Does NATO Need to Wean Itself Off The US?

The most recent NATO summit resulted in most members agreeing acquiescing to Trumpˋs "proposal" (a.k.a., 'demand') that its members commit to spending 5% of their GDP on defense which, broken down, means that around 3.5% of a given nationˋs GDP is to be committed to actual military spending while the remaining can be spent on infrastructure that supports the military in some way, shape, or form. The 5% goal is to be met by 2035. But the agreement may not be because of Trump made the request or that the leaders of those NATO nations thought that Trump was right.

To try to get his way, Trump has also levied tariffs on Canada and the EU, which includes most NATO members,  in order reach trade deals that produce favorable trade outcomes for the US. Trump's tariffs will hurt the economies of the NATO nations from which there is suppose to be an increase in military spending. This kind of mixed message is like telling a runner to run faster while injuring one of their legs.

We should also note one other thing. While Trump is not hesitant in slapping tariffs on allies, so far his tariff policies toward Russia, despite the horrendous atrocities that it visits on Ukraine, have remained unchanged--that is until recently. Trump has just threatened to apply tariffs to Russian imports if it doesn't agree to a peace deal in 50 days. Here, we need to remember why Trump received the name 'TACO,' which means Trump Always Chickens Out. Israel also gets a free ride here despite the atrocities that it commits against the Palestinian people. When one views both the attacks that Russia and Israel practices against their targets as well as the end goals of the two leaders of those nations, we might be tempted to regard Netanyahu as the Vlad Putin of the Middle East. Of course, the same can be said of Hamas. 

Having seen Russiaˋs invasion of Ukraine and noticing Russiaˋs renewed interest in its military resources near Finland, some in NATO are expecting a Russian attack on a NATO nation by the year 2029. And it isn't just the leaders of some European nations who feel uneasy with Russia, many citizens from those European nations have increased anxiety too. Because of Trump's inaction to Russia's war of aggression, we might also want to consider the question of how much does Trump owe Putin for his 2024 election win? Only a few journalists whom I have read or heard have considered that question. Putting all of that together, how much can NATO nations trust Trumpˋs verbal commitment to Article 5 of NATOˋs collective defense agreement is difficult to answer. 

Here we should note that there are 3 possible responses the US could employ should Russia attack a NATO member nation: do nothing while possibly talking a good game, rush in to defend a fellow NATO member nation, or attack NATO nations to show Putin that the US has undeniably aligned itself with Russia. And so was NATOˋs collective decision to follow Trumpˋs demand a recognition that they need to become less dependent on, if not totally independent from, the US in terms of trade and military aid?

We should note that Russia has already been attacking NATO nations. And it has been doing so in the same way that it has orchestrated the shift in the US's geopolitical alignment. My personal opinion is that many of the authoritarian with hierarchy movements rumbling through Europe and North America are tools of Russia. Evidence of that claim can be found in Russiaˋs support for such movements as well as their statements of support for Russia's aggression. The AfD in Germany provides an example here. These movements often employ a façade of being an ethnocratic movement in order to secure a base of support within the population, but the desired end of the candidates supported by these movements is to install an oligarchy. BTW, Russiaˋs oligarchy also presents itself as a religiously-based ethnocracy.

Will a Russian military attack  a NATO nation in the near future? Seeing Russiaˋs difficulties in Ukraine, an attack against a NATO member when NATO, not counting the US, is well-armed would seem unlikely. And so now we are looking at a doubled-edged window of time when it would be least costly for Russia to attack a NATO nation while NATO is still too dependent on the US to face Russia's military without US help.

We have one other consideration to mull over here. That is Europe's independence from NATO includes developing a coordinated nuclear deterrent which includes a new command post for the release of nuclear weapons. That command post would be shared by France and Germany. But what happens to that command post if what has happened in the US happens in one of them?

And so NATO members need to wean themselves off of their financial and military dependence on the US. That means that NATO members must find suitable markets outside of the US for their goods, increase their development and production of quality weaponry, and invest substantially into all kinds of research. To buy time, which includes appeasing some of the demands made by Trump, NATO members must continue to support Ukraine so that even if Russia should conquer Ukraine, as I believe is inevitable, its success in Ukraine will take long enough for NATO to buy time to become economically and militarily independent from the US. 

 

A Christian Fundamentalist's Reaction To The Book, 'Read And Riot'

The following article is a reaction to Nadya Tolokonnova's (click here for a short biography) book, Read And Riot: A Pussy Riot Guide To Activism, of which the paperback version can be ordered (click here for the book). I will be reacting to the book as a Christian Fundamentalist and I hasten to add that other such Fundamentalists would have reacted differently to the book. In addition, I call this a reaction rather than a review because I will not be going through the book as I would if I was reviewing the it.

But first, we must talk about the state of many of my religiously conservative American Christians. Many of them are in what I call an apologetic panic. Christian Apologetics is about defending the Christian faith. But currently, we are in a panic about what to say in defense of the faith. This panic is evidenced by our tendency to try too hard to say too much either for Christianity or against those whom we regard as rivals to the faith. This apologetic panic is triggered by at least 1 of 2 causes: the past social failures of the Church in history and the success of unbelievers in addressing some of today's relevant issues. 

We can see how this apologetic panic can be caused when we see the failures that the Church has experienced in the past. For example, for the past few centuries, the dominant branch of the Church in several Western nations has sided with wealth and power. We saw that preceding the French and Russian Revolutions as well as before the Spanish Revolution. An unintended consequence of siding with wealth and  power made the Church a favorite target of revolutionaries once they got power. And by branches of the Church, I am referring to the Orthodox Church, the Roman Church and Protestants. And if that wasn't bad enough, the current American Evangelical trend is that of supporting the major political party that grants the most privileges to wealthy corporations in terms of tax breaks and the cutting of social responsibility ties. Of course we are talking about the Republican Party. In addition, the American conservative Church has a rich tradition of supporting racism, sexism, and classism in American history.

The other cause for our apologetic panic are the somewhat successful attempts at identifying and/or producing solutions for social injustices by individuals and groups who are outside of the Church. Many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians are being told by their leaders and influencers that Christians can ignore what these secular sources say because they have not added to what Christians have said or are saying. In addition, these leaders also often believe that even listening to or reading what they groups say can be dangerous our faith. So in essence, many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians are being taught by their leaders and influencers to only listen to or read Christian sources on social justice issues. 

What we are seeing in this second cause is what we see in how many religiously conservative Christian leaders and influencers interact with the social sciences. These leaders and influencers act as if they are in a turf war with the social sciences in explaining the world. Likewise, they act very similarly when interacting with secular individuals and groups whose cause revolves around social justice issues. 

In the past, not seemingly all Christian leaders have reacted to secular social justice movements as if they were in a turf war. For example, when Martin Luther King Jr studied and reflected on Marxism/Communism, he ended with a different approach to it than today's religiously conservative Christians have taken to social justice workers. Now before reporting that, it should be noted that King wrongly conflated Marxism with Soviet Union Communism. 

King called Marxism/Communism evil and yet he also agreed with the late Archbishop of Canterbury, William Temple, who called it a 'Christian Heresy.' They called Marxism/Communism a Christian  heresy because its concern for social justice and its criticisms of 19th century Capitalism should be essential parts of the Christian life. At the same time, they called it heretical because attached to its concerns for social justice and its criticisms of 19th century capitalism were beliefs that no Christian should ever hold. King wrote about his review of Marxism/Communism and how it compares with Capitalism in his book: Stride Toward Freedom (click here and go to pg 92 to find Kings discussion on Marxism. The webpage begins with pg 90 of the book). 

