We have been following a rise in political violence and property destruction on the left this year. The latest such example is from UCLA where a young man destroyed pro-life posters. This man is accused of previously stealing signs from the group and the group has posted images of the alleged perpetrator wearing a “UCLA Law” sweater.(Note: There has been no official determination or charge that this is the culprit by police).
Justice for All posted the pictures and alleges that this apparent student previously attacked their displays two years ago. The group issued this statement:
A UCLA student vandalized our signs with spray paint. He also stole four of our signs in 2023, and has yet to be found by police. If anyone knows who this is, DM us. A police report has been filed, and we will press charges both for the theft and for the vandalism.
A police report has been filed, and we will press charges both for the theft and for the vandalism. Thankfully, most pro-choice people are not like this. They are respectful and willing to dialogue and wouldn’t think to do something like this. You can hear in the background a man telling him this is wrong even though he disagreed with us. Most of our outreaches are peaceful, and we are able to have respectful conversations with those on the other side. Sometimes that’s not the case though.
We care about this student which is why we want him held accountable. This behavior is unacceptable.
The sweater could be misleading as to his association with the law school. However, the possibility that he is a law student is chilling for a number of reasons. First, it would mean that law students and possibly faculty may be aware of his actions but have not come forward. That may include the person heard in the background telling him to stop.
Second, it shows the sense of impunity and license that some have in committing criminal acts for political purposes. This could be someone who actually wants to practice law, but believes that he has a right to commit such criminal acts.
Students do not come to this sense of license on their own. Faculty have reinforced the sense of impunity with their own actions.
We have seen conservative and pro-life groups attacked on campuses across the country, including by faculty members (here and here). A recent attack occurred at the University of North Carolina at Asheville, where a young man tossed a pro-life display while declaring, “I f**king hate you.”
It is now common to hear inflammatory language from professors advocating “detonating white people,” denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements. One professor who declared that there is “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence as killing conservatives was actually promoted.
Faculty have resigned from UCLA over the intolerance for conservatives and libertarians. UCLA law school has been challenged over its own conduct toward faculty with dissenting views. Faculty at the school have had to secure police protection due to threats.
That is the culture that produces this type of extreme rhetoric among students. These faculty members have normalized violent speech and conduct.
Of course, some professors have gone further and committed acts of political violence. Such conduct should be prosecuted and those faculty members fired. However, even in those extreme cases, liberal faculty have often rallied around their colleagues.
Years ago, many of us were shocked by the conduct of University of Missouri communications professor Melissa Click, who directed a mob against a student journalist covering a Black Lives Matter event. Yet, Click was hired by Gonzaga University. Since that time, we have seen a steady stream of professors joining students in shouting down, committing property damage, participating in riots, verbally attacking students, or even taking violent action in protests.
At the University of California Santa Barbara, professors actually rallied around feminist studies associate professor Mireille Miller-Young, who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display. Despite pleading guilty to criminal assault, she was not fired and received overwhelming support from the students and faculty. She was later honored as a model for women advocates.
At Hunter College in New York, Professor Shellyne Rodríguez was shown trashing a pro-life display of students.
She was captured on a videotape telling the students that “you’re not educating s–t […] This is f–king propaganda. What are you going to do, like, anti-trans next? This is bulls–t. This is violent. You’re triggering my students.”
Unlike the professor, the students remained calm and respectful. One even said “sorry” to the accusation that being pro-life was triggering for her students.
Rodríguez continued to rave, stating, “No you’re not — because you can’t even have a f–king baby. So you don’t even know what that is. Get this s–t the f–k out of here.” In an Instagram post, she is then shown trashing the table.
Hunter College, however, did not consider this unhinged attack to be sufficient to terminate Rodríguez.
It was only after she later chased reporters with a machete that the college fired Rodríguez. She was then hired by another college.
Another example comes from the State University of New York at Albany, where sociology professor Renee Overdyke shut down a pro-life display and then resisted arrest. One student is heard screaming, “She’s a [expletive] professor.” That, of course, is the point.
In Wisconsin, a department chair was recently shown destroying a table of conservative students.
In such an environment, it is hardly surprising to see an apparent student calmly destroying displays with no sense of fear of repercussions.
The question is whether UCLA, which has had the picture of the alleged culprit since the first incident two years ago, will now take action.
Transhumanism under the Pro-Choice religion and Twilight faith to relieve “burdens” of evidence. Keep women affordable, available, reusable, and taxable. Women on womb farms. Men in sperm banks.
Babies deemed unworthy of life Planned then sequestered in darkness. A queer religion following progressive principles prosecuted with liberal license. A wicked solution. #HateLovesAbortion
I thought this commentary by Prof. Turley was about political violence, in particular against folks who don’t appreciate how easy getting an abortion has become in this country. What does Putin and Saddam Hussein have to do with any of that?
“’This Motherf*cker Doesn’t Treat Me like the Damn Vice President of the United States’ – Kamala Harris Went Off on Anderson Cooper to Colleagues After Heated Interview on Biden Debate Performance.”
“Kamala Harris reportedly became enraged following a live interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper after the Trump-Biden debate, calling him a ‘motherf*cker’ and complaining about how he supposedly mistreated her, a new book reveals.”
– Gateway Pundit
I’m reminded of an interaction quite some years ago when, if memory serves. Barbara Bpxer had been addressed as M’am by the military officer who was giving testimony to a Senate Committee, and Boxer felt compelled to correct the officer, stating he should address her as Senator Boxer.
It’s no wonder VP Kamala Harris felt ‘entitled’ to the ‘respect’ that is supposed to come with the VP title.
That and the “reclaiming my time” crowd seem awfully pissy about their titles and other self-aggrandizing shticks.
The Russian people should have a chance to vote Putin out of office.
They wouldn’t vote him out even if they had the chance. He is extremely popular in Russia.
Were you keeping a straight face when you typed this?
*********
Iraq former president Saddam Hussein also won 100% votes in a 2002 referendum on whether his decades-long rule was to continue. Former Supreme Leader Kim Jong-il fared almost as well as his son in 2009, winning 99.9 % of votes. Raul Castro earned 99.4% votes in the 2008 Cuban election and Syria’s Bashar al-Assad secured 97.6% votes for his 2007 presidential referendum.
Turkmenistan’s Saparmurat Niyazov in 1992 and Chechnya’s United Russian Party in 2011 both secured 99.5%. Kurbanguly Berdymukhamedov, also from Turkmenistan, topped them with 97% in 2012. In 2004, Georgia’s Mikheil Saakashvili won more than 96% votes after his predecessor was ousted in a bloodless revolution.
In authoritarian regimes, elections are largely managed popularity contests, says Michael Svetlik, vice-president of the International Foundation for Electoral Systems. Elections are rigged and people vote one way because they fear punishments.
Many like Jong-un were unopposed. But in other cases, token or sham opposition candidates are put up, says Svetlik. Autocrats realise that to “play this game they need to have competition, so they create competition”.
