well, that’s politics.

But what about a U.S. Representative who had a record of supporting the causes of his district in Congress? Mr. Trump supported a challenger, Ed Gallrein, a retired Navy SEAL, and held a rally in March in the district where he took aim at Rep. Tom Massie, saying, “We’ve got to get rid of this loser.” The race became the most expensive House primary in recent history, and when it was over, Mr. Massie had lost.

That surprised many Republicans who thought they knew best what was good for their own Congressional district. Massie had served them well, but he got “primaried.”

Or better, yet, what about a President injecting himself into state elections, where the candidates had nothing to do with the federal government? The president recruited challengers to run in the Republican primary for the state legislature in Indiana, and they ousted five of the Republican lawmakers who had crossed him on redistricting the state map. One Trump-aligned ad likened a Republican lawmaker who had voted against the map to “toilet paper” and called him “soft, weak, liberal.” [https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/20/us/politics/trump-republicans-primaries-revenge.html]

Point being, that the President told people, how to vote , even in their own state, and everyone bowed down and did it. That is not democracy.

The moral is, Don’t give up your right to think about a local candidate, because the President tries to think for you.

Another way politicians of both sides of the aisle try to think for you is name-calling. If one politician calls another one a “socialist” or a “fascist,” that is because they expect to shape your opinion by name-calling. The critical thinker will say, “What is a “fascist” or a “socialist” anyway? (You can Google it). Has this person lived up to that name? If you let a politician get away with labeling, you are giving up your right to think for yourself. Why would you do that?

A similar approach to sabotaging your opinion is the “red meat“ strategy. Politicians know what makes voters jump to conclusions. They call these topics “red meat.” Suppose a politician, let’s say the Governor of Missouri, promises to eliminate the state income tax. Eliminating taxes tastes like red meat, because no one likes taxes. Eliminating taxes sounds like serving a nice steak at no charge at a restaurant. Mmmmm, red meat!

But how will the bills be paid without income taxes? Primarily by sales taxes, the Governor says, not mentioning what new products might be taxed, e.g digital services: streaming subscriptions, e‑books, and digital platforms. The problem is everybody pays the same sales tax rate, whereas everyone would pay income tax based only on their income. The poor paid the lowest taxes. The wealthy paid the most. Hmmm, I wonder who wanted to eliminate a system like this?

The critical thinker has begun to realize the elimination of income taxes mostly benefits the wealthy, because the middle class tax-payer will pay more of his income on sales taxes. The wealthy will pay less sales tax than they paid on income taxes. The voters support the governor because he threw them some red meat, but they didn’t realize he was taking away their potatoes, carrots, and dessert by a complete change of menu.

To address the most insulting way unthinking voters are tripped up: Don’t believe your eyes. When President Biden decided to run again in the 2024 election, the biggest question was his physical and mental competence. Most voters had seen his disastrous performance at the first Presidential debate, yet the spokespeople for the President asked them not to believe their eyes:

The Wall Street Journal recently published a lengthy article, based on conversations with nearly 50 people close to the president, detailing how Biden’s handlers tried to hide his decline. Nearly everyone around him was in on the scam. https://thehill.com/opinion/5054730-biden-democratic-lies-2024/

Were you fooled by this performance? Many Democrats were ready to support him as the first nominee, despite his stumbling verbally and physically in public. Because they didn’t believe their eyes.

Politicians assume voters will believe what they say, not what they do. Too often they are right about us, because we are not critical thinkers. When we buy a car and the salesman gives us a line, don’t we try to get another opinion? Why don’t we do that when we vote? Will we just take the President’s or the Governor’s opinion on a car or a candidate? What do our eyes and our rational faculties tell us? Is our intelligence ever insulted when someone tells us how to vote?

Don’t let anyone tell you who to vote for, how to think with a one-word label (”weak” or “fraud”), how to solve a “red meat” problem, or contradict what you can see with your own eyes. Protect the critical thinking mind God and your ninth grade teacher gave you.

Don’t let anyone tell you what to think—including me.

I always enjoy a David Brooks article,  (“History is Running Backwards: Why Reactionaries are Taking Over the World.” (The Atlantic, May, 2026, 45-51), because he never gives one side the satisfaction of superiority over the other. He refuses to stumble into the hole where Republicans demonize Democrats or humanists condescend to Christians.  He refuses to give ground to politics or religion, where one side gains energy by demeaning the other.  We see too much of it in political campaigns and religious crusades today.

