The 1837 Debate on Roman Catholicism between Bishop John Purcell and Alexander Campbell: The World Is Large Enough for Us All
An Interview with Herbie Miller
by William Trollinger
Herbie Miller is Senior Pastor of the Palmetto Presbyterian Church in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of Dayton. This book on the 1837 debate between Bishop John Purcell and Alexander Campbell is an outgrowth of his doctoral dissertation.
- You begin your book, in your “Acknowledgments,” with this arresting statement: “The ideas in this book have been in my head . . . for twenty years. From first hearing about the Purcell-Campbell debate in seminary, to writing a paper on it in my first semester of graduate school, to eventually centering my dissertation on its most inspiring aspects, I have been captivated by this event.” What has captivated you about this event? Why does it matter to you?
Two aspects of the debate have always interested me.
First, I was drawn to the idea that two men could sustain a civil dialogue in a very uncivil time. Purcell and Campbell were not longing for some imagined golden age of religious harmony. They were living in the 1830s, with its complexity around social norms, class, race, religion, and more. There were plenty of incentives for both men to rile up their respective bases with inflammatory rhetoric, and they chose to restrain themselves from that “low-hanging fruit.” That civility, and what I would later discover to be a real friendship, pulled me into the story.
Second, I think there’s something noble about public debate with agreed-upon rules. In that day, as in ours, public disagreement was not in short supply. But Purcell and Campbell showed a kind of courage. They were willing to state their beliefs publicly, in the presence of someone who absolutely disagreed with them, and allow those beliefs to be interrogated. To be sure, some of that was strategic. They hoped to win converts and bolster their reputations. But beneath that was a shared conviction that public discourse done well could strengthen society. That inspired me twenty years ago, and it has stayed with me.
- Throughout this book you make great use of a concept developed by urban sociologist Ray Oldenburg, the “third space,” to the point that you devote the second third of the book to “The Debate as a Third Space.” Can you explain this concept, and how you make use of it in your book, and how it helps us understand the debate and its significance?
The funny thing is, the first time I encountered the idea of the “third space” wasn’t in a doctoral seminar, but while working at Starbucks during seminary. The Starbucks training manuals described the “third space” in a way that was essentially faithful to Ray Oldenburg’s idea: a social space that is neither home (first space) nor work (second space), but somewhere you enjoy being. Starbucks leveraged that idea to train employees to create enjoyable environments so customers would want to linger.
The “third space” has its roots in the Greek agora, and Oldenburg traces the concept through American history—in spaces like coffee shops, pubs, public parks, and so on. Third spaces are essential for healthy democracies because they expose people to different ideas and people they may not otherwise meet—sometimes from different races, classes, religions.
In the book I argue that the Purcell–Campbell debate was a third space in two senses.
First, in the literal Oldenburg sense: for a week, the church in Cincinnati became a space where Catholics and Protestants gathered to engage a live debate on Roman Catholicism. One side defended it; the other attacked it. That alone made it a rare kind of public space.
Second, I argue that the printed transcript of the debate, which was later published, created a kind of literary third space. Purcell and Campbell wanted their words preserved so that later readers could “enter” the debate imaginatively—almost as if they were present in 1837.
Seeing the debate as a third space shifts our attention from ideas alone to the debate as an event—as a speech act situated in a particular context. And when we see it that way, we begin to understand how significant this debate was for American religious history, even though it has not received sustained attention from historians of American religion.
- In your conclusion you talk about how you have “described the debate as a site of boundary crossing and productive friction the conditions for a new experience of the religious Other.” What do you mean by this, and how does this help us understand the debate?
One of the things that still strikes me is that this oral debate happened at all. Think about it: in the dead of winter, Purcell and Campbell devoted an entire week to a public oral debate in Cincinnati. Campbell traveled from Bethany, (West) Virginia. They easily could have debated in print through their journals and avoided the trouble and exposure of a public event. The fact that they chose to meet in person is significant.
The debate took place in a Baptist meeting house, a short distance from the Catholic Cathedral. Purcell, as a bishop, was crossing cultural and religious boundaries simply by spending time in a Protestant church. Campbell was crossing geographical and cultural boundaries as well. He represented a nascent restorationist movement within Protestantism—the Disciples of Christ—which was already creating tension with established denominations. Yet in the debate he positioned himself as a defender of Protestantism as a whole, not merely his own movement.
During the debate, their ideas clashed, and according to news reports, the audience engaged in lively discussion as well. The room became a space where Catholics and Protestants could hear the “other side” from reputable sources and argue about it afterward. In that sense, the debate became a site of boundary crossing—religious, cultural, and social—and the productive friction was the challenge of hearing and being confronted by another’s convictions.
- Related, why the subtitle: “The World is Large Enough for Us All” (a terrific subtitle which also happens to be the title of your conclusion)?
I actually wanted The World is Large Enough for Us All to be the main title, but my publisher rightly noted that the book needed the key terms in the title for searchability. So the subtitle was our compromise, and I’m glad it’s there.
The line comes from Purcell’s final speech on the last day of the debate. It reflects his conviction that he and Campbell, and their respective communities, could flourish together in the United States. Purcell and Campbell remained friends for the rest of their lives, and I think this statement captures his irenic spirit at a time when Catholicism was viewed with deep suspicion by many Protestants.
While Campbell didn’t share Purcell’s poetic style, I believe he shared the sentiment. Both men were “Americanists” in the sense that they believed their communities could fully inhabit the American experiment. Purcell was essentially endorsing a voluntary religious framework in which different traditions could coexist and serve the common good.
Fittingly, the men had met a year before the debate at a conference on education in the Ohio Valley. Both cared deeply about forming citizens in the new nation. That shared concern reminds us that the subtitle was not a flourish, but reflected a genuine hope.
- Given that you are senior pastor at Palmetto Presbyterian Church in Mount Pleasant (SC) it is obvious that this book is not just an “academic exercise” (whatever that means). Are you able to apply what you have learned from the Purcell-Campbell debate to your work as a pastor? And are you hopeful about the possibilities for civil interreligious dialogue in 2025 America?
Absolutely. And I would actually say the applications extend beyond pastoral work into any domain where you engage with people who see the world differently.
The two key takeaways for me are boundary crossing and productive friction. Boundary crossing sounds like something you’d be told not to do in an ethics workshop, but it simply means becoming aware of your own assumptions and then attempting, even temporarily, to inhabit someone else’s. When you’re discerning a major policy change in a church or organization, that discipline can be the difference between stalemate and compromise.
Productive friction has been a learned practice for me. By disposition, I dislike conflict. But over time I’ve come to see disagreement as an opportunity for growth rather than something to avoid. In teams I lead, I work to help people see friction as constructive rather than threatening.
As for the future of civil interreligious engagement, yes, I’m hopeful. I participate in a clergy council in my area, and I work with the National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership to promote constructive Jewish–Christian relations. I don’t have a formula beyond getting to know people, finding common interests, and sharing meals. Sometimes the common interest is a social concern; sometimes it’s simply friendship.
Purcell and Campbell still have something to teach us: own your convictions, share them openly with those who disagree, allow your views to be critiqued, model dignity and respect, and do your best to live at peace—and occasionally make new friends in the process.
Evangelical Unrighteousness and the Killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti
by Rodney Kennedy
Rodney Kennedy has his M.Div from New Orleans Theological Seminary and his Ph.D. in Rhetoric from Louisiana State University. He pastored the First Baptist Church of Dayton (OH) – which is an American Baptist Church – for 13 years, after which he served as interim pastor of ABC USA churches in Illinois, Kansas, New York, and Pennsylvania. He is now a full-time writer, and lives in Louisiana. His eighth book, Dancing with Metaphors in the Pulpit, was the focus of this rightingamerica interview.