Sometimes, the opposition is genuine but does not have the resources to fight or it may decide to boycott the contest, says political scientist Thomas Lundberg of the University of Glasgow. Any election win with more than two-thirds of the votes should raise suspicions, because it is so unusual in a free and fair election, he says. A number within the 60-80% range might signal a fragmented opposition – in South Africa, the African National Congress regularly gains votes in the high 60s.
After a “democratic breakthrough”, voters flock to support the anti-incumbent, says Svetlik, explaining Muslim Brotherhood’s 70% win in Egypt’s 2012 elections. And a 60-80% margin may in some cases signal a lack of democratic experience – a disorganised opposition and an embryonic media favour those holding power.
And then you have outliers. In the 2002 French presidential election, Jacques Chirac enjoyed a rare 82% landslide victory, as voters united against National Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen.
OT
Secession is not prohibited and is fully constitutional.
Every act of Lincoln must be rescinded, and the consequences of those acts must be corrected.
Certain, if not all, states included the right to “reassume” the powers they granted to the U.S., or secede, when “necessary to their Happiness” or when those powers were “perverted to their injury or oppression.”
_________________________
NEW YORK
Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York; July 26, 1788. (1)
“That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness;…”
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
VIRGINIA
Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Virginia; June 26, 1788. (1)
“We the Delegates of the People of Virginia…Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will:…
You are obviously not a student of history. The rebel states were readmitted to the union providing that they forever relinquish their ability to secede. Even Texas.
So Lincoln robbed the bank, got caught, and gets to keep the money?
Oh, and can ya’all stop repeating ad nauseam that secession was unconstitutional, including the clown-show Supreme Court of 1869, in Texas v. White?
They finally got abortion right in Dobbs, 2022, after 50 years of the eminently illicit and unconstitutional stupidity of Roe v. Wade.
Oh, and thanks for reading again and again; you’re my greatest fan, and I want you to know that I sincerely appreciate that!
Michael, George has Lincoln Derangement Syndrome. He is literally coockoo.
It’s wild how the leftists are always accusing conservatives of being Nazis, being violent, just generally being vile human beings when it is almost always – I’d guess 90% of the time – leftists who light Teslas on fire and destroy Pro-Life displays and disrupt conservative speakers and protest and take over administrative buildings on campuses and do sit-ins and block traffic and disrupt congressional hearings……need I go on? The Left is the problem in our civil society, not the Right.
Unhinged professors and their development of sycophantic and socially-disturbed students:
Beware! A morally-normal 18-yr-old can go to college and lose his/her perfectly normal moral scruples within a couple of years. It seems the “institution of higher learning” has only one tool to inspire dialectic though—Marxist ideology and its polemics of the oppressed in everything from essay writing, to green academics in all disciplines under the ruse of “sustainability,” to engineering, and medical education. They constantly administer Marxist-thought shock treatments, under the harmless sounding scholarly tripe of “critical theory.”
Dianna Bec
Good grief !!!!
RELAX !!!
Take a deep breath.
Take a valium.
This is just a stupid kid doing what stupid kids do.
BEING STUPID !!!
All this huffing and puffing, and over the top indignation is absurd.
A stupid kid doing something stupid is not the end of civilization as we know it
Turley writes this inane stuff for the sole purpose of agitating the MAGA cult, and unfortunately it works.
Like Pavlov’s dogs responding to the bell, you come running to Turley’s “bell” to regurgitate your mindless drivel like the slobbering dogs.
Nope, a CEO shot in head gangland style, two young ambassadors of Jewish descent on the heels.
The young are being duped by some “controllers” having zero interest in the lower classes into being servants.
The controllers have no intention of taking care of them nor their violent progeny. The institutions are training them to believe the highest calling is as servants of their failed brothers and sisters. They too are duped.
The controllers are withdrawing as it is a complete failure. Do you feel lucky today?
“Over the top” describes your ad hominems. Speaking from long and direct EXPERIENCE in academia, extreme-leftist and unhinged professors do produce the indoctrinated marxist progeny we are seeing today: many are not just spraying paint, or mutilating their gentials; others are shooting people. Turley points out features of current day leftist culture to sound the alarm, just as I have. Students are taught deconstruction and relativism. Academia is the breeding grounds for violent ideology. The warning is for parents of kids going off to college this summer.
He’s 25? Kid?
“A stupid kid doing something stupid is not the end of civilization as we know it”
You’re right.
A single barbarian at the gate does not raise the alarm. But an entire horde of them inside the gate does.
And those who willfully ignore the horde, open the gate for them.
Beware! A morally-normal 18-yr-old can go to college and lose his/her perfectly normal moral scruples within a couple of years.
Then his/her parents did a poor job in forming the conscience of their child. By age 18 every child should have received from their parent, based on a sound foundation provided in a home where tenderness, forgiveness, respect, fidelity, and disinterested service are the rule where the child can withstand the fickleness and lies of their future encounters. If they succumb, as many do, then there is always redemption. But then redemption requires religion.
No religion = no redemption
Know religion = know redemption
The Parable of the Lost Son
I shall get up and go to my father and I shall say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I no longer deserve to be called your son; treat me as you would treat one of your hired workers.”’ So he got up and went back to his father. While he was still a long way off, his father caught sight of him, and was filled with compassion. He ran to his son, embraced him and kissed him.
His son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you; I no longer deserve to be called your son.’ But his father ordered his servants, ‘Quickly bring the finest robe and put it on him; put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet.Take the fattened calf and slaughter it. Then let us celebrate with a feast,
because this son of mine was dead, and has come to life again; he was lost, and has been found.’ Then the celebration began.
Gospel of Saint Luke, 15:18-24
https://bible.usccb.org/bible/luke/15
The duties of parents
2223 Parents have the first responsibility for the education of their children. They bear witness to this responsibility first by creating a home where tenderness, forgiveness, respect, fidelity, and disinterested service are the rule. The home is well suited for education in the virtues. This requires an apprenticeship in self-denial, sound judgment, and self-mastery – the preconditions of all true freedom. Parents should teach their children to subordinate the “material and instinctual dimensions to interior and spiritual ones.”….
2224 The home is the natural environment for initiating a human being into solidarity and communal responsibilities. Parents should teach children to avoid the compromising and degrading influences which threaten human societies.
https://www.vatican.va/content/catechism/en/part_three/section_two/chapter_two/article_4/iii_the_duties_of_family_members.html
Estovir
You seem to think that morality is only possible in the context of religious belief.
“Morality” that follows from religious coercion is immorality.
It seems to me that your “morality” is imposed on you by a fear of retribution from your imaginary friend in the sky.
You apparently feel that you must be “moral” in order to avoid eternal damnation. In other words you are threatened and coerced into “morality” by a “god” who supposedly loves you.
Sounds more like a very sick sado-masochistic relationship to me.
This is an extraordinarily pitiful outlook on life.
You have wasted your life in subservience to a completely imaginary entity.