Because we want to feel superior to the Other. Why belong to a group unless you can prove the other group is inferior? Our ideology or faith has meaning only if there is a false doctrine, something we can push against. Not to argue that there is no truth, but that there is no superiority. We are not elevated by our truth, but humbled.

The currently popular Jesus never fell into the trap of dualism, even if his followers tirelessly claimed to be superior.  In the Gospel According to Matthew, Chapter 5, he delivers his most famous teaching, the Sermon on the Mount, but instead of giving an altar call, he turns around and says,

Do not think I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away not one stroke of a letter will pass from the law until all is accomplished. . .

Then he throws in this zinger for good measure . . .

For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and the Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (5:17-18 and 20).

It sounds like Jesus is not only advocating for the law, but holding his followers to a higher standard than the prescriptive Torah. Instead of feeling superior to the law-abiding Pharisees, they now felt inferior, because Jesus appears to hold them to an impossible standard. He never gave his followers enough time to take the low road of superiority.

Within a couple of chapters, Jesus is reported to say,

Neither is new wine put into old wineskins; because otherwise the skins burst, and the wine is spilled, and the skins are destroyed; but put new wine into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved. (9:17)

Wait a minute. Now you are saying that the Old Law is like old wineskins, and it’s going to burst from rigidity? It is no wonder Jesus’ disciples were perpetually confused. He contradicted himself at every turn.

Or was it contradiction? Instead, was it Jesus keeping his followers off balance, so they did not arm themselves against traditional belief, as one party against another in a political campaign? The “old wineskins” were not the legalism of the Pharisees, but the rigidity of a group convinced it had proved the other side wrong. Wineskins would lose their resilience if they were brittle with age. They could not contain the expansion of fermenting wine, so they would burst.

The metaphor of the wine and the wineskins also teaches us that wine needs a container. It does not go from the fermented product into the mouth.  It is stored, either for more fermentation or for future celebrations. Likewise our ideologies and creeds: they need containers, holding tanks, so we can perpetually enjoy them.

How do you follow any teaching or platform without a written record of what you follow? How do you live? How do you teach your children right from wrong? How do you draw others to your cause? How do you prevent heresy? Toleration seems to be the same as believing nothing.

We have to believe something, or we have no ground to walk on or starting block to propel us forward. As Brooks says, “I agree that tradition is important, but I don’t think of it as something we need to go back to. Rather, I think of it as something that each generation pushes forward. And for this, we need a humanistic renaissance.” Brooks says we need to teach students to think about the big questions: What is my purpose? How should the next generation live? What role should beauty play in my life? How do I build a friendship?” (p. 51)

As much as I love David Brooks I suspect his solution of more learning. Not that we don’t need to learn, but we need to learn with humility. The Evangelicals are not zealous; they’re smug. Progressive Christians are not tolerant; they’re condescending.  Conservatives are not traditional; they’re elitist. Liberals are not generous; they’re dismissive. It turns out that every value we hold can be corrupted by our attitude toward others.  That was Jesus’ point about the “righteousness of the Pharisees.” The Pharisees weren’t wrong; they were hypocritical.

The trap of superiority looms at every turn of our doctrine, no matter how flexible. As I write this amendment to the wise David Brooks, I am not wiser; I am a David Brooks wanna-be .

If you’re looking for where Gallrein splits with the president, you won’t find it. The former Navy SEAL officer has said repeatedly he stands “100% behind the president.”           https://www.lpm.org/news/2026-05-18/massies-house-seat-is-on-the-line-can-he-hang-on-against-trumps-champion

I often vote for the character of a candidate more than the platform of his or her Party, because I want to vote for integrity over the Party line. I like to believe my candidate will vote conscientiously, not how the power-brokers of the Party tell him to.

But never has loyalty to the President mattered so much in an election campaign as it has in primaries in Indiana, Louisiana and Kentucky. Loyalty to the President has been the most important issue for many Republican voters.

Why would any Congressional candidate admit that he would be less than 100% behind the President? That would mean the President could be wrong. But do we expect a President to be always right?