The killing of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by ICE and/or Border Patrol agents has become more barbaric in light of MAGA evangelical approval and applause.
Pretti, a 37-year-old registered nurse for the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, was shot several time by two agents while zip-tied and held down by other agents. He had a gun but an agent removed the gun before Pretti was shot.
Franklin Graham, speaking of God’s justice, waved Romans 13 at the event: “But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the agent of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer” (13:4). Perhaps Graham doesn’t know German churches supported Hitler with appeals to Romans 13.
And maybe he reads his Bible in snippets, and thus failed to notice Romans 12:14 – 21:
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them …. Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, says the Lord.” Instead, “if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink, for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”
In stark contrast to the evangelical insistence on obedience to the law (odd for a people of grace), justifications for the killings, and a cruelty defying all empathy, other pastors offered a different testimony.
In his sermon at a Sunday evening Mass at the Basilica of St. Mary, the Rev. Harry Tasto remembered a far different man than the person Trump administration officials were describing. As a chaplain at the Veterans Affairs hospital in Minneapolis, Father Tasto had worked with Mr. Pretti for 10 years. Mr. Pretti “was known for his kindness and gentleness to the patients,” Father Tasto said. “So don’t pay any attention to the vilification from our national leaders.”
Roman Catholic, ABC-USA, Episcopal, UMC, ELCA priests and ministers – and others – have presented a united message of condemnation of the shootings. Any expectation of such a message from MAGA evangelicals would be foolishness.
Let us stop calling MAGA evangelicals Christians. Let us reject their claims that they are righteous. Let us instead tell them they are possessed by habits too corrupt, too pagan to be called a righteous people.
Paraphrasing Stanley Hauerwas, I can but lament:
- How many of you worship in a church that justifies the killing of unarmed citizens? I am sorry to tell you your salvation is in doubt.
- How many of you worship in a church in which the pastor prays for God’s wrath to fall on the protestors in Minneapolis? I am sorry to tell you your salvation is in doubt.
- How many of you worship in a church refuses to recognize the right to nonviolent protest? I am sorry to tell you your salvation is in doubt.
- How many of you worship in a church that doesn’t feel remorse for the deaths of Good and Pretti? I am sorry to tell you your salvation is in doubt.
- How many of you worship in a church that believes ICE bears the “sword of God” in righteous vengeance? I am sorry to tell you your salvation is in doubt.
MAGA evangelicals have traded away their righteousness for the junk food of political power. They have forsaken “Jesus is Lord” for “Caesar is Lord.” In Luke’s account of the testing of Jesus, Satan says to Jesus, “For [power] has been given over to me, and I give it to anyone I please” (Luke 4:6–7). Luke says the emperor possesses authority because it has been given him by the devil. And the power Satan offered Jesus has been accepted by MAGA evangelicals.
Not content to deport “illegal” immigrants, President Trump has disinterred an even more disgraceful creed known as “Law and Order.” Never have Americans been so dangerous than when they cloak racism and violence in the robes of law and order. We have a tainted history with law and order as a political dog whistle.
Law and order fueled the killing of Episcopal seminarian Freedom Rider Jonathan Daniels on August 20, 1965 by a “special deputy,” Thomas Coleman. His authority to wield the shotgun at Daniels was as murky as that of ICE agents now.
Daniels had a bottle of Coca Cola in his hand; Good was holding to her steering wheel; Pretti had a cell phone in his hand. Daniels pleaded that he was not guilty; the entire Trump administration has claimed the killings of Good and Pretti were justified. Thomas was found not guilty by an all-white jury. The agents involved in the killing have so far claimed immunity from prosecution. Coleman claimed self-defense even though Daniels was unarmed. Ross, the agent who shot Good, claims his life was in danger.
Law and order orchestrated the arrest of a group of civil rights workers in Winona, Mississippi in the summer of 1963. Historian Charles M. Payne recorded Fannie Lou Hamer’s account in I’ve Got the Light of Freedom:
I could hear somebody when they said, “Cain’t you say yessir, nigger? Cain’t you say yessir, bitch?” And I could understand Miss Ponder’s voice. She said, “Yes, I can say yessir.” He said, “Well, say it.” She said, “I don’t know you well enough.” She never would say yessir and I could hear when she would hit the flo’, and then I could hear them licks just soundin’. . . . But anyway, she kept screamin’ and they kept beatin’ on her and finally she started prayin’ for ’em, and she asked God to have mercy on ’em, because they didn’t know what they were doing. And after then. . . . I heard some real keen screams, and that’s when they passed my cell with a girl, she was fifteen years old, Miss Johnson, June Johnson. They passed my cell and the blood was run-nin’ down in her face.”
The ICE agent killed Good and then shouted, “Fucking bitch.” After killing Pretti, agents high-fived one another. President Trump has responded by dismissing Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem from overseeing the Minneapolis operation and sending Tom Homan, his “Border Czar.” It’s like disinterring the body of Birmingham Commissioner of Public Safety Bull Conner and sending him to Minnesota with his dogs, fire hoses, clubs, and violent police force.
Hiding violence behind a badge conjures horrible atrocities against the oppressed. White MAGA evangelicals are now attempting to erase that history because it makes them uncomfortable. And perhaps this is why they now stand by and stand down as that history repeats itself and Montgomery, Alabama “law” comes to the streets of Minneapolis, Minnesota. It’s 1965 all over again.
Tragically the “righteousness” of MAGA evangelicals has exceeded the righteousness of the Pharisees. The goal of the Pharisees was to be God’s holy faithful people. Yet they attempted to be faithful while also in collusion with the state.
MAGA evangelicals try to be righteous while also in collusion with, and subordination to, the Trump Administration. More than this, they promote law and order as a punitive politics designed to punish those with whom they disagree. Aaron Griffith, in God’s Law and Order: The Politics of Punishment in Evangelical America, argues the evangelical obsession with the law can be phrased as wanting to make “sure that those who have it coming get it.”
According to MAGA logic, among those who had it coming were Good and Pretti.
Evangelical righteousness is also pagan, secular righteousness. These MAGA Christians are not acting like Christ but like Plato’s Callicles, the most ancient advocate of “might equals right.”
In the dark center of the MAGA evangelical heart lives two slime-filled pagan demons: Christian Nationalism and Seven Mountains Dominionism. Both movements believe they are ordained by God to “control the handles of history,” as John H. Yoder put it. Both movements seek power over all aspects of American lives. This is secular, pagan righteousness based on the power to do as one pleases.
The Church should be a condemnation of “lording it over others.” There are no more shameful chapters in Christian history than those where men of the church use the power of the law to behead, drown, or burn at the stake alleged heretics. The MAGA evangelical endorsement of the ambition, vengeance, and immoral goals of the Trump administration is the essence of “lording it over others.”
More than this, MAGA evangelicals have mixed “Lost Cause” Southern ideology into their mosaic of beliefs. The telling catch phrases include: “good patriots or troublemakers;” “conservative Christians or libtards;” “saved with Jesus or damned to hell;” “tough guy patriots or wimpy traitors;” “America: love it or leave it;” “Get your heart in Dixie or get your ass out.”
And God’s agents in such a violent-infused culture: the masked men of ICE. The citizens of Minneapolis are witnessing firsthand, brutality, profanity, fear, anger, and brute force hiding behind the law.
Now, it is 1961 all over again. The new secessionists have a compliant Congress, a dysfunctional president oblivious to the Constitution, and a Supreme Court giving that president free rein. Historian David Blight warns, “It it is time to see the real enemy – a long-brewing American-style neo-fascist authoritarianism, beguilingly useful to the grievances of the disaffected, and threatening to steal our microphones midway through our odes to joy.”
The deaths of Good and Pretti were exeuctions. There was no gas chamber or electric chair or lethal drug where good Christians usually hide their murders. This had more in common with a lynching.