I feel deep sorrow for you.
So you deny the existence of God? Ok. Here’s the thing. One of us is wrong. If you are right and God does not exist then when we who died believing, will simply cease to exist and we will never know it. But, by having lived our lives in accordance with that belief we will have harmed no one. But, if we are right, then when you die in your unbelief you will face His just judgment. He gave you every opportunity to accept His only Son and you refused. May He have mercy on your soul.
Michael
So you are simply a weak-minded person who is afraid of the dark.
Religion is your security blanket
You live a life of fear that you will suffer eternal damnation if you step out of line.
Sounds like a miserable existence to me.
As I suspected. OK. Good luck.
Oops, anon, some have no inclination to “step out of line”. Shocking isn’t it?
* in addition, I must abandon the field at this point because there are those here hurling curses.
May all curses hurled be broken like dry twigs.
Adieu
ATS – it is left wing nuts that are weak minded.
Religion is an inherent aspect of humanity. There is no human culture that has ever existed that was not religious.
In the absence of religion – humans create religion.
Look at the left ? It might be devoid of a creator, but it is drowning in religion and has as many gods as the greeks.
You think your clever, but you are an ignorant moron.
I do not have all the answers, religion does not have all the ansswers, sciences does not have all the answers, no one has all the answers,
But YOU are stupid enough to believe that you do and even stupider to judge others who have reached their own decisions as somehow deficient because they have not reached yours. Myriads of incredibly intelligent people over thousands of years have ponder the questions that you are absolutely certain you can answer, and certain that anyone who disagrees is “weak minded” and inferior ?
Was Einstein weak minded ? Were nearly all the brilliant people of history weak minded because they beleived in something that you do not ?
I doubt there is a single religion in the world that gets it right.
But there is little doubt that you get it wrong.
There is no difference between those like you who accuse anyone who beleives in anything of being weak minded and the suicide bomber who beleives after they blow themselves up they will get 70 virgins.
Your not smart enough to know what you can not know.
John Say
You say the following:
“In the absence of religion – humans create religion.”
Exactly my point.
Man created god, not the other way around.
So glad you actually agree with me.
Since we agree that god is created by man, I believe this ends the discussion.
Michael, you may or may not be familiar with St Thomas Aquinas’ Quinque viæ or “5 Ways” to prove the existence of God. These included:
1. the argument from metaphysical motion
2. the argument from efficient causation
3. the argument from contingency
4. the argument from degrees of being
5. the argument from final causality (“teleological argument”)
He later expounded on the aforementioned in his Summa Contra Gentiles with the concept of the primum movens immobile or “unmoved mover”.
My parents never finished grammar school in Cuba, and following the above teachings of the Catholic Church, they wished their chidren to be better than them, more intelligent, and offered them what they never had – a formal liberal arts Jesuit education. It is thanks to them that I am who I am today. In response to Dianna Bec’s comment, all throughout my teenage years, and college then medical school thereafter, I never touched drugs, never got arrested, I never fell away from my parents formation, in spite of being exposed to atheistic, Marxist doctrines in America. For example, one of the most animated arguments I had in college was with a political science professor on the subject of Marxism. She, a former faculty member of Leftist dogmas from Oregon State University, defended Fidel Castro in a poli-sci course I took. I then took her apart piece by piece, and the whole class watched in amazement as I decimated her stupidity. She later apologized to me privately, but only after I complained to the Academic Dean about her. My point is that you can be around Marxists and not cave to their influence as conservatives often argue.
you can read more about St Thomas Aquinas’ Quinque viæ at: Summa Theologiae, First Part, Question 2, The existence of God
It goes without saying that the subjects of metaphysical motion, efficient causation, argument from contingency, argument from degrees of being and the argument from final causality, are beyond the IQ of the trolls on here. One can only pity their miserable existence and whisper, “there go I by the grace of loving parents”.
Estovir
Estovir — There is no largest integer. For, for each integer n, n+1 is larger.
Thus do I refute final cause.
DBB you are constantly opining about things you do not understand, and appear to know very little about.
Do you really think that Aristotle and Aquinas were unfamiliar with the infinite nature of numbers ?
You have successfully refuted the proposition that you know what you are talking about.
“Do you really think that Aristotle and Aquinas were unfamiliar with the infinite nature of numbers ?”
Aristotle rejected the concept of infinity.
Care to try again?
I do not share your certainty. But I absolutely share your disdain for the ignorance of those who do not grasp that even atheism is ultimately a belief.
There are likely few here who have heard of Aquinas, that itself is a damning condemnation of modern education.
Maybe a handful more who have heard of Aristotle.
It is amazing that left wing nuts completely ignorant of multiple millennia of human thought on fundamental issues of human existence, are capable of being certain that what they and/or some purple haired 20something with a teaching certificate who has likely no knowledge of even 1% of the worlds greatest thinkers of the bast several millennia, They together with a combined IQ that may not reach 3 digits, were able to easily solve philosophical problems that man has been working on for millennia.
John Say
You say:
” even atheism is ultimately a belief”
Atheism is not a belief or a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious.
It is worth noting that no one ever need identify himself as a non-astrologer or a non-alchemist. Consequently, we do not have words for people who deny the validity of these pseudo-disciplines.
Similarly, we do not have a word for a non-racist. The absence of racist views is not a belief system or a philosophy with an organized structure. It is a natural state of being for a normal rational person. There is no “non-racist alliance” anywhere for non-racists to join, in the manner that believers can join a church.
“Atheism” is a term that should not even exist. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma.
The atheist is merely a person who believes that the 260 million Americans (eighty-seven percent of the population) who claim to “never doubt the existence of God” should be obliged to present evidence for his existence—and, indeed, for his benevolence, given the relentless destruction of innocent human beings we witness in the world each day.
I do not identify myself as an atheist.
The word atheist is a label that believers attach to non-believers because they are incapable of understanding that non-belief is a natural state of being for a normal rational person.
Believers attach this atheist label to create a straw man which they then proceed to attack.
Atheism is not a “thing” except in the eyes of believers.
Atheism is simply the absence of belief.
* Do you believe there is not a life after death, a resurrection, a reincarnation, anon?
I actually expected “Anonymous” to respond with Pascal’s Wager. I misjudged the depth of his/her intellect. I should have expected the ad hominem but I was willing to engage in an adult conversation. Oh well.
You perfectly applied what’s called “Pascal’s wager.”
It’s called Pascal’s Wager. It’s dull.
Estovir is right, the highest form of morality does indeed come from Judeo-Christian teaching. Your secular morality is not morality at all though you may be capable of some kind of ethics, but you don’t feel any deep sorrow for anyone. What you display is the hubris of humanism, worship of SELF, which always ends with stomping on ANYone if you don’t get your way or your share—that’s not morality. No person who believes in God suffers “eternal damnation,” which (unless you receive Christ) is reserved for you, not Estovir or Michael.
That’s an awful thing to say. It’s called a curse. Awful.