Do you remember the story of Shadrach, Meschach and Abedbednego in the Fiery Furnace? Do you remember how they got there?

King Nebuchadnezzar had gotten a little conceited, and he decided to erect a golden statue of himself. Not only that, he demanded his people worship the statue. By today’s measurements this statue was 9 x 9o feet.

You are commanded O peoples, nations and languages, that when hear the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, drum, and the entire musical ensemble, you are to fall down and worship the golden statue that King Nebuchadnezzar has set up. Whoever does not fall down and worship shall immediately be thrown into a furnace of blazing fire. (Daniel 3:4-6).

Of course the Jewish immigrants would not bow down, because they worshipped only Yahweh, the God who had led them out of Egypt and followed them into the land of their Captivity– Babylon. Particularly offensive to the local powers-that-be were three Jewish officials– Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego– because they had been “appointed over the affairs of the province of Babylon” (3:12).  So certain of them came forward and tried to primary-them-out of power. Whoops, I meant “came forward and denounced the Jews.”

Nebuchadnezar was so enraged that he put up another candidate. No, I meant he heated the furnace to seven times its normal temperature.  Most amazing was that Shad, Mesch, and Abed managed to survive the fire with the help of an angel who danced inside the furnace with them. It blew the king away. He turned 180 degrees and said:

“Any people nation or language that utters blasphemy against the God of Shadrach, Meschach and Abednego shall be torn limb from limb, and their houses laid in ruins; for there is no other god who is able to deliver in this way.” Then the king promoted Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednego in the province of Babylon. (3-29-30)

You did not want to get on the wrong side of this king.

I first heard this story in Sunday School, where I was urged to follow what God told me, and not the worldly powers that might ask me to go against my conscience. My parents taught me some powerful leaders might be wrong. Especially the Communists.

Of course we no longer have leaders like Nebuchadnezzar in our democracy. But we do have idols. We have celebrities, sports heroes, and rock stars whom we treat as idols, because we worship them in the way modern folks do: read voraciously about them, spend exorbitantly to see them, and denounce anyone who says things against them. Of course we know our idols are only human and occasionally fall short of standards of decency. Or I hope we do.

But there is one idol who never falls short. That is the one man who has said he never had to ask for forgiveness of God or man. The one candidate who demands 100% loyalty, because anyone responsible for the “affairs of the province” could compromise his power. The one man who keeps the entire Republican Party under control with threats of setting candidates against them in the primaries.

Which is what is happening to Tom Massie, Republican from Kentucky’s Fourth District, who has served seven terms as a man of conscience. He rubbed the President the wrong way when he argued against the One Beautiful Bill as inflationary, when he introduced the war powers resolution to curb U.S. hostilities in Iran, and most of all, for his persistence in demanding the full release of the Epstein files. These were all votes of conscience that crossed Party lines.

Because Massie believes only idols are never wrong. One contemporary idol is even more demanding than Nebucchadnezzar. Neb, at least, decided to share power with “the God of Shadrach, Meschach and Abednego” after previously demanding to be worshipped exclusively. In the epic story of three men of conscience, God saved them from the fiery furnace, because they stood on their principles, like the Congressman from Kentucky.

Anyone who says he is “100% behind the President” implies that the President is never wrong. Only idols are never wrong. Therefore the candidate Ed Gallrein, who has said repeatedly he stands “100% behind the president” worships an idol. Idols can fail, regardless of what they tell us.

Presidents, Democratic or Republican, are fallible people.  We have to hold them to account. Whatever happened to voting your conscience, to honoring principle over Party, to critical thinking? I would be embarrassed to say I was with the Nebuchadnezzars of this world, who demand absolute loyalty, even if they are wrong.   No political candidate, Democrat or Republican, will get that level of loyalty from me.

Bring on the fiery furnace! Or at least an election where I can vote for a person of principle.

Massie has long fought the establishment of both parties since first winning his seat 14 years ago in the Tea Party era as a deficit hawk. His relationship with Trump has often wavered, but he still went on to easily win six more races, most after MAGA became a driving force in Republican politics.