When MAGA evangelical righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees, they are on road to their own self-inflicted hell. When it becomes pagan righteousness of “might equals right,” it becomes the work of Satan.
Jesus and the prophets never hesitated to condemn fake righteousness. Neither should we.
Killing the Golden Goose: Evangelicals, Trump, and the War on Science
by Rodney Kennedy
Rodney Kennedy has his M.Div from New Orleans Theological Seminary and his Ph.D. in Rhetoric from Louisiana State University. He pastored the First Baptist Church of Dayton (OH) – which is an American Baptist Church – for 13 years, after which he served as interim pastor of ABC USA churches in Illinois, Kansas, New York, and Pennsylvania. He is now a full-time writer, and lives in Louisiana. His eighth book, Dancing with Metaphors in the Pulpit, was the focus of this rightingamerica interview. And check out Rod’s new webpage!
Science has been America’s “golden goose” since the last half of the nineteenth century.
Science, not the stock market, made America great. Science, not corporations, made America the greatest nation in the world. Just to give one example, Dayton, Ohio brothers Orville and Wilbur Wright, without benefit of college taught the world to fly and invented the science of aeronautics. Their original wind tunnel can be seen at the Air Force Museum at Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton. Companies Market Cap lists 71 publicly traded companies in the commercial aviation sector with a total market cap of $393.79 billion. Atlanta-based Delta Airlines has a value of $42.23 billion dollars. And Delta started as a crop dusting outfit in Monroe, Louisiana.
I believe God created the goose who lays the golden eggs. God, creator of heaven and earth, made this planet for us. The physicist, Freeman Dyson, says ours is a “universe that knew we were coming.”
But someone is starving the goose. In 2020, for example, 708 billion dollars were invested in science research in the USA. In 2025, the amount was approximately $201.9 billion – a reduction of over $500 billion.
There’s more than money at stake. America has a scientific soul. But our soul is under attack by anti-science evangelicals.
Science has been the Target of Evangelicals for Over a Century
From the beginning of their movement in the 1920s fundamentalists have opposed science. From the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925 to the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial in 2004, these fundamentalists attacked science in every possible way. Books defining evolution as the work of Satan poured from evangelical publishing houses. Preachers raged against the horror of evolution. Fundamentalist kingpin, J. Frank Norris, preached a sermon against evolution where he brought a group of chimpanzees into the pulpit and attempted a conversation.
The legion of preachers and evangelical Christians had little impact on the ongoing progress of science. Not even the glitzy, Disney-themed Creation Museum of Ken Ham seemed to make a dent in America’s scientific spirit.
But something changed in 2016. Conservative evangelicals forged an alliance with President Donald Trump. Now, political power has taken direct aim at America’s scientific spirit. Cell biologist, and biology textbook co-author, Kenneth R. Miller warns, “America’s scientific soul, its deep and long-lasting embrace of discovery, exploration, and innovation, is truly at risk.” No longer limited by the inadequate weapons of sermons, books, and emotional appeals, evangelicals have a new arsenal of executive orders, Trump administration cabinet members, and a compliant Congress.
America had been the leading scientific nation for more than a century and a half, but now MAGA evangelicals threaten this status. To give one example, despite decades of climate and geological research that have coalesced in consensus the precarity that threatens humanity as a species, MAGA evangelicals mock the notion of global warming.
One is tempted to say, “This is what stupidity gets us.”
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. The Spearhead of Anti-Science
The Department of Health and Human Services is seriously considering eliminating childhood vaccines. This shouldn’t surprise anyone because Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. a notorious antivaxxer and conspiracy theorist, is now in charge of our nation’s health. Kennedy has already been the wrecking ball of the Trump administration’s anti-science war. Here are only a few of Kennedy’s devastating moves:
- Canceled hundreds of millions of dollars in federal money for mRNA vaccines.
- Fired or forced into retirement scientists at the Food and Drug Administration.
- Fired the 17-member Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and replaced them with other conspiracy theorists and ideologues.
- Rescinded recommendations for flu shots containing thimerosal. This is a preservative used effectively for a century and it has the data to prove it has kept vaccine bottles free of bacteria.
- Revoked the CDC recommendation for children under four to take the MMRV vaccination. This opens the door for the return of measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox.
- Told new mothers to decide whether to have the hepatitis vaccination at birth.
- The Food and Drug Administration has moved to restrict Covid vaccines because of unverified reports of 10 children dying from the vaccine.
Donald Trump and the Pandemic
Robert Ivie says, “The Trumpian marginalization of science has deprived society of crucial knowledge needed to address climate change, pandemics, and other threats to collective wellbeing.”
Trump’s disastrous handling of the pandemic should be enough evidence to turn America away from the outbreak of an anti-science spasm. Brandy X. Lee, in Profile of a Nation, has a penetrating analysis of Trump’s response to Covid:
The utterly disastrous handling of the novel coronavirus pandemic illustrates Donald Trump’s dangerousness, not just through commissions but through deadly omissions, repeatedly, brazenly, and recklessly. In addition to depleting or disbanding every aspect of pandemic preparedness, he ignored ominous, classified warnings about the danger through the first critical months, allowing the disease to spread freely throughout the U.S. by actively downplaying the threat, falsely stating: “we have it totally under control,” calling it the Democrats’ “new hoax,” and “like a miracle, it will disappear.” Trump pulled out of the World Health Organization, in his attempt to shift blame for his failures, undermining critical global cooperation and defunding the world’s pandemic response capability. His devaluation of science, fight with reality, reckless disregard for human life, and neutering of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) are responsible for depleting pandemic preparedness, ignoring intelligence and sidelining the experts, and politicizing a public health issue.
Science before MAGA
America has been the greatest scientific nation in the world. When the US rose to prominence, it became a country uniquely hospitable to science, and science has flourished here as never before. American universities and research institutions have led the world in nearly every category of science.
American scientists have dominated the Nobel prizes in every field of science. American scientists in the decade between 1994 – 2004 won 71% of the Nobel prizes in physics, 61% in medicine or physiology, and 58% of the chemistry prizes. Science graduate students from other countries came to the US to pursue their careers. America has been where science happens.
And now, an insidious and dangerous force, forged out of the ancient remnants of anti-evolution creationists, is systematically attempting to reduce science to a secondary status. The scientific soul of our nation is at risk.
Miller makes clear the stakes: “Something has arisen [signaling] a change in our national character. It reveals a deep and profound split in the American psyche, an unease that threatens the way we think of ourselves as a people, the place we hold for science in our lives, and the way we [will live in the 21st century].What is at stake, I am convinced, is nothing less than America’s scientific soul.”
And I point the finger at MAGA evangelicals for the destructive spirit they unleashed in supporting the Trump administration. The wrecking ball they are taking to our anchor institutions, especially science, has a visual metaphor: the destruction of the East Wing for a ballroom. Only our president would conclude that “what this country needs is a gaudy ballroom” instead of more federal dollars for scientific research in our universities.
Scientists Desperate to “get out of Dodge”
The current anti-science move has reversed a century of the best and brightest scientific minds immigrating to the US to study in our graduate universities and pursue scientific careers. Now scientists are leaving or considering leaving America. In a recent poll by Nature, 75% of the more than 1600 scientists who responded said they were looking for jobs in Europe and Canada.
Googling “scientists leaving America” reveals more than 70 news articles. Here are a few examples:
‘It’s a nightmare.’ U.S. funding cuts threaten academic science jobs at all levels, Science, July 7, 2025
U.S. Budget Cuts Are Robbing Early-Career Scientists of Their Future, Scientific American, July 3, 2025
A Lost Generation of Researchers, The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 3, 2025
How China is vying to attract the world’s top scientific talent, Nature, June 9, 2025
The great poaching: America’s brain drain begins, Axios, June 7, 2025
While the Trump administration and MAGA evangelicals shout, “Good riddance,” a different response resonates from others: “Oh, my God.” The goose that lays the golden eggs is in danger of extinction. Forces, pretending to be righteous, are in the process of turning the USA into one of Trump’s favorite expressions: “Shithole country.”