Yes, awful. Of course it’s a curse, and that is why Jesus died on the cross—to save you from the punishment (curse) that comes as retribution for sin; that is why Christians evangelize, to let you know exactly what awaits, and what your choices are: according to Proverbs 9:10, fear of the Lord is the the beginning of wisdom is fear [ this fear includes awe and reverence]. Truth is hard to take isn’t it….
Correction: fear of the Lord is the the beginning of wisdom [this fear includes awe and reverence]. Proverbs 9:10.
If you fear someone who supposedly loves you, then you are engaged in an extremely abnormal and dangerous sado-masochistic relationship.
I highly recommend that you seek psychiatric care.
I have questions.
I am a remote Inuit Indian family living 4,000 years ago near the arctic circle.
not only do I not have a written language, I also have never read a book or had exchanged ideas with anyone who lets say might have read or repeated stories about Jesus, God an the bible.
are you suggesting this inuit family is not saved? that God does not recognize them at all?
how do we REALLY understand God is what I am saying, and how does this work within what is obvious some problems when applying the classic “western” opinion about how the bible and the teachings of Christ works for people who have never heard, never experienced the Bible?
lets give some details to consider…lets say the practice of this inuit family is to celebrate the end of the long winter months or to dance when the aurora borealis occurs? would this be heresy, idol worship? could it be a form of worship or practice that would be at that time and even now, frowned upon as savage, antithetical to the teachings of the experience from the bible’s many parables?
now, lets roll the tape and examine what exactly the Bible teaches about children who have not grown in years *or some arbitrary time line* such that they are not subject to retribution for sin, because they have no understanding…not ability to recognize between right and wrong….no discernment.
how does this link to the unuit family…while full grown…absolutely could not and do not have any awareness and discernment?
there are two possibiliies based solely on some obvious contradictions:
the Bible is incomplete, with gaps, and is insufficient to understand God and the rules of God…salvation included.
or the Bible is complete, just as it is…which means that literally billions of people through chance and circumstance are doomed to hell…just for being born at a time or in a place that they had no control over.
I find both possibilities equally terrifying.
God Bless America
Most people do have questions, but your Inuit (isolated civilizations) scenario is not new, neither the question of children who never reach the age of understanding and choice. These gaps pose complex and “terrifying” questions, as you say, that are not easily answered in our fast-food, “give it to me now,” “it “has to be easy,” and “I have to like it or I will not listen,” culture. For example, “math is racist,” so in order to not hurt anyone’s feelings or account for why minorities cannot learn math very well, just get rid of it. That’s where we’re at in our “GOD Bless America.” Everything is dumbed-down.
Spiritual comprehension (sound interpretation of the Bible) is the result of studying and praying for discernment—goes along the same lines of studying in college to understand course material and become knowledgeable, expert, which most students at the outset are very unwilling to do (and I can vouch on that one!—if you make it easy for students to buy and read their books (online text), you also get programming that shows reading percentages, and let me tell you, reading stats are LOW), so no matter how much a thing is wanted to be understood, the work to gain that understanding is not done—the same goes for [what you call] Biblical gaps; you must seek diligently rather than raise objection (without commitment) to finding the answers. In other words, raising problematical issues, contradictions and gaps, “the terrifying possibilities” is more about complaining against the lack of ease in searching out the matter, but salvation is not one of those “insufficient to understand” gaps. There is plenty of information in the New Testament about what you need to do to be saved. So, setting that aside, I will tell you what I think about the two aforementioned “possibilities….”
I think you trust God first, trust that he knows the answers, even if you don’t, and you allow it—that’s why it’s called faith, and without it, there will be no chance at getting to the understanding. In my own understanding, which does not come from any seminary background, I see that a just God applies a fair and loving mercy upon those who truly had no chance to hear the Gospel and make the choice, always allowing the choice if one is alive, and later meting out justice during the judgement, if someone has passed. This seems to be a strong possibility, when you consider Christ’s promised return and thousand-year reign, where ALL people, having finally matured and/or learned what it takes to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, will yet again, have the choice to accept or reject. Complex, I know, but that is why it is time to find a good church, and sit under the teaching of a pastor, and do some Bible study. In other words, seek (and ye shall find). No one can do it for you.
Suffice it to say, that if you get caught up in the terrorizing “what ifs,” you’ll either be afforded an easy, self-justified, way out of salvation or you’ll trust and accept Christ, then learn the answers to your questions (for yourself) during your spiritual journey.
Oh, be gone.
One of the dead giveaways of the left is that they fail Matthews separation of the sheep and the goats.
They claim to care about others but they never DO anything to help others.
They idiotically beleive that voting to steal wealth from others and given to the less fortunate – or in reality to the politically connected, is somehow virtue.
Hit the nail on the head, AGAIN, John Say! It’s very easy to distribute party-favors when someone else is buying them.
+ You’d think with all the leftist-blubbering about the rich (oligarchs) and unfair distribution of wealth, and their crying about the bogus cuts in SNAP, fewer people would be living on the streets instead of hitting new records everywhere.
What you display is the hubris of humanism, worship of SELF, ….
🎯
Pride [superbia] is so called because a man thereby aims higher [supra] than he is; wherefore Isidore says (Etym. x): “A man is said to be proud, because he wishes to appear above (super) what he really is”; for he who wishes to overstep beyond what he is, is proud. Now right reason requires that every man’s will should tend to that which is proportionate to him. Therefore it is evident that pride denotes something opposed to right reason, and this shows it to have the character of sin, because according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv, 4), “the soul’s evil is to be opposed to reason.” Therefore it is evident that pride is a sin.
– The Dumb Ox
Summa Theologiae, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 162
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3162.htm
No, that’s not it at all. Morality is good advice, logic, common sense. I’m at a great loss at finding anything good in murder or robbery, theft, lies, fatherless children and envy, counterfeit, fraud, forgery, working 365 days per year, curses of any kind , a belief in voodoo of any kind , atheism and its religion. The punishment comes with the doing throughout such a culture. Pretty much it, anon. Sysiphus pushing that rock up a hill.
It’s not just the left. It’s the right, too.
Morality is neither unique to the religious, not universal among them.
But there is a strong correlation.
It is possible that religion builds morality.
It is also possible that morality leads to religion.
Regardless. while the correlation is not 1:1 it is still strong.
The concept of religious coercion is an oxymoron.
If you do not beleive – what threat can religion levy ?
If you do beleive – what threat is necescary ?
Logic is not your forte.
You are absolutely right, Estovir, good parental upbringing is key. Sadly, there are yet young, immature are impressionable young people, who may be turned aside by the pride of academia, wanting to question and form their own beliefs, apart from their upbringing (as many professors encourage), and not wanting to go against the grain in a class [the sheer numbers of Marxist courses (critical theory)], peer pressure, and trends in college life are forceful change agents at a critical time in young lives—and, as I always say, never underestimate the power of a popular professor to indoctrinate and change a young mind. It happens. If too many parents do a poor job, or maybe they’re just too secular or tolerant, or asleep, after the wayward years, the lost son will come home because the seeds were planted. Thank you for the scriptures and links!