Read more at: https://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article312581626.html#storylink=cpy

As a breed, we Christians are not very trusting. We are not comfortable with faith. We want contracts and guarantees.  We are not satisfied by “ways.” We want truth in formulas. We want God to keep us safe from all harm and danger, which is reassuring when we are children trying to go to sleep at night. That is not reality for adults who have to deal with suffering and death every day.

Jesus compares himself to a door. There are doors that go one-way or two-ways. Doors that require a key, a password, or nothing at all. Doors that guide us in or keep us out.  What do you imagine is true about this door?

I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.¹⁰ The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly. (John  10:9-10).

This is the kind of door Jesus compares to himself.  It is a door that will save us and will let us out as well as in. It is a door of opportunity, rather than a door of seclusion. It seems like the best door possible.

How can anyone be a door? Is it because they are trying to keep people out and prevent others from leaving? That is not the kind of door Jesus compares himself to. He says we will “go in and go out and find pasture.” So Jesus is not only an access to something, he is an opportunity to explore and discover.

This is not the kind of door I was taught about in Sunday School.  That door was a one-way passage that would save us from the outside world. Jesus was the password and Jesus the lock. You said “Jesus” to get in and no one could get in to harm you without that password.

Jesus shows us how to live. He does not say “use my name and the bouncer will let you into the sheepfold.” Instead he says, “If you’re lost, look for the door, the way to go in, as well as to go out, as well as to find pasture.” It is about an opportunity, not a restriction. Somehow I did not get that when I accepted Jesus into my life. I thought I had found a way that was one-way, restricted access. The door slammed shut behind me.

But I should have realized that Jesus was not that kind of door, because he said he had come “that they may have life and have it more abundantly.” Life was not a sheepfold that keeps people out until they say the password.  He was not a one-way entrance, where you can’t go out to explore “and find pasture.”  The door was an opportunity, not a qualifying test.

What changes when you see Jesus as a two-way entrance and an opportunity? It means you are living by his standards and trusting it will work out as he promised. It does not make “Jesus” a safe-word or a key to get in.  It does not mean you enter by a three-step code (Repent, be baptized, be saved). You enter by following, you live by imitating, you are saved by trusting.

The same idea came from this verse:  “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John14:6). I assumed Jesus was the password, Jesus the one-way access. But how does a person become a way? Is this another one of those  entrances that requires a password? 

I thought this meant Jesus was a roadmap, but a roadmap is already laid out ahead of us.  The “way” of faith is more adventurous, because it does not follow a pre-set plan. It follows a “how to,” not a “where to.”  Someone once compared faith to driving at night on a pitch black road.  Your headlights showed you the road immediately ahead, and you could drive safely. But you could only see as far as the headlights shone. Pretty scary, but not so much if you’re following “the way.”

If Jesus is a two-way door and an unfolding path the same should be said of “the truth and the life.” It is all an adventure, a way that lies only a far as faith can see. Somehow I had gotten it all backwards. Jesus was not a destination. Jesus was a way, process. Jesus was not a password; he was the key-less entrance. You followed his way, his truth, his life and there you were!  You followed his movements (Spirit) not a contract with iron-clad guarantees. Even a lawyer will tell you there are no iron-clad guarantees. But there is a way, an adventure, an unfolding  an abundant life. Just look for the door. It’s open.

There are at least two ways our arrogance can hurt others:

1. Assuming we can answer every question
2. Assuming we do not have to forgive

Susan Sherman Talley taught me, “It is what it is.” She did not ponder every question till it died of irrelevance. She probably accepted much more than I would, because I am one who thinks every question should be resolved. Or I used to think that.

When Susan died of a high impact auto accident on May 7, 2024, her life ended in its prime. Another driver, presumably dead at the wheel, ran into her car at high speed.  Her mother, my spouse Victoria, has struggled with the idea that an inch or two, a moment or two, would have avoided that awful tragedy. She is right, of course, but “That way lies madness,” as Hamlet said. “It is what it is,” Susan would say.

That does not mean we don’t wrestle with the insanity of it all. No tragedy should be nullified, as if it didn’t matter. Why did Shakespeare write Hamlet except to wrestle with the terrible waste of life, the mystery of death without reason? We do struggle, but each time we understand we cannot resolve every question, certainly not the question of why this happened to Susan.