Top Ten RightingAmerica Posts in 2025
by William Trollinger
Here at rightingamerica we are grateful for both the variety of authors’ voices and topics, and for the number and variety of readers. Below are the top ten posts that were published in 2025, with quotes from each of the posts. Enjoy reading or re-reading!
“White Christian nationalism is everywhere [in Amish Country tourist shops]: personal beverage containers in the shape of bullets, coffee mugs listing various calibers of guns with the quote ‘All faster than dialing 911,’ and Christian crosses with images of the American flag superimposed on them. The Amish are pacifists. They won’t go to war. . . . The disjuncture between who the Amish have been and how they are figured today in the context of Amish country tourism by white Christian nationalism is nothing short of stunning.”
- “God intended it as a disposable planet”: John MacArthur’s Reckless End-Times Theology, by Paul Braterman (May 27)
MacArthur “does not think that the evidence for ice-cap melting is scientific, and that other factors are at play: ‘This is all political [and] financial agendas, class warfare, class envy . . . driven by the socialist mentality, even some of the feminist mentality.’ . . . As MacArthur puts it, citing Revelation and the integrity of scripture: ‘God intended us to use this planet, to fill this planet for the benefit of man. Never was it intended to be a permanent planet. It is a disposable planet. Christians ought to know that.’ And that is a statement that would leave anybody who cares about this world speechless.”
- On the Cusp of Another Missouri Execution, by William Trollinger (October 13)
“As I write this . . . Lance Shockley is scheduled to be killed by the state of Missouri . . . Perhaps Missouri’s Governor Mike Kehoe will relent in response to very serious questions about whether Jason Shockley (who has consistently maintained his innocence) actually committed this crime . . . Perhaps Gov. Kehoe will take into account that Shockley has been an exemplary Christian guide and mentor both to his fellow inmates and to prison staff . . . Perhaps Gov. Kehoe will act in keeping with his Catholic faith, as the Church has long opposed capital punishment . . . Perhaps.” [Gov. Kehoe did not halt the execution.]
“Donald Trump and Bob Jones, Sr. are both the centers of their universe, both demand complete loyalty (as they capriciously define it), and both have no credentials. Further, both demand a certain ‘appearance’ from women around them, both have a cadre of young and compliant men to do their bidding. They both superficially use a vocabulary of religion, both draw stark divides between themselves and their cohort and everyone else, and they both [suggest] violence on the ‘everyone else.’ Donald Trump and Bob Jones, Sr., are both malignant narcissists, what we rhetoricians used to call demagogues.”
- In the Wake of the Fatal Shooting of Charlie Kirk: What’s Next for Turning Point USA, The Far Right, and American Evangelicalism?, by Tucker Hoffmann (September 16)
“I want to illuminate the startling realization that the spheres of theological discourse and political discourse are, in my opinion, collapsing into one another. . . . In the case of Kirk’s death we are hearing political speech from the pulpit and a homily of retribution from the campaign trail. I fear for what is to come when we consider the impact of this type of speech when it comes to our own subjectivity as Christians of every denomination, and on Americans who are not affiliated with Christianity at all. While I can’t forecast the future, I can say that it does not look good.”
- A Century After Scopes: Much Has Not Changed, and Much Has Changed, by Susan Trollinger and William Trollinger (April 08)
“Today we have a plethora of Christian schools and homeschools . . . Folks like AiG’s Ken Ham have been quite aggressive about promoting this alternative educational system. And now there are states that are funding or seeking to fund private schools. So the fight now is not just about getting creationism, the Bible, and white Christian nationalism into the public schools. It is also about funding private schools, including fundamentalist schools. It is about expanding the right-wing subculture. It is about taking dominion over the culture. This is where we are. 100 years after Scopes.”
- “Compromising Biblical Authority”: Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis, and the Christian Right, by William Trollinger (May 14)
“How is blatantly using the Bible as a mere prop for right-wing culture war arguments NOT the quintessential example of ‘compromising biblical authority’? For all their bluster about Christians who ‘compromise’ the Bible, the folks at AiG and elsewhere in the Christian Right elide the fact that it is their own compromises, their own turning from the Gospel, that have driven people away from the faith. . . . the ‘quantitative and qualitative evidence strongly support the argument that the Christian Right has been a primary reason for the remarkable rise of the religious nones in the United States.’”
“Michel Foucault has a small volume on parrhesis – the word translated as ‘boldness’ – that is so powerful. Foucault says parrhesia involves risk, truth, danger, and a willingness to speak truth to power. Parrhesia may be the most needed virtue for preachers. Some preachers belong to the status quo and they preach the gospel of ‘the king’s temple.’ Others are Amos and they preach the truth that clashes with the status quo. . . . In our dangerous political environment, I believe the preacher must simply bring to bear the truth of Scripture. I believe the Word has plenty to say to our current political malaise.”
- My Brother Mike, Autism, and the Ignorance and Incompetence of RFK, Jr., by William Trollinger (June 04)
“My brother Mike was born with autism spectrum disorder. Contrary to RFK’s absurd statement[s on the topic], Mike paid taxes, held multiple jobs, played baseball, wrote short stories, and – I can’t believe I have to say this – used the toilet unassisted. And while his autism challenged our family, it absolutely did not destroy our family. In fact, there are all sorts of ways in which Mike brought our family together. . . . That the creative potential, intellectual and artistic abilities, and social warmth of people with autism would be erased in a few sentences uttered by the Secretary of Health and Human Services is shameful.”
- Tim LaHaye, David Barton, and Russell Vought: Pseudoscience, Pseudohistory, and Christian Nationalism, by Paul Braterman (January 23)
“Not surprisingly perhaps, the structure of [Russell Vought’s argument in behalf of Christian Nationalism] is identical to the arguments used by creationists . . . An uncritical acceptance of Scripture with no attention to historical context, unstated reinterpretation of that Scripture to further an agenda, selecting and misconstruing quotations, claiming a monopoly of Christian thought for his own wealth-friendly version, and finally and most dangerously, grouping together wildly disparate opinions, to make it seem as if our choice is restricted to two alternative worldviews, only one of which is sanctioned by God.”
Measles at the Ark
by Daniel Phelps
Daniel Phelps is a retired environmental geologist for the commonwealth of Kentucky. He has also taught part-time in Kentucky’s Community College system. Phelps is founder and president of the Kentucky Paleontological Society. His work to expose the pseudoscience behind Ham’s Ark Encounter was featured in the award-winning 2019 documentary, “We Believe in Dinosaurs.” And in 2021 the Paleontological Society – the world’s leading scientific organization devoted to studying invertebrate and vertebrate paleontology, micropaleontology, and paleobotany – awarded Phelps the prestigious Strimple Award, which recognizes outstanding achievement in paleontology by someone who does not make a full-time living from paleontology.
Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared at Panda’s Thumb. We are grateful for the permission to republish.
Today (1/1/26) the Kentucky Department for Public Health announced that an unvaccinated, out-of-state individual with measles visited the Ark Encounter in Williamstown, Kentucky, on December 29, 2025. Local and regional health departments are scrambling to warn and inform the public. See this local news story.
I usually laugh heartily at the buffoonery and ignorance associated with the Ark. This latest news, however, is just sad. I can’t laugh. Anti-science is putting large numbers of people in danger, not just anti-vaxx clowns. If not for the known views of the people running the Ark, one could argue this latest news is an excusable random event. Alas, the audience for the Ark Encounter and its leadership are dominated by anti-science and anti-vaccination advocates.