Unlike you, Estovir, my college years turned me away from my core upbringing and Christian beliefs. So enthralled was I with the “new” and exciitng way of thinking (pedagogies of the oppressed) that I fell in line with it. I even taught with Marxist dialectics as my base for challenging “dogmas” thus inspiring critical thinking—defend your worldview, you who are wet behind the ears! And I fear (repent of) the strategy had good impact on the tender minds in my care. I warn because I’ve seen it happen, even lived it. There are always the days when the prodigal son leaves home and proudly thinks he/she knows it all…. But, after all the critical theory, the DEI, I finally came home to Christ.
For me I remember in my first or second week of college when I saw a sign inviting students to a conference room to introduce attendees to participation in student government. All I could think of was this was just an extension of high school gov’t which was actually a sham in its lack of real authority and thus a stupid, monumental waste of time. None of us had time for such fool’s errands given our studies, jobs, and responsibilities. Maybe this political nonsense was around, somewhere on the campus. But I never really saw it out in the open to my distant recollection.
And that was back when college was relatively inexpensive, especially compared with today. Why would anyone want to pay six figures to enroll in college and not make full use of what is instructed or offered to better one’s station in life, and instead becoming a nuissance to others and an embarassment to society. To surrender one’s self to becoming a useful fool for someone else’s personal or political gain by engaging in criminal acts or parroting protests? They need to reexamine their priorites.
Very good
So enthralled was I with the “new” and exciitng way of thinking (pedagogies of the oppressed) that I fell in line with it. I even taught with Marxist dialectics as my base for challenging “dogmas” thus inspiring critical thinking—defend your worldview, you who are wet behind the ears!
I suppose my fleeing a Marxist country gave me the right to push back on my poli-sci professor.
Isnt that what plagues students today? They are coddled by their
parents“friends”, know nothing of lived experience, and, as Thomas argued, personify superbia …. because a man thereby aims higher [supra] than he is. That really sums up the problem.I blame parents. I know too many who decided to be “friends” with their children, and not be “parents”. Today their children are now feral, truly undomesticated, with zero experience but truck loads of agitprop that others fed them because the parents did not.
“By age 18 every child should have received from their parent, based on a sound foundation provided in a home where tenderness, forgiveness, respect, fidelity, and disinterested service are the rule where the child can withstand the fickleness and lies of their future encounters. “
Estovir, I wish it was the way you say, but for many the brain is not sufficiently developed until age 25. Even later some go astray or started on the wrong path following their parent’s footsteps. You know of David Horowitz, as you mentioned his name earlier. Look at who he was early in the first half of his life and then the change. It was as radical as could be moving from an intellect of the Left to an intellect of conservative beliefs.
The Supreme Court is a second legislative branch.
It does not adjudicate as an impartial body; it casts votes based on the various political positions of its members; I cannot, in good conscience, refer to them as justices.
It is juridically impossible to have nine different subjective decisions on the “manifest tenor” of one objective law.
The second legislative branch is not a court at all.
There are only two possible courses to resolution: The impeachment prescribed by the Constitution or the martial law imposed by Lincoln.
Abortion is murder; the victim is a separate and sovereign individual.
The body in “My Body, My Choice” is not the mother’s but that of the unborn child, who demonstrates his choice simply by persisting.
It is not legal for mothers to murder their offspring; it is homicide.
Murderers of pregnant women are rightfully charged with double homicide.
And here are some bonus scientific facts that prove it’s not just an organ or part of the mother.
During its early stages of development, the placenta of the unborn child secretes neurokinin B-containing phosphocoline molecules, which protects the child from detection by its mother’s immune system, because it can be interpreted as a foreign body and is subject to attack. This is because the fetus is of non-identical genetic material to the mother due to their different DNA.
Also present in the unborn child are lymphocytic suppressor cells which stop interleukin 2 (IL2) cells from signalling cytotoxic T cells to kill the child. The purpose of IL2 cells is to distinguish between self and non-self (parts of the mother and foreign parts). The lymphocytic cells would not need to inhibit the response of the cytotoxic T cells if the IL2 did not signal the feuts as a foreign body. This would not occur if it was one of her own organs because the response would not be initiated.
An organ does not have its own organs. The fetal heartbeat begins at around 22 days after fertilisation as I said earlier, and brain waves are detected at about six weeks, which means the unborn child has a heart and a brain. At seven weeks, all other organs are present, although not fully developed, which would mean not only did the mother have an organ with different DNA to her, but this organ also has its own organ systems, and so the mother has an extra heart, brain, stomach, liver, etc.
– Emma Greenland-Broadsmith
So, I read the statement on political violence by Hakeem Jeffries that was pointed out by another commenter.
http://democraticleader.house.gov/media/press-releases/leader-jeffries-statement-political-violence
Analysis
Paragraph One: violence is unacceptable
Paragraph Two: the other side is literally Hitler.
Jeffries is a simpleton. His lip service to civilized bahavior is not sufficient to camouflage his irrational hatred.
Clearly Jeffries is literally Hitler.🤣
Atheism is a religion. It has a code of conduct and its own principles. One principle is to always do harm. It is unnecessary harm as this boy shows in the article. Abortion is legal. He has no quarrel with the pro life display in such a case but he must do harm.
You’ll know them by what they do.
Jeffries is a douchey.
^^^ vocabulary development. Slang for beyond retarded. Presume it rhymes with touche.
Perhaps the President should look with a jaundiced eye at judiciary candidates who are the product of radical institutions like Harvard.
https://archive.is/2025.05.23-220549/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/comment/2025/05/23/the-us-supreme-court-is-putting-venezuelan-child-killers-ah
As professor Glenn Reynolds notes, look how quickly Tren de Aragua got judicial review before the Supreme Court compared to J6 prisoners.
Turley– “Students do not come to this sense of license on their own. Faculty have reinforced the sense of impunity with their own actions.”
Some American universities teach and encourage evil.
Trump is treating them accordingly, and that is what I voted for.
For example:
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2025/05/23/auchincloss-direct-line-from-college-campus-antisemitism-to-d-c-murders
“There’s a direct line from the antisemitism that was allowed to flourish on Harvard and other elite campuses and the type of anti-semitic violence that we saw two days ago in Washington, DC. Antisemitic words do become antisemitic murders.”
Yes, they do.
Young,
Isn’t that, precisely, the exact thing the left says? How many times have we heard folks on the left say that words equal violence? Your assessment is 100% spot-on, and everyone on the right should throw the left’s words right back at them.
Most folks are sane and understand that words are just words. As George Carlin pointed out, words are just words, but it’s how we use them, and what context we use them in, which makes them either bad or good.
Violence breeds violence and if we’re not careful, things will spin out of control.
Ron J,
‘Words are violence’ is exactly what the left says when the words don’t agree with them.