Why do good Christians harm other Christians by coming up with answers? She’s in a better place; She didn’t suffer; God needed one more angel in heaven. Why do Christians think they have to answer everything? These answers are hurtful because they do not acknowledge the real pain of the death of a loved one. You don’t  have to rationalize every event.

Susan had the humility to know that life is full of unresolvable questions. More humility than I have, because I want to resolve most of them to my satisfaction. But I am learning and I am grateful to Susan for her example of reconciliation. To stop tearing my mind to fragments over questions that will not answer themselves. “Why do bad things happen to good people?”  The Book of Job  devoted 42 chapters to wrestling with this question, and in the end it dodged the question completely. This is a “why” we will never answer this side of heaven.

“It is what it is” also reminds me that we will not always get satisfaction for the offenses of others. That is why Jesus said we must forgive others “seventy times seven.”  I am pretty sure he didn’t mean that we stop forgiving after the 490th offense. Rather we must indefinitely give up our demand to be right , to get others to see how they have wronged us.

Of course we should let others know they have offended/ hurt us in some way. We have to say what it is, before we can say “It is what it is.” Then it’s over. You are not entitled to someone else’s repentance. That is between the offender and God. You do the hardest thing God gave us to do: forgive. No strings attached.

Probably “being right ” is our most cherished right. When we think we have a case against someone or we have a corner on the truth, we are playing the role of God.  There is no case in which we are unquestionably right, because that would allow us to hurt back. Isn’t that how we create scapegoats? We identify some way that a group of people has offended us, then we turn all our anger on them. What sounds like an unquestionable offense becomes an insane vendetta. Jesus understood the awful potential of someone who insists they are the right one.

A wise person once said to me, “You’re wrong, even when you’re right.” Ponder that.  Holding on to your “rightness” has incredible destructive power. Jesus was right. The only right thing to do is to forgive or say “It is what it is.”

This is a whole new way of thinking. I don’t think Susan invented it, but she practiced it. That’s what gave her joy, instead of being vindictive. That’s what gives everybody joy. To give up the right every one believes they have: to be right, therefore making the other person wrong. Susan did not insist she had to be right.

On this day, two years after the most irrational tragedy imaginable, we ask once more: Why? And Susan answers: It is what it is. That is how to make sanity out of insanity. That is her most precious gift to me.

In  George Orwell’s 1984,  a “thoughtcrime” is any thought, expressed or unexpressed, that contradicts the will or policies of the government, personified as “Big Brother.” I have always thought a democratic society was immune to such repression.

Then in 2025 the federal government began to use the extortion of broadcast licenses to force television networks to silence or eliminate comedians, i.e. Stephen Colbert and Jimmie Kimmel. In both cases it was the mocking of the President that put these broadcast licenses in jeopardy.

Stephen Colbert was told his rendition of The Tonight Show would end in May 2026.  The same strategy was used against Jimmie Kimmel in September, 2024:

On September 17, ABC had abruptly announced that Kimmel’s program would be “pre-empted” indefinitely after FCC Chairman Brendan Carr voiced outrage over the host’s comments about Charlie Kirk’s death, his political views, and Trump’s reaction to the fatal shooting. https://www.timesnownews.com/world/us/us-news/donald-trump-threat-abc-jimmy-kimmel-show-returns-article-152883700

A short time afterward, Kimmel’s program was restored to late-night television.

The same leverage was threatened against Kimmel this past weekend for his programmatic monologue two days’ prior to the White House Correspondents’ Dinner: “Look at Melania, so beautiful. Mrs Trump, you have a glow like an expectant widow.”  Kimmel said he was referring to the difference in ages between Mr. Trump and the First Lady.  It was an unfortunate coincidence that the Dinner was later terrorized by an assassin.  The FCC has threatened to evaluate ABC’s broadcast license three months early.

Disney/ABC is expected to stand against this intimidation as it did last fall, but the intent of federal authority is clear: Do not offend the President or the First Lady or we will shut you down. There goes democracy.

President Trump is long on lawsuits, short on convictions. That does not matter, because the threat is what scares networks and comedians. Some big names like Colbert and Kimmel have the nerve and clout enough to stand up to thought control, but CBS cancelled Colbert’s Tonight Show and curbed 60 Minutes’ programming, proving some networks will succumb.