During the Covid pandemic and lockdown, Ken Ham railed against mask mandates, was involved in lawsuits against OSHA vaccine requirements and was ambivalent about vaccines. When writing about vaccine mandates and Covid lockdowns, Mr. Ham said:
Certainly, people died from the virus, although I think we are all confused at what the actual statistics are. People die every day from all sorts of diseases. But once a person dies, God’s Word tells us they will spend eternity in heaven or hell. So how essential is the church, the body of Christ (of which AiG is a part of), for people’s well-being? It is vital.
Several prominent creationists died of Covid during the height of the pandemic. Dr. David Menton of AiG definitely died of Covid. It is very likely that Ark Park designer Patrick Marsh died of the same cause. Henry Morris Ill, of the Institute for Creation Research also died of Covid.
It is a good thing attendance at the Ark is so low this time of year and the public’s measles exposure is minimal. Hopefully, Ark tourists, employees, and Williamstown and Grant County locals will be warned about this exposure. Unfortunately, as of 6 pm January 1, 2026, neither Answers in Genesis nor Ark Encounter have mentioned this measles case on their websites or on their numerous social media accounts. Ken Ham was on his Facebook and “X” accounts today, but only posted about Zohran Mamdani and various religious topics, nothing warning about the measles case at the Ark.
Fortunately, many local media and public health offices have announced the measles case. We will have to see if there are further cases of measles by tourists or Ark employees in the coming days.
Update: On Thursday, January 8, 2026, the Ohio Department of Health announced the first cases of measles in the state of Ohio.
Creationism in the Classroom
by Paul Braterman
Paul Braterman is Professor Emeritus in Chemistry, University of North Texas, and Honorary Research Fellow (formerly Reader) at the University of Glasgow. His research has involved topics related to the early Earth and the origins of life, and received support from NSF, NASA, Sandia National Labs, and Scripps Institution of Oceanography. He is now interested in sharing scientific ideas with the widest possible audience, and was involved in successful campaigns to persuade both the English and the Scottish Governments to keep creationism out of the science classroom. He blogs at Primate’s Progress, paulbraterman.wordpress.com.
Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared at 3 Quarks Daily, where Braterman is a regular contributor. You can find the full article here. And we are grateful to the editors for their permission to republish.
December 20, 2025 was the 20th anniversary of the day on which Judge John Jones III handed down his decisive ruling, in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, that Intelligent Design was a version of creationism, which is religion and not science, and as such violated the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution and could not be taught within the publicly funded school system. Given changes in the US legal landscape, we need to ask whether this ruling is still secure. And given everything else that is happening in the US at the moment, we may wonder whether this even matters. Here I lay out why I think that the ruling is not necessarily secure, review what is at stake, and argue that it matters very much indeed.
What we now call Christian Nationalism has its roots in Ronald Reagan’s 1980 presidential campaign, when creationists such as Tim LaHaye fused together political conservatism, the newly adopted abortion issue, literalist Bible-based religion, and the rejection of evolution science as Humanist, un-American, and as we would now say Woke. We can see the influence of these ideas today in Trump’s administration, where at least three cabinet ministers (Pete Hegseth, Scott Turner at HUD, and Doug Collins at the VA) are creationists, as are Speaker Mike Johnson, Mike Huckabee, ambassador to Israel, and Russell Vought who at the Office of Management and Budget has enormous day-to-day influence. To these we might add Vice President Vance, and Health [sic] Secretary RF Kennedy Jr. These are not creationists, but share their disdain for the scientific and academic establishments; Vance rose to stardom by telling the US Religious Right that “the Professors are the enemy,” while Kennedy’s onslaught on established science is all too well-known. Thus creationism is closely coupled to the rest of the Regime’s war on reality.
As for the claim, pervasive in the creationist literature, that evolution acceptance involves religion denial, I should mention here that Judge Jones himself is a committed Lutheran, and has offered himself as an example of the compatibility of Christian belief and evolution acceptance, while Ken Miller, a crucial witness at the trial and indefatigable campaigner against creationism, is a devout Catholic, author of Finding Darwin’s God, and co-author of a widely used high school textbook, Miller and Levine Biology.
In 2004, creationists on the board of the Dover Area School District in Pennsylvania attracted press attention by objecting to the adoption of Miller and Levine, on the grounds that it was “laced with Darwinism,” to the exclusion of creationism. This led to correspondence with the Discovery Institute and with the Thomas More Law Center, who told them about the alternative textbook (alternative as in alternative facts) Of Pandas and People, which the Center were eager to promote in order to introduce Intelligent Design into the public school system.
According to its website, the mission of the Thomas More Law Center is to
Preserve America’s Judeo-Christian heritage; Defend the religious freedom of Christians; Restore time-honored moral and family values; Protect the sanctity of human life; Promote a strong national defense and a free and sovereign United States of America. The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities.
This places it firmly within the Christian Nationalist movement, as I described it earlier. As for Intelligent Design, it is the view that nature in general, and the appearance of new groups of living things in particular, is controlled by an unspecified designer (or Designer). This view is clearly incompatible with evolution science. To quote Pandas,
Most significantly, all design proponents hold that the major groups of organisms had their own origins.
The identity of this designer is not specified, although the Discovery Institute, which is a major promoter of Intelligent Design, seems more recently to be abandoning the pretence that the designer is anything other than God.
The board accepted copies of Pandas for the school, and also ordered the biology teachers to read to their classes a statement declaring among other things that
Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.
Very courageously, teachers refused to present such nonsense to their classes, since that would violate their professional ethic, and the statement was then read out by the school superintendent.
A group of outraged parents, among them Tammy Kitzmiller, promptly took the School District to court, invoking the Establishment Clause, and their cause was embraced by the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Center for Science Education, who assembled a formidable coalition of expert witnesses. The ensuing trial has been the subject of several books, and a PBS documentary, Judgement Day, still available on YouTube, in which some of the participants play themselves. There is also a moving compilation here of short statements by some of those involved.
Of Pandas and People had its own interesting evolutionary history. The academic editor, Charles Thaxton, was an Old Earth creationist, who had testified in Kansas State hearings to his rejection of common descent, while the co-authors, Dean Kenyon and Percival Davis, were Young Earth creationists. The original title was Biology and Creation, and its target was the creationist market that appeared to be opening up when, in 1981, the State of Louisiana passed a law saying that if evolutionary science is to be taught, creation science should be taught as well. This law was challenged by a group of parents, teachers, and ministers, on First Amendment grounds, with support from numerous scientists, including 77 Nobel Prize winners, and in the 1987 case Edwards v. Aguillard, the Supreme Court upheld their challenge 7-2. In doing so they invoked the Lemon test, which requires a secular purpose for government activity, and opposes government activity which advances (or indeed impedes) religion.
Undaunted, the authors simply changed the original title to Of Pandas and People, and partly rewrote the text, replacing “creation science” and “creationism” with “intelligent design”. During the discovery phase of the Kitzmiller trial, the plaintiffs obtained copies of the intermediate drafts, one even containing the expression “design proponentsists”. The Missing Link!
It is also noteworthy that the Pandas (1989) was the first book to refer repeatedly to “intelligent design,” predating the work of Phillip Johnson and the Discovery Institute in the 1990s. Thaxton and Kenyon are currently listed as Fellows of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, which exists to promote Intelligent Design, while simultaneously maintaining that this is a different thing from creationism.
The Discovery Institute has repeatedly defended Pandas, and several Discovery Institute Fellows, including Stephen Meyer and William Dembski, provided expert witness statements in preparation for the Kitzmiller trial although, with the honourable exception of Michael Behe, they withdrew without giving evidence after a complicated dispute with the Thomas More Law Center.