Then they want the words to be suppressed, with violence. And then ‘violence’ isn’t violence but just their idea of ‘justice.’
Essentially almost all the actual violence we witness these days is from the left and it is applauded, encouraged , and taught in our rotting universities.
As jaded as I have become I was still disgusted and shocked when so many educated people on the left laughed and celebrated the murder of an insurance executive. It leads even an agnostic with doubts about God to begin to believe in Satan. Certainly evil exists and it laughs when a stranger is murdered.
The universities need an exorcist.
Young, the left cannot put their ideas on one piece of paper without the demonstration of hypocrisy. They need safe spaces from words and complain alternative words and ideas represent violence. Yet, after trying to pass laws and engaging in censorship they support the mantra Kill the Jew. One cannot see the Left as a party that is rational. Today’s left is hateful to those who do not agree.
Entitlement
As long as one group stands there and watches another group destroy their property this behavior will continue. The best deterrent to this behavior is a black eye and a bloody nose. The cops sure as heck aren’t going to do anything. And as a matter of fact, this is the wild Wild West.
The key here is it’s unnecessary vandalism because the law is on his side. The law is on my side so stop annoying me with your opinion.
It’s vandalism because I feel like it. The pro choice folks on the otherhand bb planned parenthood, kill doctors, and don’t stay in their lane either.
Let’s be clear, the law is abortion is legal.
There have been very few abortion clininc bombings or murders of abortion doctors.
None in more than a decade. Conversely prolife clinic bombings are epidemic though not reported.
Those who engage in terrorism or violence of vandalism, for a cause are WRONG – right or left.
Today there are still a FEW on the Right who respect to violence.
But From the french revolution through t today Violence has ALWAYS been acceptable to the left.
Yes, but the hate is there if not the bombings. There is evil and evil will do whatever is necessary to cause your soul to hate. Know that, too.
After Dobbs the legality of abortion is decided state-by-state. I don’t doubt it’s legal in California.
Pro-life displays may be a way of advocating for a change in the law, or they may be advocating for a change of heart by someone considering having an abortion or helping someone else get one. Such advocacy is protected free speech and generally part of the give-and-take of ideas. Slavery was also legal at one point but that didn’t mean abolition advocacy was banned.
I think you were saying the same thing but I found your comment a little confusing.
Mifepristone by mail interstate? No medical visit required. How does that play into state by state?
Yes, agreed.
Change it up and the anti abortion people have a table- stop illegal abortion. Let’s say the law is changed and abortion is outlawed. The boy tears up the table because illegal abortion is all there is .
The boy crossed the line into vandalism in his censorship effort.
He can picket the table or put up another table pro abortion. They’re called pro choice.
The boy is a censor.
Let’s also be clear: free speech is free speech, and these displays, no matter how offensive this idiot finds them, are protected speech. The law, in some states, is that abortion is legal. That doesn’t mean those who want abortion banned, i.e., state laws changed or repealed, have to shut up and color.
Of course, madame. Perhaps the good lord gave the religious an even more difficult task of forgiving those who’ve had abortions and not cursing them with the pit of hell? Or if a mifepristone user dies from its use, she got what she deserved?
If you’ve said it you’ve done it.
Abortion is hostile to religion. Should there be laws hostile to Christianity in the US? Are Christians free in such a culture?
To be pro-abortion, by definition you have to favor the violent death and destruction of unborn humans. It is little wonder many such people eventually become callous, violent, and more generally anti-human.
I remember one time in the 1990s my county’s governing board was going to vote on a “respect human life” resolution (that did not mention abortion or the unborn). The pro-abortion crowd came out in force to oppose it with a simple message: “We have no respect for human life.”
In law school one person in my study group was a pro-abortion environmentalist. She told me that humans were her least favorite species because of our environmental effects.
There is a problem with boundaries.
It came about because poor women couldn’t afford abortions? Is that correct and planned parenthood was implemented instead of see your family doctor? Women had to be treated for great variety of VDs? Is that right?
Really worry when the State requires abortion, China? Professor choice will look better then? Or when the religion requires shrouds and indoor dwelling. Worried?
Nature is then violent and kills unborn babies through miscarriage. Half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage unknown to the female. Nature is violent. Man being part of Nature is violent.
It’s a long hard road to civilization. Then it’s destroyed. The boy with a spray can is simply a vandal. He’s an uncivilized vandal. 1000 dollar fine?
What’s the price of the abortion? A miscarriage? People think motive matters. It doesn’t. Vesuvius had no motive.
Justice? Let’s say there’s a dead body and a killer caught. Nothing else needed in reality. Set a price. Carry it out. Fate is very real.
The courts think it’s fair to have a choice. It shouldn’t be in the courts at all. It’s there because of commerce. Create a law stating that no one shall be paid for abortions. It’ll die out quickly.
oldmanfromkansas,
I’m not sure how many people consider this, but since Roe, back in ’73, there have been something on the order of 65 million abortions — that’s roughly 10.5 times the number of Jews Hitler killed during the Holocaust, and that’s not including various other “undesirable” groups.
Hitler did what he did because he, wrongly, blaned the Jews for Germany’s economic problems, instead of looking at how the Weimar Republic taxed and spent and printed money. “Pro choice” America is worse than HItler, because they do what they do in the name of healthcare.
Also, that student you mentioned doesn’t surprise me at all. Back in the 90s, Rush Limbaugh reported on a radical environmentalist group which was advocating the extinction of the human race.
Doubtless many of these folks would side with the Palestinians, Hamas, Hesbolah, etc. Pro abortion is a death cult, much the same as Hamas, Hesbolah, et al.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a pro life absolutist. That said, if we, as a society, can’t have reverence for the unborn, innocent, defenseless life in a woman’s womb, how can we ever show the same for all other human life? This leads one direction, and that direction ain’t good.
This kind of behavior is encouraged by the Democratic Party leaders. Maxine Waters, “get up in their face.”Kamala Harris, “the riots should not stop.” Chuck Schumer, “you will reap the whirlwind Judge Kavanaugh.”
The people who resort to violence are without question following the instructions of their leaders. I ask you. Has one Democratic come out and said that torching Teslas is not what we stand for? Please understand that they are just doing it to save democracy.
And those are just the explicit calls to violence by Democrat elected politicians. They also issue implicit calls to violence, by describing Trump supporters as Nazis, fascists, threats to democracy, garbage, deplorables, bitter clingers, and the like. Both types of messages are received loud and clear by their base, with a small percentage unhinged enough to act out in response. And so we get the multiple assassination attempts on Trump (and one on Justice Kavanaugh), as well as the killing of non-politicians like the health care CEO and the two young Jews in DC last week.
…their Marxist bent for complete control, shutting down all other rights, voices and views, shows through like a wart on the nose. So obvious. They change protest and outrage clothes and spray paint to suit the preferred tyrannies—has nothing to do with “democracy.” And they know their extreme-leftist courts will the them off the hook, so torching Teslas and shooting people is fine, just fine.