Unlike the Thoughtpolice in 1984, the FCC does not have telescreens in every home to keep eyes and ears on what we say. And still the enforcement power of the long arm of the federal government scares networks with broadcast licenses. They are willing to sacrifice a media star to avoid costly, and perhaps more consequential, suspending of licenses. They cave in to intimidation to protect their empire.

Quietly the Washington Post dismantled its editorial section to avoid displeasing the President of the United States.  PBS was stripped of federal funding, silencing a progressive voice for rural listeners. Radio Free Europe was silenced for its politically controversial opinions, abandoning hope for oppressed people.  All this by legal maneuvers in a democratic society.

Helplessly we witness the dampening, the neutralizing of free thought with legal levers of the court system and the partisan elimination of programming and publishing.  Don’t we see the same political opinions punished over and over? Is the art of political satire endangered? Doesn’t this resemble the punishment of thoughtcrime?

It doesn’t take the thought-police to dampen democracy. It takes a thin skin and flair for retribution. It takes a quiet dismantling of offending media.  Threats of disinvestment. Sour looks and displeasure. Democracy is more fragile than we want to admit.

The renewal of family, community and learning are cherished goals in our country. What prevents us? Love of power? Prejudice? Social media? Yes, but the force that drives them  all? Mammon, the obsession with riches and possessions. No amount of family and community regeneration will succeed without denying the god Mammon.

Wealth is not a Constitutional right.  What does the Preamble say? “. . .establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity . . .”  The United States has succeeded with most of these goals, but have we “promote[d] the general Welfare”? Sound socialistic?  Well, it’s in the Preamble to the Constitution.

We should never be satisfied until every0ne is cared for.  Not only those worthy, but all those in need. In every community there are the needy struggling on the boundaries. Regardless of the “worthiness” tests,”they have needs.

The care of the needy has never been achieved by private institutions, even the church, because most of the wealthy believe they are entitled to limitless resources.  There is no “trickle down” when Mammon controls your conscience.

There is  no necessity for extreme wealth or extreme poverty.   I believe this is what the Constitution means by “general Welfare–” we share the wealth. Here are my suggestions for working toward this goal.

1. Health care should not be a profit-making business, as if hospitals and specialists can charge what the market will bear. We should turn health benefits over to the government. By regulating how drugs and medical care are distributed, the federal government can control costs and help those whose incomes can not manage  skyrocketing costs. The federal governmnent can subsidize the development of new drugs, so they are not market-driven commodities. States can offer loans for medical school, with the requirement of a certain number of years working in the same state for repayment of the loans.  This provision is already in place.We just need to spread it across the country.
2. A cost-of -living retirement should be paid by the federal government under a model like Social Security, but fully funded for all citizens earning less than an inflation-driven amount, e.g. $200,000.  There is no reason that the upper ten percent of  income should receive social security. Absent disability, the minimum qualification-for-benefits should be raised to age 67. Every employee is entitled to receive contributions + interest back, but not necessarily full benefits.depending on income.
3. Salaries for law enforcement can be negotiated by collective bargaining,with  stalemates resolved by mediation.The staffing of law enforcement should be guaranteed by a per capita subsidy of the federal government. Every urban center needs help to fully fund its police force. There should never be a lack of police presence in a city.
4. Every worker below a given income, e.g.$200,000, should be represented by collective bargaining, with necessary mediation, so that  everyone gets a fair wage. The burdens of medical insurance and retirement benefits are lifted from small businesses, because the federal government pays for them. Unions may negotiate for  supplementary retirement plans.
5. Every citizen contributes to public welfare. Personal income tax should be assessed to account for federal expenses. All levels of income must pay a minimum tax. No deductions should reduce taxes to zero, except those earning below the poverty level. Citizens below the poverty line will be required  to work twenty hours of public service per month.

This is not the answer to finance Constitutional socialism, but a basis for caring for all citizens’ need. The main obstacle to implementing such a program is Mammon, putting personal wealth ahead of minimum benefits for all. The main objection to this proposal is that some will have to pay more to benefit the needy. No one will go broke taking care of them, unless broken by resentment of others,. Once the god Mammon has been dismissed, no one has to be deprived of food, medical care and sustainable retirement. And no one should.