Judge Jones now has understandable concerns about the direction of the US legal system itself. In his 2005 judgement, he also used the Lemon test, but this is no longer in effect. As he noted in 2022,
While applying the Lemon test is hardly perfect, I found it to be a sound and logical way to evaluate the case that came before me.
As a result of the recent Kennedy decision [which permitted prayer by a high school coach after games], federal judges are now directed to utilize a history-based approach in place of the more structured Lemon test when deciding cases. I would respectfully submit, as one who used the Lemon test and found it to be soundly crafted, that this new approach will lead to increasingly disparate decisions by lower court judges that will be based on ad hoc analysis and excessively subjective findings.
The result will necessarily be that the line of separation between church and state will become increasingly blurred. I am quite sure that this is precisely what the majority intended, but I would submit that we are about to enter an era where, like it or not, we will see the Supreme Court allow much more religion in the public square. Not an earthquake to be sure, but at least an aftershock of major proportions.
Remember that the 1987 case Edwards v. Aguillard had also been decided on the basis of the Lemon test.
Very recently, Judge Jones has told us that the case was so clear that he would rule the same today. I note however that other judges might feel differently, and that the case was made much easier to decide by what he referred to as the School District board’s “breathtaking inanity” (the existing board members were soundly defeated in an election that took place while the judgement was being written). Moreover, the increasing use by Republican-dominated States, which is where creationism tends to be strongest, of school vouchers which parents can use at their discretion, could provide a pathway whereby public money, and pupils who would otherwise be publicly educated, are funnelled towards private schools not bound by the Establishment Clause. In Alabama, this is already leading to the use in these schools of textbooks from Bob Jones University and Abeka, whose offerings explicitly describe evolution as scientifically incorrect, satanically inspired, and motivated by the wish to justify immorality. Unsurprisingly, the Abeka texts also play down the evils of slavery, and explain the rise of the Ku Klux Klan as an understandable reaction to the incompetence of State governments dominated by freedmen.
I had forgotten how bad Pandas actually is. Its title is a reference to the fact that the term “panda” is applied to two very different animals, the giant panda which is a bear, and the red panda, which is more closely related to raccoons. Although they are only distantly related, both these species have separately evolved a false thumb, a striking example of convergent evolution. All this has been known for over a century, with recent confirmation by DNA phylogenies, but for some strange reason the book chooses to present this as evidence of the inadequacy of evolution science, in favour of Intelligent Design.
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Contrary to [the claims in Pandas,] the data overwhelmingly support a picture of the organic world completely consistent with what they insist on calling “Darwinian” evolution, and difficult to explain in any other way. What they do not support is the authors’ flawed reasoning, understandable in first-year undergraduates, but inexcusable in textbook writers.
Kirk Cameron, The Eternal Barbecue, and Fundamentalist Proof-Texting
By William Trollinger
The Baptist News Global headline says it all: “Heads spin as Kirk Cameron gives up eternal conscious torment.”
As Rick Pidcock observes, Cameron has for many years “been one of the poster boys for white evangelicalism, including his role in Christian movies like the Left Behind series . . . his mocking of evolution through memes like the ‘crockoduck,’ and his Christian nationalist war with ‘woke libraries.’”
But now, in a December 3 podcast with his son, Cameron has suggested the possibility that the notion of hell as an eternal barbecue of sinners is wrong. Instead, he and his son suggest that it might be more biblical, more in keeping with the Christian faith, to understand that those who are not truly Christian will be destroyed by God, but they will not be eternally tortured (a belief known as “annihilationism”).
It is not clear that Cameron fully understood how much fundamentalists have invested in the idea of hell – as I noted last year, Answers in Genesis’ Ark Encounter tourist site is all about hell – and especially the idea of a hell where sinners are tortured forever. But he knows now. Fundamentalist spokespersons have exploded in response to his podcast. Here are just a few examples:
Theologian Owen Strachan: “Grieved to see this from Kirk Cameron. Scripture is abundantly clear that hell is the place ‘where the fire is not quenched.’”
Pastor Tom Ascol: “Hell is horrific. And it is eternal, otherwise it would not be an adequate punishment for sin against the infinite, holy God.”
Christian “influencer” Samuel Sey: “Kirk Cameron is dangerously wrong. . . . His belief in annihilationism is terrible. But what is even more concerning is that he suggests that the biblical view of hell makes God merciless.”
And then there is R. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Seminary, with an article in World entitled: “The deadly danger of remodeling hell: Kirk Cameron’s doctrinal growing pains are a real problem.”
As Mohler sees it, the concerns about an infinite hell are simply “old hat and worn-out arguments.” But given that such arguments are coming from an evangelical “celebrity,” the possible “influence is not good, very not good, and it needs to be addressed.”
And Mohler understands himself as just the man to correct Cameron. According to Mohler, “Annihilation is not part of the picture. Hell is not a passage into non-existence, but the torment of the wicked. The truth is horrible, so the warnings are stark.” Sin “is an infinite offense against God’s infinite holiness,” and thus “eternal conscious torment is not disproportionate, much less unjust.” Instead, “it is the revelation of God’s perfect righteousness and justice.”
And then Mohler plays what he understands to be his trump card, i.e., the Bible: “The New Testament evidence for hell as eternal conscious punishment is clear, as Jesus declared in Matthew 25:46: ‘And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.’” As Mohler puts it at the end of his article, “Just consider the power of Jesus’s words in Matthew 25:46. Could the truth be clearer? It is truly horrible to deny the true horror of hell.”
Interestingly, to make the same point – i.e., the Bible teaches that hell is the place for sinners to endure eternal conscious torment – Ken Ham’s Creation Museum has placed a placard with a verse from Matthew 25 in its “Jesus exhibit.” In this case it’s verse 41: “Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”
Ken Ham: Matthew 25: 41. Al Mohler: Matthew 25: 46. The Bible says it: hell is the eternal barbecue for sinners. Case closed.
But wait a minute. There’s something odd here. What comes between Matthew 25:41 and Mattheew 25:46? If we are going to take the Bible seriously, shouldn’t we attend to these overlooked verses? That is to say, what did Mohler and Ham – these passionate advocates of biblical authority — leave out?
Here is Matthew 25: 42-45:
“I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.” Then they also will answer, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you.” Then he will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.”
Leaving aside the question of whether hell is a site of eternal conscious torment or eternal disappearance – not to mention the possibility that there is a third option, beyond violent retribution – there is the simple matter of who Jesus says will be rewarded and who will be punished at the Last Judgment. And it turns out that in Matthew 25 the answer could not have been clearer.
But in ignoring these verses we have a classic example of fundamentalist proof-texting. MAGA fundamentalist proof-texting. Best to leave out these verses, or one might conclude that the test to determine one’s eternal fate is whether or not one cared for the poor, the immigrant, the prisoner.
Borrowing from Mohler: Just consider the power of Jesus’s words in Matthew 25:41-46. Could the truth be clearer? It is truly horrible to deny that whether or not one has cared for “the least of these” will determine one’s fate at the Last Judgment.
Of course, if they were to take these verses seriously, would fundamentalists still argue for eternal, conscious torment?
Trump’s Multiple Wars
by Rodney Kennedy
Rodney Kennedy has his M.Div from New Orleans Theological Seminary and his Ph.D. in Rhetoric from Louisiana State University. He pastored the First Baptist Church of Dayton (OH) – which is an American Baptist Church – for 13 years, after which he served as interim pastor of ABC USA churches in Illinois, Kansas, New York, and Pennsylvania. He is now a full-time writer, and lives in Louisiana. His eighth book, Dancing with Metaphors in the Pulpit, was the focus of this rightingamerica interview. And check out Rod’s new webpage!