After commenting on both Capitalism and Marxism/Communism, King concluded that we need to take a hybrid approach to our system by combining the best of Marxism with the best of Capitalism. He took that approach because he saw that while Communism forgot that life was individual, Capitalism forgets that life is social. And just perhaps, religiously conservative Christians like myself should take a similar approach to today's social justice movements and forms of wokism. That we need to at least develop hybrid approaches that include what social justice workers and leaders are saying with what we know from the Scriptures.

Such an approach is different from the current turf war approach taken now by the vast majority of religiously conservative American Christian leaders and influencers. It is different because instead of telling us that we can dismiss everything that unbelievers have to say about social justice, King's approach tells us that we should intently listen to and work with social justice concepts that were being promoted by unbelievers, especially by those who are real political leftists. To not do so while believing in evangelizing would be say to the world that they need to listen to us while we have no need to listen to them. Such an attitude can, for what can be inexplicable reasons for many religiously conservative Christians, turn off some people.

And so we come to Nadya Tolokonnikova and here book: Read And Riot: A Pussy Riot Guide To Activism. This book is specifically about being an activist. But in doing so, this book contains a lot of other useful information. 

Because of some of the things that Tolokonnikova practices, stands for, and says, there are some of her ideas that no Christian should ever believe and act on. But when one reads her book and learns about the concerns she has and what she is doing to help people in need, we see a kind of approach to life that all Christians should have. And so just as King and Temple called Marxism a 'Christian heresy,' we could call Tolokonnikova and the Pussy Riot Art Collective 'Christian heretics.' Doing so would not state or imply that she is a Christian however. Seeing how she selectively uses the Scriptures and misses the foundational parts of the Gospel, we can safely conclude that she is not.

Having read her book, followed her Twitter page, and listened to her speak in videos, it is downright easy to underestimate the  kind of person she is when one sees her references to sex work, her use of the word 'pussy' in talking about it beating fascists, and some of her performances with the art collective known as Pussy Riot. But to underestimate her would be to rob oneself of opportunities to learn from her. For Tolokonnikova is an an exceptionally strong person and a woman of great substance.

We can see in her the kind of strength that one would  see in any man who has suffered through and triumphed over the physical and mental grind and torture that she has experienced. She is the founding member of an art collective that practices activism, she has started a prisoner rights group and a media company (click here for Media Zone), she has helped provide contributions to various charities, she has studied philosophy, she is well read, and she has a good analytical grasp of what is going on in parts of the world in addition to her understanding of her home nation. And despite her time in prison, which she used to further her understanding of people, she is speaking out against authoritarianism, oligarchy, and consumerism though some of that could result in her reliving her prison experience or worse.

She has been interviewed numerous times by cable news channels, given a TED talk, spoken to the US Congress as well as the British and European Parliaments, has been a recipient of a LennonOno Grant for peace, and is a co-recipient of the Hannah Arendt Prize for Political Thought.

She understands what real artists are suppose to do. For real artists are not there to use their abilities to entertain in order to anesthetize their audiences from real life. Rather, real artists are the first line of society's secular prophets who tell us where society and the state have gone wrong. And so she uses her art to more vividly expose her audiences to the real world in order to get them to react. She makes a good point in saying that perhaps the anxiety that many people suffer from are signs that the world, not those feeling the pain, needs to change. Her artistic efforts are sometimes silly, gross, or absurd. But she uses the bizarre to illustrate what is ludicrous in the world. She uses what is ridiculous but tolerable stunts to illustrate absurdities that should never be tolerated.

Though much of the world is either impressed or intimidated by Putin, she logically demonstrates what a weak man he is. That he lacks all of the good characteristics that most of us associate with being human. And because of their similarities, she is also able to provide a good analysis of Trump too.

In short, she has suffered much and despite that she has accomplished much more than many people who have not suffered at all have.

But of course her book has some shortcomings. She explicitly states that she is distrustful of experts. This is especially true as it pertains to medicine and the pharmaceutical industry. At the same time, she seems to accept what climate science experts have to say and makes a great point that we must reduce our consumption to address climate change. And what is implied by that is that if we were to downsize our consumption, which strikes at the heart of capitalism, we must share more of our wealth and resources to work against poverty at the same time.

But this distrust of experts would go against one of the people whom she reads and learns a lot from: Erich Fromm. In speaking against authoritarianism, Fromm made it a point to distinguish blind loyalty to authoritarian leaders from distrust of experts. It isn't that experts are always right. But they often are and a blind distrust of them can be harmful.

For example, the blind distrust of medical science during the pandemic helped contribute to America having one of the highest death rates from Covid during the pandemic. Believers in conspiracy theories from the Left, Liberals, and the Right chalked up the precautions and/or vaccines as government attempts to gain more control of us. This was especially prominent among Trump-loving Republicans but that dismissal of warning or suggestions from medical experts could be seen in people from all ideological persuasions.

That blind distrust in experts also enabled many people to participate in the January 6th Insurrection. For there, opinions from both experts in law, including judges appointed by Trump, and other government officials were blindly dismissed by those who were convinced, without evidence, that the election of Biden was because of fraud.

The point being made here is that there are times in Tolokonnikova's book where she tends to exercise some types of all-or-nothing thinking. Such think disables from making important distinctions such as which experts we can trust or what parts of the feminism she promotes should be followed and which parts should not. Sometimes, a kind of all-or-nothing thinking is part of a response to suffering trauma and the person employs that thinking so as to avoid making mistakes that could lead to suffering more traumas.

And, of course, we Christians could never accept her sexual mores or suggested alternative to families which came from an early Communist who was a feminist. It at this point that her use of the Scriptures and references to Christianity show a great selectivity. For while she will argue for equality between the sexes using a passage in Galatians where Paul states that there is  no male or female, she neglects passages that talk about sexual purity and about the roles Paul designates for husbands and wives. But here, we Christians also have a distinction to make. We have to be able  to tell the difference between Scriptural rules that just apply to Christians from those Scriptural rules that should also be applied to all in society.

Are there other things in her book that Christians cannot accept? Certainly. Are there ideas that she promotes that would not be good for society? Yes. But over all, Tolokonnikova has not only offered an inside view of the Pussy Riot Art Collective, she has provided an insightful view of as well as challenges to us in the world that would make the world a much better place should we follow some of them. I found it very worthwhile to read the book. And I believe that many religiously conservative Christians would benefit from reading it.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For March 15, 2023

Feb 22

To Heidelblog and Ari Schaffer for the part of Schaffer's article that reported on the Buckley Program' Eighth Annual College Student Survey. 

The survey has some problems in the options provided. One major problem is that many of the categories for the choice of answers are not well-defined. For example, when asking students if they feel uncomfortable with giving a dissenting opinion to classmates or professors, the selection of answers are 'Frequently,' 'Sometimes,' 'Rarely,' and 'Never.' Three of those answers are not well-defined. In addition, 'Frequently' and 'Sometimes' are grouped as categorized as 'Often' whereas 'Rarely' and 'Never' are counted as 'Not Often.'  To further complicate the issue, the mathematical definition of the word 'some' is at least 1. That could mean that when students answered 'Sometimes,' they could have meant 'Rarely' and vice-versa.

In addition, the existence of free speech is expressed in binary terms. If hate speech, and that goes undefined, is allowed, then this is counted as being an infringement on free speech and the First Amendment. But yelling 'fire' in a public space is against the law. Is that an infringement on Free Speech? Would some forms of labeling or describing people from a particular race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity a threat to society be similar yelling 'fire' in a public place when some of those statements led to violence against those of a given race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity?

Are we aware that denying the Holocaust is illegal in some European countries? If that was the case here, would that be an infringement on the First Amendment? Is denying the existence of systemic racism in America today on par with denying the Holocaust in some European countries? 

And why isn't this blog post including the efforts of Governors DeSantis and Abbott in their report on Free Speech on campuses? Why are teachers and professors afraid of talking about America's past in certain states like Florida or Texas?