Here is a press release from Jeffries that you may be interested in. http://democraticleader.house.gov/media/press-releases/leader-jeffries-statement-political-violence
It’s the multitude of sad stories like those recounted by Professor Jonathan Turley that make me mindful of his personal courage in standing up for our rights. Being a college professor, and renowned for his scholarship and advocacy, I have no doubt he has a target on his back, and yet, he rarely talks about his own risks, instead seeking redress for others already harmed.
He has his critics–even on this comment board–and they are mostly nasty and surly. I revere him for his enemies.
His is a profile in courage.
@Diogenes
Very much agreed. The Professor never abandons equanimity in the face if it, either. I respect him so much and am so grateful for all he and the folks behind this site do.
Diogenes,
Well said and I agree.
Profile in courage (Turley is a reasoned Democrat): reminds me of the way Jesus Christ stood up to the scribes and Pharisees in his day, who tyrannized with rote conviction and hypocritical passion. Jesus called them vipers, whitewashed tombs, bones of the dead, and everything unclean—an apt and profound description of today’s extreme-left virtue-signalers and their demand for sole ownership of social/political power….to use their tired phrase, and to use it more correctly, Turley “speaks truth to power.”
Religious decay? Yes, Jesus Christ was a level headed, logical person who wondered at times why he was in that world at all.
He didn’t wonder, he KNEW, and for that purpose he came into the world. Jesus, KING of kings: remember when they did that stupid lefty Superbowl commercial, “He gets us?” He really does, but not at all in the way they purport. Whats most telling, is they don’t get Him [i.e., the’re whitewashed tombs], nor do they care for ANY of his truths if those truths get in the way of “my body, my choice.” Pure hypocrisy abounds when it comes to their mainstream-Jesus, but it’s not decay—it’s hubris.
It’s implied. – paraphrase- I see why you’ve put me here. These are those who are ill and needy. I have come then to give them laws which will raise them up. The ill need the physician.
Perhaps an even greater reason is as you call them, Hebrews, the Jewish people of which you may be unaware.
“Profile in courage… reminds me of the way Jesus Christ stood up to the scribes and Pharisees in his day, who tyrannized with rote conviction and hypocritical passion.”
Dianna, I know what you meant by the line about the scribes and Pharisees, calling out hypocrisy and standing up to it. I agree with the idea, but the tone of it didn’t sit right with me. That kind of phrasing has been used for a long time to paint Jewish religious figures as the bad guys, and that carries a lot of baggage.
The scribes and Pharisees were serious people trying to live by the Torah. Jesus challenged them as one of their own, not to tear down Judaism, but to correct what he thought had gone off track. Later on, others twisted those arguments into something harmful. I don’t think that’s what you meant at all, but language like that can still echo in ways we don’t intend.
S.Meyer,
Unfortunately, “that kind of phrasing” was nevertheless used by Jesus himself precisely because the scribes and Pharisees were dead serious about following the letter of the law, so serious as to plot, persecute, and kill. Unfortunately, (today, and too many times in the past) those facts encourage antisemitism, which is your point, but was not mine at all.
As for the polite caution (and thank you!), without going into the kind of details that then lead us to theological division, let me just say that we cannot hide an unsavory truth in favor of a diluted gospel that appeals to everyone’s sense of virtue and fairness. We should be able to have a conversation abut Jesus’ words without censorship (for any reason), but that is not the world we live in. So we have a choice, speak with precision, regardless of where the chips may fall, as Jesus did, or sanitize and impair the message for general consumption, and safety’s sake. Either way, the outcomes are not pleasant, and I think that is why Jesus said he did not come to bring peace, but a sword (Matthew 10:34-36).
Of course, the Pharisees were simply trying to live by the Torah, and this seemingly clean and innocent pursuit yet brought Christ’s hot rebuke: Christ’s warning about “whitewashed tombs, dead, and unclean” was not just an insult that continues to do damage to the Jews today (as your implication points out), it’s a serious lesson in avoiding those who teach law but don’t live it, a hard warning against hypocrites who teach and lead, whoever they are, and especially those who spiritually rule. What do we do when the fork in the road leads to a place we don’t like???
Dianna, I know you’re not trying to be antisemitic. But I hope you’ll allow me to say something hard: this kind of reasoning about Jesus rebuking the Pharisees and speaking “regardless of where the chips may fall” has been used across history to justify anything but Christ-like actions. I’m not speaking in abstractions. Members of my own family were killed because of this kind of thinking, repeated in pulpits and echoed in policies by people who believed they were simply “telling the truth” about Jews and their laws.
Yes, Jesus rebuked leaders. So did the Prophets before him. In fact, their language was often stronger. But no one uses the Prophets to justify antisemitism. Jesus’ words, taken out of the Jewish world he lived in and loved, have been used that way for centuries.
That’s not theology. That’s history. And once the damage is done, original intent doesn’t undo the harm.
So no, I’m not asking for censorship. I’m asking for responsibility. These words carry centuries of weight, used not only in debate but to justify exclusion, persecution, and violence. That’s the fire we’ve inherited. And we have to handle it with care.
What I love about the Bible, including the Prophets and Jesus, is that it doesn’t whitewash human failure. It demands we face it. But if we only take the parts that suit us and ignore how those same parts have wounded others, then we haven’t grown. We’ve just repeated the past with gentler language.
S.Meyer, I appreciate your “hard” response, and wholeheartedly know what you are saying about responsibility versus censorship, [especially in this particular scripture’s historical context, “centuries of weight”], but again, we simply cannot ignore or eradicate the meaning behind certain scriptures because of past mishandling, whether they are racist or religious accusations, for the scripture applies just as equally and harshly to ANY religious hypocrites, Christian cults for example (“other Gospels” as Paul said—most of them requiring circumcision, as well as forcing the same strict Judaical rules from which Christ came to free them)—those who practice works and law (leading to all kinds of evils like superiority over others and persecutions) rather than true faith….And yes, so sadly and horribly, it is a “fire we’ve inherited,” but I doubt Jesus would say, “never mind,” concerning it.
As for the rebuke itself, can we ever re-assess and qualify the real and relevant argument Jesus made (Matthew 10: 34-36) by giving it new eyes, not saying that it is “used” to cause harm/debate, whether ignorantly or deliberately, but actually meant to reveal and explain some dark behaviors perpetrated and excused in the name of piety. It is clear that Jesus loved the people and land he came from, especially Jerusalem, so I think we are talking about a theology that IS history, and most true followers of Christ KNOW that, and are indeed careful, but again, this does not cancel one whit of scripture, especially for a true follower of Christ, who does not simply take (“use,” as you say) a part that suits, but any part that applies.
I think “growing” in spirit and in truth is definitely about language and how to use it in love, carefully and truthfully—but in a similar vein, how do you warn of hell without saying the hardest and most ungentle of things that people hate to hear: “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28); do we also cancel this part of Jesus’s harsh words of truth because they wound or offend others? I think not, for that is akin to tickling ears; it’s outright denial. Indeed, neither the prophets nor Jesus spoke in support or justification of antisemitism, they spoke in support of hard truths that selfish minds refuse to hear.