The president of the United States, Donald Trump, campaigns for the Nobel Peace Prize by claiming he has ended eight wars. Yet in the disguise of being an international peacemaker, Trump creates new wars on the domestic front. He has declared war on illegal immigrants, American cities, universities, drug lords, gangs, DEI/wokeness/CRT, science, history, liberals/socialists/Democrats, and any person who dares oppose him.
War is President Trump’s default setting. Trump is a creature requiring revenge and retaliation for all slights and grievances. His speeches reek of war. “We will protect American lives,” he yells. “Your family members will not have died in vain.” He asserts a superhuman ability to protect America: “I will fight for you with every breath of my body.” He has promised, “We will eradicate Radical Islamic Terrorism completely from the face of the earth. You got to knock the hell out of them. Boom! Boom! Boom!”
Trump’s Wars Have a Prequel in President Bush
Trumpism itself is rooted in an earlier turn by George W. Bush to a new understanding of war. Trump has amplified and expanded President Bush’s rhetoric of terrorism that characterized Arab and Muslim people as evil and violent.
Robert Ivie, in “The Rhetoric of Bush’s War on Evil,” says: “George W. Bush is a Burkean devil of rhetorical seduction. His demagoguery in the service of empire masquerades as a test of Christian faith and of faith in a Christian man, calling on Americans to make their nation right with God by exterminating an international devil. His ‘war’ is a bastardization of religious thought akin to Hitler’s ‘Battle.’”
President Bush taught us that Muslims hate us. In a joint session of Congress, Bush said, “They hate a democratically elected government – They hate our freedoms – our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other …. These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life.”
Issues of Race Always Present
Underlying Trump’s wars there is the explosive issue of race. He announced that the US was taking fewer immigrants from countries like Somalia and Haiti and more from countries like Norway, Sweden and Demark, which happen to be among the Whitest countries in the world.
He also unleashed a torrent of even uglier remarks. He called Somalia “filthy, dirty, disgusting, ridden with crime.” He referred to Rep. Ilhan Omar’s headscarf as a “little turban” and encouraged the crowd to chant “send her back” to Somalia. Earlier he called Somalis “garbage” and said, “We don’t want them here.”
Trump’s Wars Fueled by Insecurity and Revenge
Trump responds violently to anyone who challenges his presumption that he is in control of everything, from the nuclear suitcase to the Kennedy Center awards. War has become the playground and prerogative of the president. We are at war with whomever President Trump says we are.
There’s a strange verse in Matthew’s Gospel that I believe flashes its warning lights in the face of Trump: “From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and violent people take it by force” (Matthew 11:12). Daniel J. Harrington, S.J., in his commentary The Gospel of Matthew (Sacra Pagina), says the allusions to Herod in Matthew 11:7 – 8 “suggests the ‘violent’ refers to Herod.
The reality is that, when you have seen one Herod, you have seen them all. They all act the same way in their greedy, insecure, uncaring, violent insufficiency. The Herod we now face is President Trump in all his insecure, fearful, and paranoid glory.
Trump’s Axis of Evil: MAGA, Evangelicals, and White Supremacists
Wars require allies. Along with a partisan Supreme Court and a gutless Congress, Trump and MAGA share a single beating heart. Rhetorical scholar Kenneth Burke called this union “consubstantiality.” Trump and MAGA are both joined and separate. They are one in the spirit of war and violence. Trump’s mad war spirit twins with public shamelessness and evangelical certainty to fuel the ongoing wars spinning out of the White House at a dizzying rate.
So it is that Trump directs the US military to blow up boats in the Pacific off the coast of Venezuela, in the process mixing flag-waving patriotism and the fear of drugs. It apparently doesn’t matter that Trump has no such authority, that these actions violate the Constitution and constitute war crimes, and are immoral on every level. Too many Americans applaud the destruction.
How many wars must we fight to satiate the blood lust of our president? How many immigrants must we deport to win the war on immigrants? How many American cities must we invade to satisfy Trump’s need for control? How many professors and universities must we silence? How many voting rights must be shred? How many boats (allegedly drug-filled) must we blow out of the water? How many people must we kill? The president, my friend, will sell us all the wars he can.
We have our work cut out for us. James David Duncan, in The Brothers K, has an interesting reflection: “War is so damn interesting.” “The appeal of trying to kill others without being killed yourself is that it brings suspense, terror, honor, disgrace, rage, tragedy, treachery, and occasionally even heroism into a range of guys, who might, in times of peace, lead lives of unmitigated peace.”
An Alternative Story
Trump’s wars offend my human Christian sensibilities. As a follower of Jesus, I am not capable of being at peace with war. I am appalled at Trump’s war on immigrants because I believe it is a direct contradiction of God’s will. I am part of the church God has called into being to transgress the borders of the nations to provide for the welfare of the poor, the oppressed, and the downtrodden.
Isaiah 42, the first servant poem, connects mercy and justice, as our calling:
Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations . . . He will not grow faint or be crushed until he has established justice in the earth; and the coastlands wait for his teaching. (verses 1, 4)
God gathers rather than disperses people. As Stanley Hauerwas has said, “the church is constituted as a new people who have been gathered from the nations to remind the world that we are in fact one people.” Trump’s war on immigrants blasphemes God’s gathering activities. Displacement, deportation, dispersion, division – Devil’s work.
There are Christian values on which to build an alternative rhetoric: Truth, peace, empathy, hope.
The task before us is to make peace as interesting as war. I accept the seemingly insurmountable obstacle to weaning Americans from the thrill of combat, war, violence, and power.
Basic Democratic Values
Coupled with Christian virtues, there are also democratic values on which to build: diversity, complementarity, dissent, inclusion, fairness, community, justice, mutual benefit, deliberation and compromise.
I call special attention to dissent because democracy can’t thrive with the freedom of dissent. Those who would squelch dissent are not friends of democracy. In dissent, we have the chance to rebuild a shared symbolic space where words matter, reasons matter, and deliberation matters.
In this space, perhaps we can actually hear the voice of Stacey Abrams of Georgia: “From agriculture to health care to entrepreneurship, America is made stronger by immigration, not walls.”
Part of the dissent is insisting our president do right by all our people and to respect the extraordinary diversity that characterizes our nation. As Abrams implores, all of us must “confront racism” and Trump’s wars in word and deed; we must “come together and stand for and with one another” in a “renewed commitment to social and economic justice.”
All of these values are in short supply in our war-torn nation. Democracy is endangered by our refusal to give expression to the best angels of the American spirit. Trump’s wars and its enabling racism are not democratic; they are destructive.
One value captures the spirit of both Christianity and democracy: Empathy. It is no surprise how MAGA evangelicals have viciously attacked empathy as if it were now a vice.
As George Lakoff puts it, “Empathy is at the center of the progressive moral view.” And: “Behind every progressive policy lies a single moral value: empathy.”
An alternative rhetoric of peace requires a baptism by immersion in empathy. Ivie reminds us, “I think, rhetorically speaking, what we might find most useful is to articulate a humanizing discourse as a way of empathizing with people across lines of division, that is, with people that fall into the category of the dispersed majority. Empathy is the alternative to demonizing. The dispersed majority is the target audience, those that might be persuaded.”
Clear, rational thought knows that “War is hell.” I have a letter in my files from one of my ancestors, General Kennedy (his name not his rank). He was a private in the Confederate Army and his letter to his Mama came from his experience at the battle of Vicksburg. He told her of the soldier standing next to him having his head blown off by a cannon ball and other horrors of the hell that was war.
As attracted as President Trump is to war and as appealing as General Lee’s vision of men marching into combat under fire has always been to the American spirit, it is a lie.
At Gettysburg, General George Pickett marched the 4,500 men in his division into the withering Yankee fire. But that was the last mention of beauty. The truth was told by General George Pickett when Lee ordered him to gather his battalion for another frontal assault on Union lines.
Pickett, crying, said, “I have no division now. Armistead is down, Garnett is down, and Kemper is mortally wounded —.”
For all who love our country and care for our future, the time for Trump’s wars to end has come. The dogmatic certainty of Trump and MAGA evangelicals has left us in disarray. America’s use of force may be America’s final chapter.
Now the followers of the suffering, sacrificing Jesus arise with truth as our belt, righteousness as our breastplate, the gospel of peace as our shoes, along with the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit as our single weapon. We rise with the glory of God on our lips and the Prince of Peace at our side. Here is our alternative to the rhetoric of war. Here we make our stand.
Whitewashing History: Jerry Bergman’s Review of “Keeping the Faith: God, Democracy, and the Trial That Riveted a Nation,” by Brenda Wineapple
by William Trollinger
Jerry Bergman’s campaign to invent an anti-racist William Jennings Bryan continues apace. This time, it involves a review of Brenda Wineapple’s best-selling book on the Scopes Trial.
It is telling that Bergman begins his Journal of Creation review, entitled “The Scopes Trial’s false conclusions live on,” by whining that while Keeping the Faith is ranked #9 in Amazon’s “Science and Religion” category and is in 721 libraries, his own book – The Other Side of the Scopes Monkey Trial – is #1047 in the same Amazon category, and has been placed in only 88 libraries. He blames some of the lack of attention for his book on the “greying of the creationist movement,” as “many people who had supported my work are now deceased.” He does not consider the possibility that his book doesn’t sell because, it is – as Glenn Branch of the National Center for Science Education has observed – the worst book ever written on the Scopes Trial.
The first part of Bergman’s review involves an extended complaint about Wineapple’s treatment of Bryan’s relationship with the Klan. As Bergman notes, she acknowledges that Bryan was not a member of the Ku Klux Klan, but she goes on to question why he did not actively oppose the organization. Bergman’s defense? The Klan was too powerful for Bryan to oppose, as in the 1920s it had five million members and dominated seven state governments. A “political career in the South, and some northern states such as Indiana, required the Klan’s support,” as “without it, holding office was difficult, if not impossible.”
This is Bergman’s defense of Bryan’s silence? He was too politically calculating (craven), too cowardly, to speak out? What about all those Americans – white and black – who did muster the political and ethical and religious courage to resist the KKK? And should we understand Bergman’s argument as a subtle defense of contemporary evangelicals and Republicans who can’t find the wherewithal to speak out against the Trump Administration’s egregious and ever-escalating immoral, racist, and anti-Constitutional actions?
Moreover, in working to distance Bryan from the KKK, and undercut one of Wineapple’s “false conclusions,” Bergman completely fails to explain why the 1920s Klan loved Bryan, to the point that they commemorated his death with the burning of crosses. Here in Dayton, the huge burning cross carried this inscription: “In memory of William Jennings Bryan, the greatest Klansman of our time, this cross is burned, he stood at Armageddon and battled for the Lord.”
If Bryan was the great civil rights champion that Bergman claims he was, how did the KKK miss the point?
In his review of Wineapple’s book, Bergman is covering much of the same ground as he did in his July 2025 Creation-Evolution Headlines article, “1925 Scopes Trial 100-Year Anniversary: Evolutionists are Still Teaching Myths.” Once again, he makes use of Willard Smith’s 1969 Journal of Negro History article, “William Jennings Bryan and Racism.” Once again he quotes from Smith’s first paragraph:
Bryan believed democracy ‘is founded upon the doctrine of human brotherhood – a democracy that exists for one purpose, [that is, for] the defense of human rights. It would be extremely difficult to select from his political career, lasting from 1890 to his death in 1925, a concept which he emphasized more than this.
And, once again, Bergman leaves out what Smith has to say in the rest of his article:
- There was a contradiction in Bryan’s “life that certainly did not square with his much-vaunted talk about democracy and rule by the people,” and that contradiction involved “Bryan’s attitude toward race relations,” attitudes that were “acceptable to the strict segregationist” (127).
- Bryan asserted that “social equality should be opposed on the ground that amalgamation of the races is not desirable . . . and amalgamation [including racial intermarriage] would be the ‘logical result of social equality” (139-140).
- Bryan attacked Theodore Roosevelt’s “appointments of Negroes to office, again [taking] the southern white’s point of view” (141).
- Bryan did not oppose Woodrow Wilson’s segregating of government workers, and opposed the 1922 anti-lynching bill then before Congress.
- In 1923 Bryan gave a speech at the Southern Society in Washington, D.C., in which he proclaimed that
Where two races are forced to live together, the more advanced race “will always control as a matter of self-preservation not only for the benefit of the advanced race, but for the benefit of the backward race also. . . . Slavery was an improvement over independence in Africa. The very progress that the blacks have made, when – and only when – brought into contact with the whites, ought to be a sufficient argument in support of white supremacy . . . Anyone who will look at the subject without prejudice will know that white supremacy promotes the highest welfare of both races.
Yep. Not so surprising that the Ku Klux Klan celebrated William Jennings Bryan as “the greatest Klansman.” And not so surprising that Jerry Bergman continues to distort the historical record for ideological purposes.
And see here for my more extended treatment of Bergman’s “1925 Scopes Trial 100-Year Anniversary.”
Whitewashing History: PragerU’s Thanksgiving
by William Trollinger
PragerU is not a university. It is not an accredited educational institution. It is, instead, a slick operation that produces all sorts of right-wing propaganda through all manner of media, including short five-minute videos designed to indoctrinate Americans, including children (PragerU Kids) in public schools. As Jonathan Zimmerman, professor of the history of education at Penn, has noted, PragerU “is a political propaganda machine, and it promotes mistruths about climate change, slavery, and a whole host of other things.”
Including, not surprisingly, the history of native Americans and the European invasion.
In the five-minute PragerU video, “What’s the Truth about the First Thanksgiving?,” viewers learn from Michael Medved that, for lots of Americans, “Thanksgiving has come to mean . . . food, football, and oppression.” But the reality is that the Pilgrims were not “arrogant oppressors.” In fact, they did not “actually invade” the Indian village where they established their first settlement, “because the former inhabitants” had already “perished during three years of plague.”
No Indians alive to resist = no invasion!
Of course, what the video does not mention is that the “plague” had been brought to the Americas by the Europeans. It was quite possibly chicken pox or smallpox, for which the native Americans had no antibodies. The epidemic lasted from 1616 to 1619. and historians have estimated that (and the video leaves this out) it killed 90% of 100000 Indians in New England. Of course, and again unmentioned by Medved, this was no anomaly, as disease brought over in the “Columbian Exchange” killed perhaps 80 million (out of 100 million) native Americans. It was quite possibly the greatest demographic disaster in world history.
In other words, disease cleared New England in particular and the Americas in general, making it easier for the Europeans to move in and take over.
As the PragerU video concludes:
The only reason to treat this beloved national holiday as a day of mourning is that some foolish Americans actually think that’s a good idea. The Pilgrims knew better. They understood that people of every culture and every era can gain more from gratitude than from guilt.
The message to Native Americans could not be clearer: enough with the whining, and enough with turning Thanksgiving into a National Day of Mourning. It’s long past time to forget the broken treaties, the nefarious means by which land was taken by the invaders, the Indian boarding schools and their forced assimilation of native children, and, of course, the massacres. Instead (and this comes from another PragerU video, “Did Europe Destroy Native American Culture?”), happily accept historical inevitability, and be thankful for the great benefits you have received from Westen culture.
White people, stop apologizing, and stop feeling bad about conquering the continent. Just be happy you won!
More than this, be thankful for PragerU, and its ongoing effort to fabricate a past devoid of all those things that could make white people (and especially white males) feel uncomfortable!