Finally, without providing definitions for both socialism and capitalism, the data is insignificant. Which form of capitalism was referred to in the survey? Was it the Bretton-Woods System or Neoliberal Capitalism? This is an important question because the conservative definitions of capitalism and socialism since the Bretton-Woods system of capitalism allows for far more government intervention than Neoliberal Capitalism. 

Which form of socialism was referred to in the survey? Was it Stalinism, which many Marxists do not think of as Socialism, or was it the form that emphasizes the redistribution of power to the workers? Here we should note that Germany's codetermination. laws makes Germany's economic system a hybrid of both Marxism and capitalism.  Or, again, did students use the conservative definition of socialism--big government--while answering the question? Were the students who answered the question about capitalism and socialism aware of all of those distinctions?

The above findings are flawed because the survey was flawed by utilizing not well-defined terms in its answers. But that won't stop some conservatives from using the change in statistics over the years to sound the alarm and incite fear where fear is not warranted.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feb 25

To Thaddeus Kozinski and his article that reviews what has occurred since the end of Christendom and calls for Christendom's return. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

When we look at what has blossomed since the end of Christendom, as listed in the above article, we must realize one point: what Christendom has suppressed. And when we look at what Christendom has suppressed and what has flourished in its absence, we need to ask why would we ever want a return to Christendom.

We should note in this Post Modern age, that Pre Modernism and Modernism has not totally left the world. Pre Modernism is alive and well within most of the major players who're engaged in committing atrocities today. That means that we can't scapegoat secularism for today's threats. And where we can blame secularism, we should note a common thread that is shared by those remnants of Pre Modernism that is producing atrocities: authoritarianism. And when one looks at the definition of Christendom, we need to ask if it is possible to have a Christendom that is lacking in authoritarianism.

Until we can find a form of Christendom that is void of authoritarianism, selling  Christendom today should be near impossible to the outside world. In fact, if we look at how we should share society with those who believe differently, perhaps we should leave Christendom on the ash heap of history and then go on to study how we Christians can contribute to a truly pluralistic and peaceful society and world. Of course one way in which we can contribute to such a world is to tolerate all others who seek such a society and world. But such toleration means forsaking our authoritarian proclivities.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Joseph Mussomeli and his article on the Russian war against Ukraine. In his article, Musomelli has criticized the American involvement in the war as a search for the perfect war. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Though lessons from WW II abound on both sides of Russia's war against Ukraine, to make Hitler the focal point in trying to understand Putin is a grave error.

The lessons that abound from WW II involve Russia's history with invasions from the West and Europe's history with Imperial dreams starting with one invasion and then advancing an invasion or concession at a time. Both sensitivities are valid. And what goes unmentioned is that NATO's move eastward violated the understanding of the agreement made between Bush I and Gorbachev. Gorbachev stated that in his book, <I>The New Russia</I>.

But to understand what we can from Putin, we should keep our eyes focused on Russian history rather than turning our gaze toward Hitler. Before the October, 1917 Revolution stood the Russian Empire governed by the Tsars. For most of those Tsars, authoritarianism was to Russia what Christendom was to America. The Tsars so identified themselves with the nation of Russia that they believed that any opposition to them was a challenge to the nation itself. Lenin continued that same mentality only with using different labels such as 'proletariat' or 'revolution' for 'Russia' and 'Soviet Union' for 'Russian Empire.'  Stalin was Lenin on steroids. Khrushchev brought a brief reprieve that was only repeated by his successors. And it wasn't until Gorbachev that we saw a significantly real break in Russia's authoritarianism. That authoritarianism started to resurrect itself when Yeltsin had power.

Who knows what Putin wants and what is going on in his mind? Nobody knows enough for sure, but we are seeing repeats of Russian and Soviet Union history in Putin's words and actions. And we only need to look at Putin's authoritarian rule over his own people, his history in Chechnya and Georgia,  and his stated reasons, which seemed to have resembled Bush II when defending his own invasion of Iraq, for the invasion against Ukraine.

Putin is attempting to silence Russians's opposition to the war with arrests and imprisonment at home and threats and attempts at intimidation outside of Russia. Putin claims that Ukrainians are Russians. Putin, via the Archbishop of the Russian Orthodox Church, has stated that the 'special operation' is necessary to protect Russia from Western decadence. And, btw, it is Putin who is pointing to the Nazis by claiming that he trying to de-nazify Ukraine. Putin has made references to the NATO threat to Russia from Ukraine. And Putin has reportedly written about renewing the Russian Empire. If that is true, and there is evidence that supports that in Belarus, then though Germany is safe, quite a few other nations are not. There is also the Rodney Dangerfield complaint that Putin believes that Russia gets no respect. That complaint was one of the reported reasons why Khrushchev put missiles in Cuba.

It appears that no current world leader has either read the Russell-Einstein Manifesto or, if they had remembers it. That Manifesto clearly states that in the nuclear age we have a choice between relying on war and existence. And yet, imperialism cannot be tolerated--a lesson learned from WW II. That puts us between a rock and a hard place, none of which was recognized in the above article despite the some of the good but irrelevant points it made.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 7

To Scott McDermand and the first of 2 planned articles which partially layout a case for and defend the Regulative Principle of worship as promoted by the Reformers. This article was posted by Heidelblog.

There are multiple problems with the regulative principle for worship. They include:

1.   The interpretation of the 2nd Commandment used to claim and defend the regulative principle goes well beyond any plain reading of the that commandment. For in that commandment, God only tells us about a certain set of objects that we cannot make as well as a worship practice that we must not employ.  That is simply the plain reading of the 2nd Commandment. To say anything beyond that is to read into the Scriptures.

2.    Yes, other parts of the Old Testament specify exactly how God must be worshiped, but those ways are based on both man's standing with God before Christ died and rose again and how those ways of worship were shadows of and thus what would be fulfilled and thus made useless by Christ's 1st coming. To insist on the regulative principle is to employ an Old Testament mentality on the New Testament community. Here, we should remember about what Jesus said to the woman at the well in John 4: that there will come a time when instead of having to go to Jerusalem, we must worship God in spirit and in truth.

Having said that, there is something to learn from the regulative principle. That care must be taken in how we approach the worship of God. When we are not reverent enough in how we approach the worship of God, it is because we are being presumptuous about our standing before God. For we can only stand before and worship God because of God's grace and mercy which has been shown to and showered on those who believe in Christ. Again, we are to worship God in spirit and in truth. Thus, we must worship God in reverence acknowledging our unworthiness, outside of what Christ has done for us, to worship God in His house.

3.    The regulative principle was not practiced by Jesus nor by the Jews both before and when Jesus came to earth. In fact, there is no regulative principle described in the New Testament. Paul does describe how believers were coming together to worship; but that was simply a description, not an exclusive set of rules.

We should note something else here. When the regulative principle is generalized to other practices and approaches outside of worship, we, paradoxically, limit how we can use the New Testament to guide how we live when we meet circumstances and situations that were not experienced in the New Testament. 

At the same time, we must remember Romans 14 when fellowshipping with fellow believers who adhere to the regulative principle as they must do the same with fellowshipping with fellow believers who abide by the normative principle. The latter says that we must refrain from worshiping and living before God in ways forbidden by God's Word.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 9

To R. Scott Clark and his blog post against Christian Transformationalism because the New Testament calls us to be pilgrims and aliens, not transformers. This appeared in Heidelblog.

A weakness in Transformationalism which Clark did not point out is that, in the end, it is antithetical to democracy. In the end, it seeks a privileged position for Christianity in and over society. 

It is true that we are aliens in the world, though our lifestyles might not reflect that when we are financially privileged. But what does being an alien in this world prohibit Christians from doing when interacting with the world?