Thank you, Dianna, for your thoughtful reply. I know your words come from deep conviction, and I respect that. I also know that, like many people today, you inherited a tradition that carries both beauty and weight. The fire we’re talking about, how scripture has been used over time, is not something you created. But when it causes pain, the responsibility to handle it carefully still rests with us.
You’re right: scripture shouldn’t be canceled because of how it’s been misused. But misuse matters. Some parts of scripture, especially when removed from their context, have been used again and again to harm the very people they came from. That history is not just the “past.” For some of us, it’s personal.
You mentioned Jesus freeing people from “Judaical rules” and “works and law.” I know what you mean, but this is where the divide becomes real here. Because, from my side, the Torah isn’t a system of bondage. It’s not about superiority or earning God’s favor. It’s about responsibility. It’s about walking humbly, doing justice, and loving mercy. That’s not a rejection of God. That is godliness, then and now.
Jesus was born into that world. He prayed those prayers. He kept the commandments. His rebukes, like the prophets before him, were internal, part of a call to deepen, not discard, a living tradition. And just like the prophets, his harshest words weren’t a license to reject the Jewish people; they were meant to uplift and correct from within.
So when I say we must be careful, I’m not asking you to water down your beliefs. I’m asking you to recognize the cost of certain language when it leaves its native soil. We’ve seen what happens when spiritual warnings are turned into weapons. That’s not just an error; it’s desecration.
The Torah doesn’t dwell on hell. It doesn’t warn people by invoking eternal fire. It guides through covenant, through accountability, and through life lived with others. If Jesus stood on that foundation, and I believe he did, then I don’t think he would welcome what’s been created in his name when that foundation is lost.
I don’t ask you to agree with my view of Jesus. But I do ask you to see that belief in one God can look different and still be rooted in truth and reverence. To grow in spirit and truth, as you say, is not just about speaking hard things. It’s about knowing when to be silent, when to listen, and when to talk in a way that builds instead of burns.
You have cut me to the quick, S.Meyer., and I have truly learned from your words, words from another area of life and experience that I allow and appreciate.
….Knowing when to be silent, where, and in what forums, is wisdom: “the one who has knowledge uses words with restraint, and whoever has understanding is even tempered. Even fools are thought wise then they keep silent, and discerning if they hold their tongue” (Proverbs 17: 27-28). I agree.
I [we who follow Christ] do recognize the cost of language, especially the language and admonitions of Gospel scripture—let us never forget the martyrs who paid just as dearly (as any other Hebrews) for the truth of Yhwh God’s word. The cost is great, but as Jesus said, they (meaning any-and-all who reject Christ) will hate you because they hate me, in like manner we have, and will continue to experience, the same kind of persecution to which you allude, which is gaining greater acceptance, especially in universities at this time, so it’s personal to followers of Christ too, and your stern warning is well-taken.
“If Jesus stood on that foundation [[ “…the Torah isn’t a system of bondage. It’s not about superiority or earning God’s favor. It’s about responsibility. It’s about walking humbly, doing justice, and loving mercy. That’s not a rejection of God. That is godliness, then and now.” ]], and I believe he did, then I don’t think he would welcome what’s been created in his name when that foundation is lost. I don’t know what you refer to as “what’s been created in his name,” or to what lost-foundation you specifically refer, but concerning the “foundation” Jesus was born-into and stood upon, yes he followed the traditions, saying “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matthew 5:17)—so as to be the perfect example of blamelessness, the perfect sacrifice.
As a matter of outcome, followers of Christ seek to build, not burn—only God can do that—and the command is to go into all the world and preach all of Christ’s message [which is the salvation (sacrifice) HE came to complete], and His message includes the warning against hell he spoke of [as unpleasant as it is] and it cannot be erased. So here is part of the age-old impasse, the disagreement of which hinges on virtuosity v. “there is nothing I can do to earn my justification, and so I needed Jesus: this structure is meant to break down piety, the pride of virtue, and the pernicious belief that God is only love, and nothing else, despite his righteous judgments.
Thank you, Dianna, for your kind words. They mean a great deal, but really, the compliment belongs to the Torah. That’s where it all comes from. I couldn’t have written what I did without the Torah helping me. Its teachings shape how I see the world: humility, responsibility, justice, and kindness. These aren’t just values; they’re obligations. And they’ve guided my thoughts more than anything else.
I believe each of us is placed on a path for reasons we don’t always see right away. Our faiths may differ in expression, but when we’re both trying to live decently, to walk humbly and to love mercy, we’re not as far apart as it may seem.
For me, the Torah isn’t a starting point or something waiting to be fulfilled. It’s the foundation and the guide. The Prophets and Oral Law don’t replace it; they help us understand how to live it more fully. That may be different from what you believe, and I say it not to challenge you but to explain what’s true for me.
I know the language around salvation and judgment can run deep, and it can divide. But what I saw in your reply wasn’t division; it was honesty. And I respect that deeply. You’ve shown kindness, grace, and care in this conversation. That alone tells me something important about your spirit.
When it comes to his daily blog posts, I would like to see Professor Turley discuss more about what he’s seeing, hearing, and experiencing at places where he works as an employee (GW), contributor (Fox), and an occasional or regular columnist (Hill newspaper and USA Today).
Diogenes,
Profile in courage indeed!
Last time I checked, if you ask ChatGPT to tel you about Jonathan Turley, it flatly refuses to. On the other hand, were you to ask it to tell you about your favoite dictator — Hitler, Stalin, Mousalini, Castro, Xi, Pol Pot — take your pick, it’d probably tell you everything about them, and then some.
Not sure what Mr. Turley’s done to be memory-holed by the AI? Doubtless it’s really about him being on the left and routinely challenging the left’s narratives, actions, etc.
Most of America’s civilized society is becoming ever more aware as to what the counter culture actually is and how far they are going along the path to fundamentally transform our constitutional republic.
The very essence of democracy is being challenged, and citizens must rise to defend their rights and liberties. We must remember the values upon which our nation was built and stand firm against any forces that seek to undermine them. Unity and vigilance will be our greatest weapons in this battle.
Absolutely correct, and I agree wholeheartedly.
The Trump administration and the Republican party is challenging the very essence of our democracy.
Citizens must rise up to defend their rights and stop the illegal usurpation of power by this rogue government intent on establishing an autocratic dictatorship.
@Anonymous—
“Unity and vigilance will be our greatest weapons in this battle. “
Could not agree more.
And precisely what did the Founders say?
_______________________________________________
“We the People of the United States…Secure the Blessings of Liberty to OURSELVES and OUR POSTERITY.”
– Preamble to the Constitution, 1789
_________________________________________
“They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please….”
– Thomas Jefferson, 1791
_____________________________
Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798, 1802
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof….