this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2026
21 points (86.2% liked)

politics

28784 readers
2121 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

They were both 37 years old, murdered by federal agents in Minneapolis, less than three weeks apart. On January 7, Renee Good was sitting in her car when she was shot three times, including once in the head. On January 24, Alex Pretti was filming federal agents with his cell phone, exercising his First Amendment right to protest their presence peacefully. They shoved him to the ground and several of them beat him. An agent removed a handgun from Alex’s waistband, which he carried legally, and a few seconds after disarming him, 10 shots were fired in five seconds into his prone body on the ground.

Senior administration officials quickly labeled both Renee and Alex “domestic terrorists,” claiming that federal agents were defending their lives. Go watch the videos online. Alex never drew his weapon. Renee was unarmed, moving her vehicle very slowly. Once shot, agents did not attempt to stop their bleeding or resuscitate them. Administration officials swiftly declared the shootings “justified,” without even investigating them; didn’t start investigating until public outcry proved too much. You can find plenty of videos online of peaceful protesters being shoved to the ground or beaten by a mob of agents or pepper-sprayed in the face.

There’s a pattern building here of arbitrary and gratuitous violence, of lies and cover-ups.

“Equal under the law” apparently no longer applies to anyone anymore; neither does the idea that no one is above the law. Is this who we’ve become? Where will it lead? Are we being groomed for much worse to come, being desensitized into a new normal, like the proverbial frog being boiled in water?

For those who will accuse me later of preaching a “political” sermon, a “partisan” sermon, this transcends politics. Our federal government, by sanctioning unwarranted lethal force, has made this a matter of faith, of basic morality and decency. This goes well beyond politics. We worship Jesus Christ, an innocent man arrested, beaten, and then put to death by the Roman state on false charges just because it wanted to, because it could, because killing him was more convenient.

Jesus was mocked too by those who tortured him, who took perverse pleasure in his suffering, arrogantly assuming they were untouchable. In their lifetimes, they probably assumed correctly. But I wonder how they fared before the great judgment seat of Christ, where all will answer for their sins.

It leaves us wondering what to do now, and what to do next? How can we possibly respond in a way that’s both effective and reflective of who we are as faithful followers of Jesus? Where do we even start? We start where we always start, with Scripture, and we’ll go to the Gospel first.

Mary and Joseph presented Jesus at the Temple, an important moment in their family’s life. Imagine their surprise when they were accosted without warning by two elderly prophets, Simeon and Anna, whose wisdom, gleaned from long faithful lives, gave them insight. They saw how special Jesus was and shared what they saw, in word and deed, with Mary and Joseph. The words of Anna aren’t recorded, just her joy. But we hear Simeon declaring, “This child is destined for the falling and the rising of many in Israel and to be a sign that will be opposed.”

These dark words might feel inappropriate on such an auspicious occasion, but prophets influenced by the Holy Spirit tend to tell it like it is, and Simeon, even in his great joy, saw what was to be: the struggle, the sacrifice to be suffered by Jesus and his parents—“and a sword will pierce your own soul, too.” And indeed, Simeon’s prophecy proved true.

Many resisted Jesus’s message, especially those who had the most to lose, those obsessed with domination and control. To them, Jesus was a threat because they knew that their lies would not long survive the light of his liberating truth. His message of unconditional love was a menace, and they would go and did go to great lengths to smother what he brought to give, but they failed.

They tried Jesus falsely, humiliated him publicly, told lies to undermine him, and finally killed him, but he rose again on the third day, proving that the love of God always wins. Those who oppose the truth of love, who rely on lies and cruelty and brutality, strive to induce us to abandon our principles, and they do it slyly by contriving to make us hate instead of love.

We all know the temptation. We watch the videos and read the stories. Our outrage rises rightly at the injustice, and before we know it, the consuming fire of hatred surges in our hearts. We despise the people responsible, and maybe even fantasize about vengeance, which is precisely what the hateful in our world want most from us and for us. The hateful want us to hate so that we can be miserable and puny just like them. It’s also the only game they know how to play. Refusing to hate confuses and disorients the hateful.

We must stay disciplined in Christ’s unconditional love, disciplined in prayer for those who persecute us and others, disciplined in our desire for the repentance and redemption of the hateful and cruel and brutal, disciplined in our witness that there is a different way, a way of forgiveness and reconciliation given to us by Jesus, who died on a cross and rose again.

In that discipline, fueled by grace, we find strength, a strength that refuses to stay silent. Jesus didn’t stay quiet. He stayed clever, but never quiet, even though his life would have been a lot easier and safer and longer if he would have just shut up. Jesus always advocated for the Kingdom, and brought it to bear against the selfish, tyrannical kingdoms of this world. If we follow him faithfully, then we too need to act and speak out, however we can, when oppressive forces seek to crush the innocent, the weak, and the truth.

Just as the Psalmist first prayed to God millennia ago, we too prayed this morning, “Happy are those people whose strength in in you! Whose hearts are set on the pilgrim’s way. For the Lord God is both sun and shield; he will give grace and glory. No good thing will the Lord withhold from those who walk with integrity.” And integrity cannot be taken away, no matter how much force is brought to bear; integrity is only ever given away.

We can act and speak with Christian integrity, even as we now know that our government might malign, beat, and even kill us for nothing more than simply showing up and asking questions and speaking truth. We can act and speak because we know that Jesus is with us—not only in this sacred space, but in every time and place where we call upon him. And we know that he understands what we’re going through.

That’s part of the whole purpose of Incarnation, of “God with us.” Hebrews is quite clear that “because he himself was tested by what he suffered, he is able to help those who are being tested”; “He himself shared the same things, so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by the fear of death.”

In Jesus, God walked the earth, in part to know how it feels to be human: to suffer and to be limited, frustrated, apprehensive, intimidated. That’s the quality of love God has for you and me and everyone. The cross was the pinnacle of sacrifice, yet the Incarnation involved a sacrifice too. Just being here with us entailed loss, and by being here with us, Jesus offered a model for how to show up and be present for others, how to resist temptation and evil, how to live faithfully even when it’s hard and scary.

If we fail to act and speak, then who will? It’s tempting to ignore it all and focus on day-to-day exigencies, tempting to be comforted by modest mollifying gestures, tempting to forget how power-hungry governments consistently throughout history have retreated in a crisis, only to surge back with even greater outrages once people are distracted by something else.

Our sole comfort and strength come through Christ. What the months and years to come might bring, no one knows, and things might get worse before they get better, but our hope will not waver, “because he himself was tested by what he suffered, he is able to help those who are being tested,” and Christ has proven through his cross and Resurrection that God’s love always wins. Amen.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AcidiclyBasicGlitch@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Matthew 10:34

This wording seems to be at variance with Jesus' title of "Prince of Peace" (see Isaiah 9:6,7; 65:25). However, Lapide explains He comes to bring a spiritual peace of mind and a peace among the faithful, but not an earthly peace.

This is a much-discussed passage, often explained in terms of the "apocalyptic-eschatological" context of the 1st century.

R. T. France explains the verse, in context with the subsequent verse 35: "The sword Jesus brings is not here military conflict, but, as vv. 35–36 show, a sharp social division which even severs the closest family ties. … Jesus speaks here, as in the preceding and following verses, more of a division in men’s personal response to him."

You might disagree and feel that the sword is meant to be taken literally and not metaphorically, but if so, then presumably you would then be taking the entire verse literally in it's context.

Christ Brings Division 34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. 35 For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; 36 and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’ 37 He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.

Presumably, if you're taking the sword of Jesus literally and within its context, then Jesus is telling sons to take up the sword against their fathers and daughters to take it up against their mothers.

Why would Jesus need or want you to take up a literal weapon against your own parents to prove your love for him?

[–] flamingleg@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Interpreting the passage literally would require you to believe that JC was delivered onto earth carrying a physical sword made out of some physical substance like steel. Maybe to cut his own umbillical cord? Was it a tiny baby-sized sword or an adult sized one that would fit him later as he grew? Something for theologians to ponder perhaps...

The point I am sarcastically making is that all of our reading and interpreting of these passages is figurative. There isn't just a simple binary between black-letter literalism and esoteric woo.

I mentioned the sword, to suggest that the truth is not always emotionally convenient. Do you think JC was calm and tranquill as he was kicking out the money lenders? How should a son treat a father who violates divine law? How should we consider a nation-state that reproduces itself by lies?

Our discernment is a sword, which cuts away what is false to expose what is bloody and true.

Please don't quote wikipedia for a discussion like this lol. I'm much more interested to hear your thoughts and your interpretation. Nobody can read that book and understand it for you.

[–] AcidiclyBasicGlitch@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Oh my bad, I assumed you were making the Hegseth argument in favor of macho Jesus. You would be surprised how many people argue that the sword is meant to be literal.

My interpretation is that Jesus could very easily be warning of situations like the modern day MAGA and so called "Christian" nationalist movement. Christianity is being exploited and weaponized in order to shield and preemptively justify the despicable acts being committed by very evil men.

Nothing they do can be criticized as long as it's being done in the name of spreading Christian Nationalism. It's essentially a modern manifest destiny, and they plan to take whatever they want. If you criticize what men like Trump and Hegseth are doing, you're then accused of attacking America and Christianity.

The hope is that people will be too scared to speak out against them, due to fear of being accused of something like the vague domestic terrorism pre-crimes laid out in NSPM-7.

However, if you choose to stay silent as a Christian when you understand exactly what these men are doing, just because you're afraid of the trouble you might bring on yourself, then you're refusing to pick up the sword of Jesus. You're making your choice by choosing peace in the form of silence in order to placate the authoritarian men who you know are exploiting the message of Christ for their own personal gain. Essentially, Jesus is warning that your silence will make you complicit.

[–] flamingleg@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 weeks ago

Sorry i deleted my comments because i thought you were saying something you weren't, and responded ungenerously.

Your points are well taken, especially concerning silence itself constituting a moral act (or inaction), especially in the context of injustice or deceit.

My interpretation is that Matthew instructs us towards an active, radical love which demands that we act against what is unjust.

I recognise that this view of JC stands at the edge of a slippery slope, where violence can be condoned in Christian terms by the great manipulators of the world, but in our historical moment, i see a greater danger in emphasising the pacifist, passive aspects of JC. I am more afraid of his flock becoming domesticated and losing their ability to discern between true and false, and therefore also between right and wrong. I guess I choose to believe it is more wrong to pacify a righteous anger than it is for that righteous anger to miss its mark.

He entertained the devil during his temptation, and even hinted towards the instrumental nature of evil in the abstract, but he did not hesitate to take great offence at seeing money lenders ply their trade in the house of his Father. In one there is an implied recognition of the value of the work, and in the other a complete rejection.