There are 2 weaknesses with 2KT, which is Clark's position. The first is its failure to acknowledge that to extent that it pushes natural law on society, it too is a form of transformationalism. This is especially apparent in how it views sexual issues, especially homosexuality. That same sex behavior is demonstrated in around 1,500 species of animals shows that the natural law being pushed by 2KT is a Christian view of natural law.

The 2nd weakness of 2KT is that it prohibits the Church from speaking out as an institution against corporate sins. Corporate sins such as systemic racism, economic exploitation and classism, sexism and patriarchy, immoral wars, a renewed arms race and militarism, and destroying the earth's ability to adequately sustain human life either because of pollution and/or climate change must be visibly opposed by the Church as an institution. When the Church does not publicly speak out against these sins, it becomes complicit with them. 

And though I  disagree with Clark's overall position here, I do agree  with him when he says that the Church is not charged to bring a golden age onto the earth. But opposing corporate sins and working for social justice does not imply that one is working for an ecclesiastical golden age. Neither does opposing corporate sins and working for social justice imply that one is working to establish a  privileged place for the Church in society. 

If we want to look at a good example of the Church as an institution speaking out against corporate sins, then we need to look no farther than what Martin Luther King Jr. and the SCLC did and said during the era of the Civil Rights Movement. Though King had golden age visions, what he and the SCLC opposed and what they promoted neither brought a golden age to America nor did it establish a privileged position for the Church in and over society. King and the SCLC simply opposed the sins of racism, economic exploitation, and militarism while promoting the rights and welfare of people without respect to religion. And where the Church was silent on racism, economic exploitation, and militarism back then, it was complicit with those sins just as the Church would be complicit if it didn't warn people against sexual immorality.

Of course, there is an immediate earthly advantage for the Church to be silent about corporate sins. That advantage is that that silence allows the Church to support those with wealth and power when those with wealth and power benefit from the committing of those corporate sins. But that kind of support should offend the Church since those in the Church are called to be aliens in this world.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Heidelblog and Carl Trueman for the portion of Trueman's article that was quoted from in this particular Heidelblog post. Trueman's article challenged evangelical leaders to be as courageous as J.K. Rowling was when she claimed that trans women are not women.

Trueman's article can be found at:

https://wng.org/opinions/are-evangelical-leaders-as-courageous-as-j-k-rowling-1677156614

 Carl's article contains nothing more than an authoritarian discourse aimed at refusing to distinguish those who have been helped by gender affirming care from those who are not. 

It is authoritarian because it involves a kind of all-or-nothing thinking about those who have been helped from receiving some level of gender-affirming care and those who provide it. His lack of precision and making distinctions in the different kinds of treatments that children with gender dysphoria are given is another example of a kind of all-or-nothing thinking he employs. And that kind of thinking is seen in his calling people evil in an emotional rant wrapped in  labels. In addition, Trueman's view of gender-affirming care do not seem to reflect J.K. Rowling on transgenderism. Rather, it seems that Trueman's mentality and approach to the subject has more in common with the critics of Rowling than Rowling herself.

If Trueman were to actually employ a rational argument, he would make meaningful distinctions like some of the ones mentioned above. If here were to employ a rational argument, he could borrow an argument from Robert Jensen, who is a leftist,  who looks at the Transgender issue from a feminist perspective. In arguing against allowing males who have transgendered into females to participate in women's sports, Jensen points out that one cannot  conflate gender identity with biological sex because while the former is psychological, the latter is biological--btw, that seems to be J.K. Rowling's view from what I read. Thus the two, biological sex and gender identity, could never be merged. And that those who started as biological males had a physical  advantage over cisgendered females in sports.

But then again, to refuse to conflate gender identity with biological sex on a consistent basis, Trueman and others would have to admit that biological sex is not the only factor involved in one's gender identity. But such an admission would go against a conservative authoritarian mindset.

Because many people have received help from gender affirming care and because we don't know all of the factors involved with  what causes people to experience gender dysphoria and seek a change in genders, we need to both talk with the awareness that  when talking we are walking on thin ice while remaining firm with our Scriptural convictions that transgenderism is wrong. That means that the issue of transgenderism is complicated. But those who prefer to make authoritarian appeals view complexity in the same way that Superman regards kryptonite.

Keeping up with the times in terms of knowledge does not imply that we must change our moral beliefs or shed religiously conservative convictions. Keeping up with the times means that we need to seek wisdom and understanding in order to grapple with today's issues while remaining faithful to the Scriptures. The kind of thinking involved in authoritarianism sees little to no need to seek wisdom and understanding here.

 

On Lessons Not Always Learned From The Past

 I've been watching a lot of documentaries on the two World Wars in the 20th century, and in particular World War I. And one of the interesting things we can learn from those documentaries is how the end of World War I contributed to the beginning of World War II.

Of course, the stipulations from the Treaty of Versailles contributed much to the beginning of World War II, especially in Europe. But the deliberations at Versailles also contributed to that war's Pacific theater. For Japan has been one of the allied nations in World War I. We don't think of it that way because it is easy for us to think that war as only having a European theater. But because opponents saw opportunity in attacking each other's colonies, World War I was a global war.

As one of the allies, Japan was attacking an area in East Asia held by Germany. Their participation there meant that they became part of the talks at Versailles. Japan was completely ignored at those deliberations. And so Japan eventually felt the need to establish their own empire in order to gain respect from other nations which was denied to them during the talks at Versailles. 

Of course the effects of the Versailles Treaty also led up to World War II in Europe. From the overwhelming hardships caused by the economic punishments to the forced admission that Germany was responsible for the war to loss of land and to the drastic reduction in Germany's military, that treaty laid the groundwork to the acceptance of extremism that took the form of Nazism. And Hitler and Nazism began to gain popular support because they promised to erase the effects of the Versailles Treaty.

As with Japan, Hitler planned to recover Germany's significance in the world by working to establish an empire. Hitler started breaking the Versailles Treaty by rebuilding Germany's military. He also helped the economy with public works projects. 

Another facet here is that Hitler's empire started with recovering what many Germans felt entitled to: recovery of the Rhineland, which had been lost because Germany could not keep up with paying reparations. 

Then Hitler appealed to a sense of entitlement in the takeover of Austria. And then Hitler argued that because they were Germanic people in the Sudetenland, that Germany was entitled to take control of that land. His invasion of Eastern Europe was also out of a sense of entitlement because of how densely populated Germany was and the belief in how inferior the slavic people were to the Aryan race. 

Now I am not saying that Russia is entitled to regain territory lost from since the end of the Russian Empire under the Tsars or were part of the Warsaw Pact. But we must understand why Putin would feel entitled to invade Ukraine.

Another motivation for World War II was relief from the extreme economic hardships that Germany was suffering. 

So there are three factors caused by how World War I ended which led to the beginning of World War II: the seeking for significance, the sense of entitlement, and escaping economic hardships with the seeking of prosperity.

It seemed that we applied those lessons at the end of World War II as seen in how we treated both Germany and Japan. We helped those nations to recover and sought to enforce a peace without attempting to humiliate them. However, are we still using those lessons learned in how we respond to today's enemies?

Consider our treatment of Russia. Not only have we broken the understanding that Bush I and Gorbachev had regarding the reunification of Germany by moving NATO eastward, by assuming to be the sole superpower after the dissolution of Soviet Union, we have attacked its sense of significance. 

How did we attack its sense of significance? We started by moving off NATO eastward to lands that were formerly part of the Russian Empire under the Tsars and later on part of the Warsaw Pact nations. Some of those nations border Russia itself. Such would be comparable to the Soviet Union getting Mexico to join the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War or if Russia or China had courted Mexico into aligning itself with one of them to the extent of hosting their military bases.

Here, we must understand that Russia sees itself as a superpower that is equal to us. And so we should take note of some precedents that our nation has set because of its superpower status. Our nation's example has shown that superpowers can invade whom they want for whatever reason they give with impunity. If Russia's idea of being significant means being a superpower like the U.S and being able to act with impunity like we do, we have contributed to Russia's invasion of Ukraine by some of what we have done in the past.

The same applies to China as it now sees itself as a superpower. That means China could easily prove itself by invading another nation with impunity. That is because that is what superpowers like the U.S. can and actually do.

But seeking significance isn't the only reason why Russia has invaded Ukraine. Putin has said that the Ukrainian people and Russian people are one people. And because of history, it is likely that Putin feels entitled of his view of the relationship between the Russian and Ukrainian people. Please understand that I am not saying that Putin is right. I am simply speculating at the logic that Putin is employing. 

After all, when Hitler started to take over other nations, he wrongfully thought that he was entitled to do so. But his decision was based on what he felt entitled to do as the leader of Germany. And he successfully marketed that reason to his people. The same applies to Putin and his current invasion of Ukraine and any thoughts about invading the other nations that were formerly part of Russia either under the Tsars or under the Bolsheviks.

Handling Putin's sense of entitlement regarding his attempt to conquer Ukraine must must include accommodating his flawed sense of fairness without unnecessarily surrendering any nations to him. If indeed, one of Putin's reasons for invading Ukraine is a historical-based sense of entitlement, that means that his invasion of Ukraine is not an assault on NATO and Western Europe. And so we cannot afford to portray his invasion that way. But by accommodating his flawed sense of fairness, we can perhaps get a glimpse of how far Putin will go in trying to conquer and rule over Ukraine. And Europe has already seen some original historical narratives of such past invasions by tyrannical dictators. At the same time, there is significant difference between the past and now in that, if what is being said is an accurate enough analysis of Putin's invasions, Whereas Napoleon and Hitler drew now boundaries for their own imperial dreams, that is not the case with Putin.

And what has been said about Russia, also applies to China.

If we add to the above the sanctions being forced on Russia, we could be providing another incentive for Russia to invade some other nations. Significant enough economic hardships can cause some nations to attack others just as economic suffering provided another reason for Germany to invade its neighbors.

Of course, we must find minimally provocative ways to successfully resist Russians invasion against Ukraine. But those ways must account for what could bring success for Ukraine without escalating the conflict. And it is our ability to accommodate by understanding Putin and his perspective which is crucial here. Also, we cannot afford to intervene in ways that makes Russia's war against Ukraine a war that eventually pits Russia against NATO. For such a war like that could easily lead to nuclear exchanges that could spell the end of civilized human life on earth.

After Russia's war against Ukraine, or perhaps during it, we must find ways to reduce the reasons why a nation, especially a superpower nation, would attack another nation. Without condoning the evil practiced by an aggressive nation, we must find ways to give it significance in ways that would influence it not to attack other nations. And we must ensure that no nation is economically suffering so that it would attack another nation in order to relieve their economic distress. The more we do all three of those things, the more we show that we have learned from past wars on how to prevent future wars.

Are We Seeing A Repeat Of History?

 I remember a conversation from watching the movie, Thirteen Days (click here), that pertains to Russia's immoral invasion of Ukraine. In that movie, President Kennedy and his top staff had to figure out how to respond to the then Soviet Union placing missiles with nuclear warheads in Cuba. Such a placement gave the Soviet Union a tremendous first strike capability. 

In that conversation, attempting to peacefully negotiate in order to remove the missiles was immediately ruled out because such attempts would be to repeat the same mistakes made Munich.  Munich was where Hitler and Prime Minister Chamberlain and others agreed that Hitler could annex parts of Czechoslovakia in return for not invading that country. The lesson learned from Munich was that trying to appease an aggressor only emboldens the aggressor. However, history showed that the Soviet Union was not trying to be an aggressor in placing offensive missiles in Cuba. So Munich was not the right analogy.

When President Eisenhower was trying to fashion a response to North Vietnam's attempt to take over South Vietnam, the domino theory dominated the analysis of what was going on there in Southeast Asia. It was WW II's Japanese invasion of Southeast Asia that gave Eisenhower faith in the domino theory. Also, with having lost China to the Communists in the latter part of the 1940s, there was sensitivity about losing another country to Communism. Eisenhower and others then reasoned that if South Vietnam fell to the Communists, other nations in the region would fall too. But that did not occur in part because the Vietnam War was about the reunification of the two Vietnams instead of Communist expansion. 

And so we come to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Fiona Hill, a former State Department official claimed that Russia's invasion of Ukraine was an attack on the West suggesting that other attacks would follow if Russia succeeded in Ukraine. Such an analysis requires that the West must defend Ukraine at all costs. Of course, all costs could include suffering attacks with nuclear weapons. 

Western Europe is making a stand by supporting Ukraine with weapons and other means of support in an effort to foil Russia's plans for Ukraine. And why shouldn't they? After all, Hitler's attempts to create his own empire in Europe is is still fresh in their memories. 

And so the past is being heavily employed in interpreting Putin's invasion. We should note here the analysis of Putin by some of his fellow countrymen. And that analysis does not just consider his invasion of Ukraine, it also is aware of Putin's past brutal policies in Chechnya and his harsh, Stalin-like suppression of free speech in Russia where voicing opposition or criticism of the war could win one years in a Russian work camp. Here, we could consider the words of Mikhail Gorbachev who after seeing Putin taking freedom of speech away from his fellow Russians said that all of his work in bringing openness to the Russian people was now in vain. 

Or we could consider the analysis of the Russian art collective, Pussy Riot, which says that Putin is the most brutal dictator in the world today. And it is necessary to remove Putin from office asap.

Indeed, Putin's words and actions seem strikingly similar to past Russian and Soviet leaders, For example, the Tsars saw themselves as being such a part of Russia that they believed that to oppose them is to oppose Russia itself. Then when we come to the Russian Revolution, Lenin and the Bolsheviks believed that to oppose Lenin and the Central Committee was to stand against the Revolution and the Proletariates. And now we see Putin talking and acting in the same way. Putin believes that those who oppose him and his policies are enemies of the Russian people.

There is one more piece of the puzzle that we must look at here. And that is the facts that we live in a nuclear age and Putin has even threatened to use nuclear weapons if opposition against his policies reaches a certain, but undefined, point. It is this last set of facts that makes accurately understanding Putin and his future plans and why he is invading Ukraine. But what makes a good analysis of Putin and the situation possible is that there is so much that we don't know. We don't know if Putin is willing to use nuclear weapons to get his way. We don't know what Putin's plans will be if he succeeds in Ukraine. The near past and present show us how brutal and coldhearted he can be when waging war.

All of the above must be considered in terms of what lengths that the West should go in supporting and even defending Ukraine. Is Ukraine a hill to die on or should there be a point when we concede Ukraine to Putin. What could we accomplish if we knew that we would have to let Putin win in Ukraine? Could we support such a resistance to the invasion that Putin would not be willing to invade another neighbor? Or should we draw the line Ukraine even if it risks a nuclear war?

There are enough serious risks to go around regardless of what the West decides to do. To let Russia have Ukraine would not only subject many Ukrainians to Putin's cruel and tyrannical rule, it could embolden Putin to invade again and again. To make Ukraine a hill to die on is to risk the use of nuclear weapons that could grow into a nuclear war. 

Here we should note that there is one lesson that we could take away from the current Russian war against Ukraine. That is that just as technology makes people more powerful, it also makes them more vulnerable. Let's hope that our leaders get this right in their response to Russia. Let's hope that our leaders are using both history and the most up to date information and analyses of both Putin and the situation. Not only must their information be correct, but their analysis, though using the past, must not be limited by what happened in the past.

Russia Is At The Center Of World Politics

 Even before Biden was elected, Russia has been at the center. Even if Russia didn't have troops at the Ukraine border and was not planning to invade, Russia is at the center of world politics. In 2024, Russia will be at the center of world politics.

How is it that Russia  has been, is, and will be at the center of world politics? For one thing, thanks to its nuclear arsenal, Russia never stopped being a superpower. For another thing, Russian society is even more authoritarian than American society. Religion in general, and Christianity in particular, is the reason why American society is authoritarian. That is not to say that we still have a religiously conscious society that we use to have. But American Christianity's authoritarianism rubbed off on liberals and leftists just as it did on unbelieving conservatives. In contrast to us, Russia owes its authoritarianism to its past of autocratic leaders. What set the stage were the Tsars and their authoritarianism rubbed off on the leaders of the Bolshevik revolution.

Of course there is an obvious difference between Russia's authoritarianism and that of the US. That difference is that Russian society has been, at various levels, ok with overtly authoritarian leaders. In contrast to that, American authoritarianism has to wear the veneer of democracy and reason. After all, how can an authoritarian society be the champion of democracy in the world? Tribalism is the answer. Even before the second President Bush, those who were not with us were treated as being against us. That is what tribalism does to a society. For one possible summary for tribalism is that of group authoritarianism.

Back at the ranch, Russia has been the center of world politics because of its influence on the US. Earlier in this century, despite Russian laws the prohibit churches other than the Russian Orthodox Church from openly evangelizing in Russia, many conservative evangelicals lust for the relationship between Church and state that Putin has with the Russian Orthodox Church. They openly applaud, and are jealous of, Russia's stance and policies against its own LGBT community. That is because many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians have reduced democracy in America to that of voting and a 51% dictatorship--something they would not do with some other nations like Iran or Iraq under Saddam Hussein. 

Like many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians, Putin is not fan of democracy. This isn't my opinion alone, but it seems to be the view of Mikhail Gorbachev who at first approved of Putin's authoritarianism in order to accomplish certain tasks. But Gorbachev, who was looking to remake Russia in the image of the Scandinavian nations when he was Russia's leader, also believed that those days of authoritarianism were to be short. That those days were to be followed allowing for opposing political parties to form and give Russians real choices during elections. But Putin has not allowed real political freedom of choice in Russia. And Putin seems to have added to his authoritarian leadership style a Russian version of Latin America machismo to his personal image.

Now, Russia seems to be commanding center stage attention from the world because of its possible invasion of the Ukraine. But regardless of what happens there, Russia's efforts to destabilize American society and to install a kind of proxy leader in 2024 like it did in 2016 will keep Russia at the center of world politics. Our society's own authoritarianism makes Putin's efforts in America somewhat easy. And the only way to resist Russia's gravitational pull on the nations that are circling its orbit is to replace authoritarian confrontations between our opposing political parties and those who passionately embrace their pet ideologies with rational debates and to replace authoritarian attempts to put minority groups "in their place" with real democracy where the equality of these groups is vigorously defended by all. The failure to replace our own authoritarianism with rational dialogues and real democracy is to ensure that today's Russia will be America's future

Of Lessons Learned And To Be Learned

 There are times when what we've learned in the past can help us, and there are times when those same lessons can hurt our efforts to learn something new. Sometimes what we have learned from past mistakes applies to today. For example, I learned from my father's alcoholism to be careful about participating in potentially addictive behaviors. Thus, I no longer drink alcoholic beverages, but when I did drink them, I was very strict with myself regarding how much I drank. And though my personality type lends itself to addiction, I have avoided being addicted to drugs, gambling, smoking, and alcohol.

But sometimes the lessons learned in the past interfere with learning new things. The video below illustrates that point by showing kids, who were raised on modern cell phones, trying to figure out how to use a dial phone:

I saw the same two effects when teaching computer science. I saw times when past learning sometimes helped people learn something new and I saw times when past learning interfered with learning something new.

When leaders face a new problem or crisis, they often try to understand that problem or crisis solely in terms of  past lessons. I remember part of the movie 13 Days, which is a movie about the Cuban Missile Crisis,,when our nation's leaders were hesitant to negotiate a deal with Russia regarding the removal of their nuclear armed missiles in Cuba because of the lessons learned from WW II's Munich agreement. And yet, unlike what happened after Munich, the deal brokered with the USSR saw a successful resolution to the crisis.

And so we face a problem, or perhaps even a crisis, regarding Putin's intentions toward the Ukraine. Should we compare Putin to Hitler who was being driven by imperial desires and thus no agreement could quench his hunger for new territorial acquisitions? Or is Putin more comparable to Khrushchev who was reacting to American nuclear armed missiles located near Russia's border in Turkey?

Determining with whom we should compare Putin requires both a good knowledge of history as well as an understanding of who Putin is as a man and a leader.

History tells us this: because of past invasions from Western European nations, Russia easily feels threatened by the West. After all there was the Swedish invasion of Russia in the early 1700s, the French invasion of Russia in the early 1800s, the WW I and WW II German invasions of Russia, and the Western incursion into Russia in the Russian Civil War following the October, 1917 Russian Revolution. Was it any wonder then that following WW II, the Soviet Union created the 'Iron Curtain' where it controlled and used Eastern European nations as a buffer against the West.

Of course, the Soviet Union finally dissolved and part of that included the reunification of Eastern and Western Germany into one nation. Part of the understanding between the two leaders, George H. W. Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev, was that NATO would not move eastward by offering memberships to former Warsaw Pact nations that were part of the old 'Iron Curtain.' But not long after that, under President Clinton if memory serves, NATO did exactly that by offering NATO memberships to Eastern European nations. Here we should note that NATO is a nuclear power. And around the time that John McCain was running for President, there were proposals that floated the idea of putting putting strategic defensive equipment in Eastern European nations  that bordered Russia. Russian leaders countered with the threat of using tactical nuclear weapons to removes those defenses.

Well that is at least a part of the historical context to the current standoff over the Ukraine.  What we should also note is that Putin is an authoritarian tyrant who, according to Gorbachev, should have loosened his controlling grip on the Russian government by allowing the freedom for Russians to form their own political parties that would produce viable contenders to his candidacy in elections. Furthermore, Putin's past actions in the Caucasus along with the strong suspicion of his ordering of assassination and incarcerations of political rivals and public critics testify to his authoritarian personality. And there is also the question of whether Putin wants to revive the territorial boundaries of the 9ld Russian Empire that existed under the Tsars.

So what should we make of Putin's troop buildup on the Ukrainian border? Does Putin have imperial desires or does Russia feel threatened by NATO's relationship with the Ukraine and is planning to act as the US did in Latin America during the 1980s when it opposed Leftist revolutions in Nicaragua and El Salvador or in nations that saw Leftist leaders win democratic elections in Guatemala and Chile? We should note that with Chile, the US did to that nation what some, including myself, suspect Russia of doing in the US today: trying to destabilize the nation to prepare it for a coup.

An overview of the potential Ukrainian crisis tells us that not enough of us are willing to share power and wealth, traits that will lead to our self-destruction regardless of what Putin's intentions are. In the meantime, all we can hope for from our President is that he will take actiong that will give him time to accurately read Putin's intentions before determining what further actions to take. In addition, we can also hope that these two nuclear-armed giants will not play games of chicken with everyone's future on the line.

ONIM For January 28, 2019

10 Best Fact Checking Sites Found Here.

If you are not sure about the validity of a news story linked to below, you can use  mediabiasfactcheck.com to check out the credibility of the source of most of the stories linked to here.

 

Christian News

• How To Fight Racism, Part 2--Relationships -- Witness: A Black Christian Collective 
• How To Fight Racism, Part 3--Commitment To Action -- Witness: A Black Christian Collective 
• Our Response To The Eschatological Dream Of Martin Luther King Jr. -- Christianity Today
• The Top Reasons Young People Drop Out Of Church -- Christianity Today
• 'I Was A TSA Agent, And You Fed Me' -- Christianity Today
• Porn Is Slowly Killing Evangelicalism -- Chorus In The Chaos
• How Singing The Psalms Provides A Fixed Point For Theological Expression And Growth -- Evangelical Pulpit
• Does God "Embrace All People Regardless...?" -- Roger Olson
• Origin Of "Personal Savior" & The Idea Of Having A "Personal Relationship" With Christ -- The Deeper Journey
• The Sins Of Early Evangelicalism -- Anxious Bench
• What Will Evangelicals Say To Jesus? -- Anxious Bench
• What The Bible Says About Evangelism -- Christian Crier
• Evangelicals Call For New Thinking On Criminal Justice -- Evangelical Pulpit 

World News

• Enbridge Gas Pipeline Explosion Causes Fireball In Ohio -- Reuters
• Crime Doesn't Pay, And Right Now Neither Does The Government, Says FBI Association -- PBS
• FBI Agents Say Shutdown Hinders Fight Against Gangs And Terrorism -- Yahoo News
• President Of Flight Attendants Union Suggests General Strike To End Government Shutdown -- Popular Mechanics
• NYC Flight Disruptions Put Spotlight On FAA As Shutdown Drags On -- Bloomberg
• Wilbur Ross Says He Doesn't Understand Why Federal Workers Are Turning To Food Banks In Shutdown -- Yahoo News
• Food Assistance Payments Came Early But Have To Last Until March -- NPR
• Meet The Team Behind CNN Brazil: A Businessman Accused Of Exploiting Slave Labor And An Executive From A Fox News-Style Outlet -- Intercept
• The Border Wall Isn't The Only Reason Why Democrats Oppose Plan To End The Shutdown -- NPR
• The Pipeline Plan That Will Drain The Lower Darling River Dry -- Guardian
• A N.Y. Times Story Just Accidentally Shredded The Russiagate Hysteria -- Truthdig
• MLK's Son Criticizes Mike Pence: My Father 'Was A Bridge Builder, Not A Wall Builder' -- Huffington Post
• Racism At GM, From Insults To Nooses, Spurs Warnings And Firings -- Bloomberg
• Scientists Are Just Now Seeing 13-Billion-Year-Old Light From Black Holes -- USA Today
• Google, Facebook And Microsoft Sponsored A Conference That Promoted Climate Change Denial -- Huffington Post
• Telescopes Capture Moment Of Impact During Eclipse Of The Moon -- AP News
• Russia Takes Wraps Off New Missile To Try To Save U.S. Nuclear Pact -- Reuters
• They Went To Mexico For Surgery. They Came Back With A Deadly Superbug -- Morning Call
• Public's 2019 Priorities: Economy, Health Care, Education And Security All Near Top Of List -- Pew Research Center
• Majority Of U.S. Population Supports High-Skilled Immigration -- Pew Research Center
• 116th Congress, At Least 13% Are Immigrants Or Children Of Immigrants -- Pew Research Center
• Americans' Views On Masculinity Differ By Party, Gender And Race -- Pew Research Center
• Maduro V. Guiado -- ZNet
• Washington Post Hits Back At Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's 'Misfired Facts' -- Huffington Post
• Louisiana Killing Spree Suspect Dakota Theriot Captured In Virginia -- ABC News  

Israel-Palestine News

• Does Israel Have A Right To Exist Is A Trick Question -- Forward
• Palestinian School And Sewage Projects Unfinished As U.S. Cuts Final Bit Of Aid -- NPR
• Michelle Alexander Explodes An Open Secret In The 'NYT': Progressives Keep Quiet About Palestine Out Of Fear For Their Careers -- Mondoweiss

Donald Trump News

• Trump Transgender Troop Limits Can Take Effect, Top Court Decides -- Reuters
• Trump Claims Walls Work, But The Discover Of Border Tunnels Says Otherwise -- NBC News
• Senate Panel Subpoenas Michal Cohen, President Trump's Former Personal Lawyer -- USA Today
• Trump Confidant Stone Charged With Lying About Hacked Emails -- AP News
• Trump Announces Deal To Reopen Federal Government Through Feb. 15 -- Reuters
• Trump Official Overruled Experts Who Denied Jared Kushner Top Security Clearance: NBC -- Huffington Post
• Analysis: Trump's Shutdown Retreat Reveals Weakness -- Yahoo News
• Donald Trump Caved To Nancy Pelosi On Shutdown, Now The Wall Will Never Be Built -- USA Today
• Backing Down, Trump Agrees To End Shutdown Without Border Wall Money -- Reuters
• Majority Of Americans Hold Trump, Republicans Responsible For Shutdown, Poll Finds -- Chicago Tribune
• Right-Wing Rips Trump Over No-Wall Deal -- Reuters
• Conservatives Bash Trump On Ending Shutdown Without Border Money -- USA Today
• Why Is Trump Being Portrayed As Russia's Stooge? -- ZNet

Pick(s) Of The Litter

• Fuller Video Casts Light On Covington Catholic Students' Encounter With Native American Elder -- USA Today
• Nathan Phillips On Today Show: 'I'm Still Angry, I Have Forgiveness In My Heart' -- USA Today
• 'Open Russia' Activist Could Face 6-Year Sentence In First Criminal Prosecution For Membership In 'Undesirable NGO' -- Human Rights In Ukraine
• The Opiate Epidemic Is Coming To A Suburb Near You -- Federalist
• How We Destroy Lives Today -- New York Times
• Native American Leader: 'A Wall Is Not The Answer' -- NPR
• The New Elite's Phoney Crusade To Save The World--Without Changing Anything -- Guardian
• NATO, Russia Fail To Agree Over Missile Breach, U.S. To Quit Treaty -- Reuters
• In Covington, I Was Taught To Doubt My Own Experiences Of Racism -- Elle
• Hundreds Missing In Brazil, 34 Found Dead, After Vale Dam Burst -- Reuters

Just For Fun

• Ann Coulter Demands To Deliver State Of The Union Address -- Barowitz Report
• Jared Kushner Assures Reporters He Never Revealed State Secrets Without Turning Huge Profit -- Onion
• Study Finds Average American Gets Most Physical Exertion Waving Cell Phone Around To Get Signal -- Onion
• Nation's Libertarians To Scream At Sky The Moment Government Reopens -- Babylon Bee
• This Christian Is Exactly Like His Unbelieving Friends Except He Says 'Heck' Instead of 'Hell' -- Babylon Bee

ONIM For June 25, 2018

10 Best Fact Checking Sites Found Here.

If you are not sure about the validity of a news story linked to below, you can use  mediabiasfactcheck.com to check out the credibility of the source of most of the stories linked to here.


Christian News

• This Is Pure And Undefiled Religion: Take Care Of Orphans And Widows In Their Affliction -- Witness: A Black Christian Collective
• Christians Defending Immigrant Families Is Good, But It Also Requires Consistency -- Witness: A Black Christian Collective
• Is This Evangelicalism's Red-Pill Moment? -- Pater Familias Daily
• I Believe, Therefore I Do -- Jesus Creed
• The Plus Factor -- Housewife Theologian
• Sorry Jeff Sessions, Bible Doesn't Justify Terrorizing Parents & Children On The Border -- USA Today
• Franklin Graham: Millions Pray For Peace Between The US and North Korea--I Applaud Trump For Seeking It -- Fox News
• Many White Evangelicals Are Not  Protesting Family Separations On The U.S. Border -- Washington Post
• While Children Are In Cages -- John Pavlovitz
• Pope Francis: Families With Gay Or Lesbian Parents Aren't Legitimate -- Friendly Atheist
• You Can't be Pro-Life And Against Immigrant Children -- New York Times
• America Vs. Romans 13 -- Religion News Service
• In Age Of Trump, Evangelicals Back Self-Styled Top U.S. Pimp -- Reuters

World News

• Trump Aide Stephen Miller Describes Immigrant Child Separation Policy As 'Simple Decision' -- Newsweek
• Gunman Wounds 2, Fatally Shot By Bystander At Walmart Store -- Charlotte Observer
• ICE Just Launched A $2.4 Million Contract With A Secretive Data Surveillance Company That Tracks You In Real Time -- Newsweek
• Gunfire Erupts At New Jersey Arts Festival; 22 Wounded -- AP News
• Sanford Warns Against Republican 'Tribal' Support Of Trump -- Bloomberg
• James Hansen Wishes He Wasn't So Right About Global Warming -- AP News
• Former Trump Advisor Roger Stone Admits He Met With Russians During The Campaign But Says It's The FBI's Fault -- Gentleman's Quarterly
• Syrian, Iraqi Forces Say U.S. Bombs Military Border Positions, U.S. Denies -- Reuters
• Et Tu, Bernie? -- Truthdig
• Report Civil Rights Groups Urge Roger Godell, NFL To Reverse National Anthem Policy -- Yahoo News
• Donald Trump Jr. Likes Tweet Suggesting Children Separated From Parents At Border Are Crisis Actors -- Newsweek
• Stephen K. Bannon Has Won -- Washington Post
• Pentagon Suspends Major War Game With South Korea -- New York Times
• Trump's Core Voters Stand Out For Their Support Of Family Separation -- Huffington Post
• How US Foreign Policy Helped Create The Immigration Crisis -- Nation
• ICE Spokesman Resigns, Saying He Could No Longer Spread Falsehoods For Trump Administration -- New York Times
• Nikki Haley: It's Ridiculous For The United Nations To Examine Poverty In America -- Washington Post
• America Is Less White, Getting Older, And More Urban: Consensus --  Bloomberg
• Erdogan's Grip On Turkey Is Loosening Even In His Black Sea Home -- Bloomberg
• House And Senate Democrats Vote Overwhelmingly For $716 Billion Military Budget -- Forbes
• Navy Plans To Build A Migrant Detention Camp In Concord For 47,000 People -- ABC 7 News
• America's Millennials Are Waking Up To A Grim Financial Future -- Bloomberg
• Creating A Viable Black Left -- ZNet
• 11 States Are Pulling National Guard Troops From The US-Mexico Border In A Growing Protest Over Trump's Family-Separation Policy -- Business Insider

Israel-Palestine News

• Palestinian Killed In Gaza Border Fence Blast -- Reuters
• Israel Extends Detention Of Female Palestinian Lawmaker -- San Francisco Chronicle
• Held Without Trial For A Year, Israel Extends Detention Of Palestinian Lawmaker Khalida Jarrar -- Haaretz
• Palestine's Feminists Are Fighting On Two Fronts -- Truthdig
• Israel Mum On US Claims It Hit Irac Militia In Syria -- AFP
• Israeli PM's Wife Charged With Fraud, Breach Of Trust -- AP News
• Israeli Soldiers Set Dogs On Elderly Palestinians And Teenagers In Their Homes In Jenin R.C. -- B'Tselem
• Reprehensible Actions By Israeli Troops Against Palestinians Following Killing Of Rabbi Shevach: Demolishing A Home With Inhabitants Still Inside, Strip Searching 3 Women, Setting Dogs On 3 Residents -- B'Tselem
• Burning Kites From Gaza Damage Israeli Farms, Wildlife -- AP News

Donald Trump News

• Trump Administration Will Withdraw US From Human Rights Council, Report Says -- Independent
• Former CIA Chief Compares Trump Administration To Nazi Germany Over Border Policy -- Newsweek
• Sheldon Adelson: The Casino Mogul Driving Trump's Middle East Policy -- Guardian
• Trumpism: It's Coming From the Suburbs -- Truthdig
• President Of Academy Of American Pediatrics Calls Trump Border Policy 'Child Abuse' -- Huffington Post
• Donald Trump Says He Doesn't Believe NFL Players Who Protest During Anthem Have A 'Real Issue' -- USA Today
• This Is How NFL Players Are Responding To Trump's Rhetoric -- USA Today
• Trump Announces Plans For Pentagon To Create 'Space Force' -- AP News
• In Reversal, Trump Orders Halt To His Family Separation Rule -- AP News
• AP Fact Check: Trump Overstates Order On Family Separation -- AP News
• Will We Stop Trump Before It's Too Late? -- New York Times
• Trump Made Right Decision To Withdraw From The UN Human Rights Council--But Now He Needs To Look In the Mirror -- Business Insider

Pick(s) Of The Litter

• Atrocities Under Kim Jong-Un: Indoctrination, Prison Gulags, Executions -- New York TImes
• 'I Can't Go Without My Son,' A Mother Pleaded As She Was Deported To Guatemala -- New York Times
• A Look Inside Walmart-Turned Immigration Detention Center For Children -- ABC News
• Immigrants Fleeing Gangs Prefer Taking Chance For US Asylum -- AP News
• What A Doctor Saw In A Texas Shelter For Migrant Children -- Independent
• UN Rights Chief: US Policy On Migrant Children 'Unconscionable' -- AP News
• U.S. Placed Immigrant Children With Traffickers, Report Says -- AP News
• Here's How You Can Help Fight Family Separation At Border -- Slate
• Mexican Kids Held For Months As Punishment For Border-Crossing -- Washington Post
• Immigrant Mom Loses Effort To Regain Son Given To US Parents -- ABC News
• US Child Migrants: 2,000 Separated From Famlies in Six Weeks -- BBC
• Hidden Horrors Of Zero-Tolerance: Mass Trials And Children Taken From Their Parents -- Intercept
• Immigrants Detained In Victorville Prison Are Being Illegally Denied Access To Lawyers, ACLU Says In Lawsuit -- KTLA 5 News
• Hundreds Of Separated Children Have Quietly Been Sent To New York -- New York Times
• 'Lack Of Compassion' For The Poor Threatens US Democracy: UN Expert -- Yahoo News
• Businesses Have Made Millions Off Trump's Child Separation Policy -- Yahoo News
• Three Jewish Questions On Refugee Children -- Religion News Service
• U.S. Centers Force Migrant Children To Take Drugs: Lawsuit -- Reuters
• Company That Runs Immigration Detention Centers Is Top Donor For Three Texas Congressmen -- Dallas Morning News
• Senator Denied Entry To See Florida Child Migrant Facility -- ABC News
• Saudis, U.S. Ignore Famine Warnings In Besieged Yemen -- Truthdig
• Dancing With Monsters: The U.S. Response To The 2009 Honduran Coup -- Harvard Political Review
• Fascism, Showmanship And Democrats' Hypocrisy In The Trump Era -- ZNet
• The Death Of The Unarmed Teen Killed By An East Pittsburgh Police Officer Is Ruled A Homicide -- CNN
• How Lynching Was Used By Whites To Destroy Competition From Black Business Owners -- Los Angeles Times
• Monsanto Faces Man Dying From Cancer In Roundup Trial -- Bloomberg

Just For Fun

• Exasperated Huckabee Sanders Reminds Press Corps That Children Under 14 Can't Feel Pain -- Onion
• Saudi Arabia Officially Lifts Ban On Female Monster Truck Rallies -- Onion
• Man On Deathbed Deeply Regrets Not Spending More Time Arguing On Facebook -- Babylon Bee
• Ken Ham Ejected From Theater For Yelling 'Wrong' Every Time 'Jurassic World' Actors Say '65 Million Years' -- Babylon Bee
• House Democrats Draft Legislation That Would Make It A Hate Crime To Eat At Chick-Fil-A -- Babylon Bee