DOJ Report Reveals Biden Admin.’s Expansive Religious Liberty Violations and Hostility to American Christians

By Family Research Council

The presidency of Joe Biden was a dark, though relatively brief, chapter in American history, replete with widespread prosecution and persecution of American Christians. President Donald Trump repeatedly pledged on the campaign trail to establish a federal task force to investigate and eradicate the anti-Christian bias evinced and enacted by the Biden administration, and has delivered on that promise. On Thursday morning, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) published a 209-page report entitled, “Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias within the Federal Government,” detailing not only the numerous abuses of the Biden administration but also the remedies put in place by the Trump administration.

“Our Nation’s origin and system of government bear the imprint of a Christian worldview and ethic, even as its laws protect religious pluralism. Christian beliefs, in conjunction with contemporary political thought and economic realities, influenced colonial settlers in their decision to overthrow tyranny and pursue independence,” the report’s introduction states. “After the Revolutionary War, Christians then informed the structure and contents of the United States Constitution, its amendments, and contemporaneous state constitutions.”

“But, when Christian beliefs about morality and human nature conflicted with the Biden Administration’s views, religious rights often suffered,” the report’s introduction continues. “The Biden Administration generally tolerated religious beliefs that were privately held but zealously pursued actions to limit Christians’ ability to act in accordance with their faith. This affected matters of deep personal importance to nearly every American: life, family, marriage, and self-identity,” it continues. “The Biden Administration’s policies regularly clashed with a Christian worldview and burdened traditional religious practices. These conflicts frequently arose over abortion, gender ideology, and sexual orientation. Ultimately, the Biden Administration penalized Christians who lived in accordance with their beliefs.”

The report details 14 “key findings” regarding the Biden administration’s abuse of power and violation of religious liberties, ranging from a two-tiered justice system and aggressive prosecution of pro-life activists to the coercive violation of conscience rights and the rabid promotion of LGBT ideology. The taskforce also identifies several “remedies” that the Trump administration has enacted to ensure that the federal government is not weaponized against American Christians.

“No American should live in fear that the federal government will punish them for their faith,” said Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, chair of the Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias, in a statement. He said that the Biden administration’s actions “devastated the lives of many Christian Americans,” adding, “That devastation ended with President Trump. The Department of Justice will continue to expose bad actors who targeted Christians and work tirelessly to restore religious liberty for all Americans of faith.”

During an appearance on “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” Thursday, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Camille Varone further emphasized that the report was “a whole of government effort,” noting that “the task force has 17 cabinet level members and other agency heads. But there were other agencies who were hearing about the work we were doing and were excited to participate. And so the report has findings from far more than just the task force members.”

Below are the report’s key findings and the Trump administration’s proposed actions to eradicate anti-Christian bias from the federal government.

FACE Act Weaponization

The DOJ previously published a report tracking how the Biden administration used the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act to aggressively target pro-life Americans, while largely ignoring the law’s provisions protecting pro-life pregnancy resource centers and houses of worship. The new report characterizes the Biden administration’s DOJ as “an enforcement arm” for the abortion industry.

Over the course of Biden’s tenure in the White House, his DOJ “routinely” collaborated with pro-abortion non-governmental organizations (NGOs) — chiefly the National Abortion Federation, Planned Parenthood, and the Feminist Majority Foundation — to prosecute pro-life Americans. The Biden DOJ would regularly request information from the abortion agencies relating to pro-life protests, prayer vigils, and other pro-life activities. In several cases, the Biden DOJ would even launch prosecutions at the request of pro-abortion NGOs, all while “mostly disregard[ing] pro-life groups.”

Varone also observed that “non-governmental organizations could poke around on the internet in ways that the department couldn’t. There were so many different documents that we found from the National Abortion Federation and Planned Parenthood compiling dossiers where they were monitoring pro-life Americans — collecting information about their travel, their whereabouts, their social media posts, including posting of Bible verses. There were even information about the cars that they drove and photos of some of their children. And they compiled all of this to give it to the Department of Justice, to the people who were charged with prosecuting under the FACE Act in case something might happen [that the DOJ] may view as a potential crime.”

The Biden DOJ also withheld evidence requested by defense attorneys for pro-lifers and regularly pursued harsher penalties for pro-lifers than for pro-abortion activists. “The Biden DOJ pursued significantly higher sentences (near the top range of sentencing guidelines) for pro-life defendants, while pursuing more lenient sentences against the handful of pro-abortion defendants that it charged,” the report notes. On average, the Biden DOJ requested an average sentence of 26.8 months for the 21 pro-life defendants it successfully prosecuted, while requesting an average sentence of only 12.3 months for the six pro-abortion defendants it prosecuted. The most stringent sentence was handed to Lauren Handy, who was sentenced to 58 months (nearly five years) in prison. The Biden DOJ originally requested that she be sentenced to 78 months (six-and-a-half years).

Upon taking office last year, Trump pardoned the pro-life activists targeted by the Biden administration and directed his DOJ to dismiss “with prejudice” three civil lawsuits against pro-life defendants. The Trump DOJ also issued a directive ordering that prosecutors “may only bring FACE Act civil actions and prosecutions in extraordinary circumstances or in cases presenting significant aggravating factors.”

Targeting Traditionalist Catholics

In 2023, it was revealed that the Biden administration’s Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) illegally targeted American Catholics devoted to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, the liturgy celebrated prior to the Second Vatican Council, and even spied on traditionalist Catholic parishes. The FBI’s Richmond, Virginia, field office drafted a memo labeling “radical traditionalist Catholics” as potential “racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists” and detailing plans to infiltrate and spy on traditionalist Catholic parishes. While the Trump DOJ notes that the FBI’s Weaponization Working Group will release a more in-depth report “detailing the day-to-day weaponization of the Richmond Field Office against conservative, practicing Catholics on the basis of guilt-by-association because one career criminal attended a local Catholic church,” the DOJ’s report provides an “overview” of the discrimination.

Citing the recently-indicted Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the Richmond field office labeled traditionalist Catholics as potential “racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists” and began crafting its memo, which was originally intended to be circulated nationwide across the agency. The arrest of career criminal Xavier Louis Lopez for possession of weapons including Molotov cocktails, improvised napalm, and hollow-point bullets provided an opportunity for the Richmond FBI to target a Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) parish with which Lopez was affiliated. Although Our Lady of Fatima parish in Richmond “played no role whatsoever in Lopez’s acquisition or possession of the destructive devices,” the FBI interviewed the pastor, Father James Hewko, who asked to speak with the parish’s legal representation before speaking to the FBI about Lopez. The FBI subsequently monitored both Hewko and his uncle, in addition to interviewing and monitoring others associated with the parish.

Trump’s FBI Director, Kash Patel, has vowed that this “weaponization and politicization of law enforcement” will never be “allowed to happen again.” The FBI’s Weaponization Working Group will disclose further details.

Targeting Concerned Parents

In 2021, as parents across the country were voicing their discontent with radical LGBT policies at local school board meetings, Biden’s attorney general, Merrick Garland, issued a DOJ-wide memo alleging that parents who protest at local school board meetings should be treated as potentially violent domestic extremists. Garland recommended forming a DOJ task force to explore the use of domestic terrorism statutes against parents and “recommended that United States Attorney’s Offices and FBI Field Offices coordinate with local law enforcement and school districts, and that the FBI’s National Threat Operations Center assist by directing credible threats to appropriate law enforcement partners.”

Although some within the DOJ warned that the actions of parents at school board meetings were almost certainly protected under the First Amendment and, even when parents did take action that constituted crimes, those crimes were often not federal offenses. “Those concerns did not win the day,” the Trump DOJ’s report notes. Garland revised his memo, but still urged the Biden DOJ to target concerned parents, who were characterized as “threats” to school boards. The Biden DOJ “quickly acted to follow through.” While the Biden DOJ’s criminal division was “skeptical,” Garland and his team forged ahead with plans to prosecute parents who protested at school board meetings via “possible application of color of law provisions that criminalize conduct that interfere with those participating in programs receiving federal financial assistance.”

Investigation of Christian Charities

Under Biden, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) weaponized the Johnson Amendment against Christian nonprofit organizations. The Johnson Amendment is a U.S. tax code provision prohibiting most nonprofit organizations from endorsing or explicitly opposing political candidates. Biden’s IRS, the Trump DOJ’s report explains, used the Johnson Amendment to target “Christian churches and non-profit institutions, particularly those who espoused traditional Christian views that could be construed with a political valence, scrutinizing their statements for violations.”

The Biden IRS seemingly singled out churches and nonprofit organizations that were characterized as supportive of Republican candidates and conservative issues, while failing to apply the Johnson Amendment to churches and nonprofit organizations aligned or affiliated with Democrats, even those that explicitly supported Democratic candidates or politicians. The investigations were not limited to the speech of pastors, but sought wide-ranging information on the finances and operations of targeted churches and nonprofit organizations. “The Biden IRS’s pattern of enforcement,” the Trump DOJ’s report says, “raised serious concerns about the IRS attempting to regulate what certain pastors could say from the pulpit and chilled the speech of many other clergy.”

The Trump administration’s Treasury Department has subsequently revised its standards for application of the Johnson Amendment, clarifying that houses of worship can communicate to their congregations regarding moral and political matters in accord with their respective teachings without falling afoul of the Johnson Amendment. “Bona fide communications internal to a house of worship, between the house of worship and its congregation, in connection with religious services,” neither “participate” nor “intervene” in political campaigns, “any more than does a family discussion concerning candidates.”

Fining Christian Universities

The Biden administration’s Department of Education levied hefty fines against Christian colleges and universities, while largely failing to pursue similar penalties against secular, non-religious institutions for similar regulatory violations. According to the Trump DOJ’s report, the “average fine against a Christian school was $815,000, compared to $228,571 against public and private institutions.” The two largest fines levied against Christian universities were against Grand Canyon University ($37.7 million) and Liberty university ($14 million).

The fines against Liberty University were for supposed violations of the Clery Act, which provides the public with information regarding a university’s safety. The Trump DOJ’s report notes that the fines against Grand Canyon University and Liberty University “dwarfed the fines levied against Pennsylvania State University ($2.4 million) for 11 Clery Act violations involving the school’s failure to report sex offenses relating to its assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky’s serial child molestation, and against Michigan State University ($4.5 million) for its failure to disclose sex offenses committed by Larry Nassar, a team physician who sexually assaulted hundreds of athletes.”

Under the Trump administration, the Department of Education has not only dismissed its case against Grand Canyon University, but rescinded its fine and has “also committed to no longer disproportionately targeting Christian colleges and universities and to affirming the rights of Christian colleges and universities to act in accordance with their faith-based identity.”

Conscience Violations

In numerous cases, the Biden administration also failed or refused to prosecute federal conscience violation cases, allowing institutions to coerce Christians into violating their sincerely held religious beliefs or penalizing them for adhering to their Christian morals. In one example, the Biden DOJ dropped a lawsuit against the University of Vermont Medical Center for compelling Christian employees to participate in committing abortions.

“This case is emblematic of the Biden Administration’s approach to conscience enforcement: When the scope of federal protections was legally contested, the Administration generally chose the interpretation least protective of religious objectors and resolved active enforcement matters through administrative means, if possible, rather than litigation,” the Trump DOJ’s report comments. “Government inaction of this kind is an especially damaging source of anti-Christian bias precisely because it is difficult to see and harder to remedy.”

Anti-Christian Policy

The Biden administration’s anti-Christian bias was not relegated to enforcement actions, but also to policy choices. The administration supported the “Equality Act,” which would have “fully eliminate[d] statutory religious protections for Christians and other religions that hold traditional social values” by barring, without exemption, “discrimination” on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity in areas such as public accommodations and facilities, education, federal funding, employment, housing, credit, and the jury system. Although numerous academics and religious leaders warned that the legislation would amount to a significant infringement on First Amendment rights, the Biden administration forcefully supported the legislation in Congress.

“Although the Biden Administration was ultimately unsuccessful in its push to enact the Equality Act, it sought to implement the same policy goals wherever possible through executive actions, guidance memoranda, and rulemakings,” the Trump DOJ’s report announced. The administration’s “overbroad” application of the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Bostock v. Clayton County targeted Christians and Christian organizations for their biblical worldview on biological sex and human sexuality, while Biden’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) worked overtime to entrench transgender ideology in the federal bureaucracy and classify gender transition procedures as necessary and life-saving medicine.

Biden’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) “dismissed sincerely held religious beliefs regarding sexual orientation and gender identity as ‘discrimination in hiring … cloaked as religious practice,’” while the Department of Education likewise shifted its non-discrimination policies to promote and hide gender transition procedures for children. The Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Labor, and Agriculture all similarly revised their guidance on key statutes and legal precedents, such as Bostock and Titles VII, IX, and X of the Civil Rights Act, to shield progressive agenda items.

In many cases, when Christians and other professionals or professional organizations suggested, based on empirical evidence and research, that gender transition procedures (especially for children) may not be harmless or beneficial, the Biden administration and its agencies often sidelined or outright silenced those voices, or ignored them. For example, when the British government published the extensive Cass Review, detailing the significant dangers posed by exposing minors to gender transition procedures and ultimately terminating the British government’s support for the practice, the Biden administration “maintained that the report did not alter their support for minors’ access to sex-rejecting procedures and medical intervention.”

The Biden administration’s policy decisions also encouraged state and local governments to bar Christian couples from participating in foster programs, claiming that the couples’ sincerely held religious beliefs on biological sex or human sexuality would pose a threat to children who identify as transgender or homosexual. Other actions targeted talk-based Christian therapy designed to assist those struggling with unwanted same-sex attraction and even attempted to bar Christians from practicing therapy in many areas.

Numerous executive actions were also taken by the Biden administration to proliferate the practice of abortion, even after the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling overturning Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Biden administration actions attempted to skirt federal statutes barring taxpayer funding from being used for abortions and directly used federal agencies to facilitate abortions. The Biden administration regularly replaced departmental faith offices with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) offices and repeatedly sidelined Christians and Christian organizations.

Biden’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS), for example, hosted 59 meetings and roundtables with non-Christian faith-based organizations to discuss potential terrorist threats and safety. The Biden DHS hosted only two such meetings with Christian organizations. The Trump DOJ referred to Family Research Council’s report on increasing hostility against Christians to note that the “disparity is notable given that Christians comprise an estimated 62 percent of the U.S. population and have faced increased hostility and violence in recent years.”

Other Biden administration actions that targeted Christians included adverse employment actions, such as eliminating religious discrimination safeguards in the EEOC and issuing blanket denials of religious exemption requests, particularly those related to COVID-19 restrictions and mandates. According to a survey of federal employees, nearly one third (30.1%) were denied pay based on their religious objections to COVID-19 mandates, while others were denied travel, reassigned, lost their security clearances, or were formally reprimanded. Nearly one fifth (18.3%) reported having been removed from their posts and nearly 12% said that they were fired.

What’s Next?

While the Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias will continue its work through 2027, it has already begun working to eradicate anti-Christian bias from the federal government. Pursuant to the taskforce’s recommendations, most federal agencies have opened and operate faith offices, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has issued memos reinforcing religious liberties, and the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued guidance on religious liberty protections afforded by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, in addition to other actions taken by federal agencies. The task force will publish further remedial actions taken in its 2027 report.

Religious liberty advocates have thanked the Trump administration for its efforts to tackle the issue of anti-Christian bias and the weaponization of the federal government against Americans of faith, but have warned that there is still much work to be done. “This is a very good report on the pervasive anti-Christian bias under the Biden administration; capturing many of the domestic religious liberty concerns we have noticed in recent years, especially on marriage, family, sexuality, and life issues — as well as hostility against Christianity in general,” said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins in a statement. He noted that hostility towards Christians skyrocketed under Biden’s tenure, including violent attacks on pro-life pregnancy resource centers and Christian churches. “Yet, as this DOJ report shows, the Biden administration did very little in response and instead weaponized its resources to target Christians including imprisoning grandmothers praying outside of abortion centers.”

“This report does raise questions about what comes next. And what happens the next time a radical progressive like President Biden comes to power? We must ensure this targeting never happens again under any future administration,” Perkins asserted. “We must ensure that the bedrock of American society and culture is placed on a firm footing in which freedom is respected for everyone. What better time to do this than our nation’s 250th birthday? Religious freedom is seldom handed to the passive; it is claimed by those who exercise it even when a hostile culture says they may not.”

“Now is the time to take this insight and put in safeguards at the federal, state, and local levels that will prevent future Democrat administrations from hollowing out the First Amendment, making it difficult for them to pervert America,” Perkins continued. “Ultimately, the preventative prescription to anti-Christian bias from our own government is Christians sharing the gospel and living out their faith in a God honoring way. While we should press on the government to act justly, it’s up to the church to change the culture that has given rise to this anti-Christian bias.”

During “Washington Watch” Thursday, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Varone indicated that the DOJ is currently investigating whether leftist NGOs violated the law in their dealings with the Biden administration. “At minimum, it would violate best practices,” she noted. “And so we’d start with that. There are concerns that some of the conduct here may have gone further. I can’t get into specifics because DOJ handles all of its internal personnel and investigations privately. But as the report mentions, appropriate referrals have been made.”

Travis Weber, vice president for Policy and Government Affairs at FRC, said in comments to The Washington Stand, “With this report, President Trump and his administration have issued an important corrective to the anti-Christian bias that was tolerated, advanced, and/or enabled for too long by the Biden administration. Yet we must not stop here, but rather must determine next steps and consider how this hostility manifests in our culture and the local communities on which our country is knit together.” He added, “For America to flourish in the long-term, we must move beyond the political ‘see-saw’ we are currently on and regain that ‘common ground’ of national consensus on which freedom rests.”

“We must remember that what the Trump administration is responding to politically is — more deeply — a cultural and spiritual issue,” Weber observed. “We are often ‘responding’ to bias and hostility. Instead, we need to think proactively about how to shift our culture back toward a respect for freedom and faith — and the role that both play in society, for the benefit of ALL members of society. As the Trump administration considers what to do with the findings detailed in this report, Christians in America also need to be asking ourselves the same question: ‘What’s our next step?’”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Biden Admin’s Anti-Christian Bias Was Even Worse Than You Think

Amid Rising Anti-Christian Hostility in Public Schools, LifeWise Wins Court Victory

PERKINS: New Report Thaws the Chill of Bias against Christians

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

The Iranian ‘Oskar Schindler’

By Amil Imani

In the chilling winter of 1940, Paris had lost its light. The Nazi flag flew over the Eiffel Tower, and the machinery of the Holocaust was beginning to grind through the streets of France. While many diplomats packed their bags or looked the other way to preserve their careers, one man stayed behind in the Iranian consulate. His name was Abdol Hossein Sardari, and he was about to engage in a high-stakes game of legal gymnastics and moral courage that would save thousands of lives.

WATCH: Why did an Iranian Muslim save Jews in the Holocaust?

Often overshadowed by the story of Oskar Schindler, Sardari’s efforts were perhaps even more audacious because he operated entirely within the belly of the beast, using the Nazis’ own pseudoscientific racial theories against them.

When the Vichy government and Nazi occupiers began implementing anti-Jewish laws, they targeted anyone of Jewish descent. Sardari, a junior diplomat left in charge of the Iranian mission, we saw the impending catastrophe. He did not just see a humanitarian crisis; he saw a threat to Iranian sovereignty.

To protect Iranian Jews living in France, Sardari crafted a brilliant, if surreal, historical argument. He reached out to Nazi officials and claimed that Iranian Jews – whom he called Jugutis – were not racially Jewish in the sense defined by the Nuremberg Laws. He argued they were Mosaics, which he defined as Persians who followed the teachings of Moses but remained ethnically and racially Aryan.

It was a bold gamble. He was effectively telling the architects of racial purity that their definitions were flawed. Through persistent lobbying and the use of his personal wealth to host lavish dinners for German officials, he managed to secure an exemption. The Nazi racial experts, baffled by the complexities of Persian history, eventually conceded that Jugutis should be treated as Iranians and, therefore, as non-Jewish under the law.

The legal exemption for Jugutis was only the beginning. As the war progressed and the Vel d’Hiv Roundup saw thousands of Jews deported to Drancy and onwards to death camps, Sardari realized that legal arguments would not be enough. He needed to get people out of the country.

Without the authorization of his government – which had been invaded by the British and Soviets and was no longer paying his salary – Sardari began issuing blank Iranian passports. He stayed in occupied Paris at great personal risk, using his own funds to keep the consulate running. He issued over 500 Iranian passports, but the impact was much larger. Each passport was often used for an entire family, and many were given to non-Iranian Jews as well.

By providing these documents, he granted the holders the protection of a neutral state. When the Gestapo came knocking, a Persian passport was a shield that turned a target of the regime into a protected foreign national.

Sardari’s heroism was not without a price. When the war ended, his government did not welcome him home as a hero. In fact, he was investigated for embezzlement and for issuing unauthorized passports. It was not until much later that his name was cleared, though he never sought recognition for what he had done.

He lived out his final years in a modest flat in South London, having lost his property and pension during the Iranian Revolution of 1979. He died in 1981, largely forgotten by the world he helped save.

“When I was asked about the passports, I simply said I did my duty as a human being. If I had to do it again, I would.” – Abdol Hossein Sardari

>His story finally reached a global audience through the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, which helped document his incredible defiance.

Estimates suggest that Sardari’s actions saved between 2,000 and 3,000 lives. While numbers are a common way to measure the scale of such deeds, the comparison to Oskar Schindler is less about the tally and more about the isolation of the act. Unlike Schindler, who eventually had a network of support, Sardari was a solitary figure in a diplomatic vacuum.

His story is a vital reminder that the Aryan identity, which the Nazis used to exclude and destroy, was reclaimed by an actual Persian to include and protect. He used the enemy’s logic to dismantle their cruelty. Sardari proved that even in the darkest bureaucratic labyrinths, a single lamp of human decency can light the way to safety. He did not just save individuals; he saved the very idea of Iranian hospitality and the ancient bond between the Persians and Jewish people.

©2026 . All rights reserved.

America Needs the Bible

By Jerry Newcombe, D. Min.

America needs the Bible more than ever. Thankfully, at the Museum of the Bible last week, they had various leaders read through the whole book. Even the president participated.

Two months before it happened, I wrote about it, calling it “An Ambitious Bible Reading Plan.”

AmericaReadsTheBible.com explains their vision: “In honor of the 250th birthday of the United States, America Reads the Bible serves as a spiritual celebration of our nation’s founding ideals and a call to rediscover the truth that still anchors us today.”

Just as in the Bible days, when the Scriptures were read, revival would often break out, the organizers of America Reads the Bible desire the same outcome. Bunni Pounds, head of Christians Engaged, is the chief organizer of this unique event, which was carried by livestream through PureFlix.com.

Many faith leaders read from the Scriptures. As noted, even the president participated with a few short verses. As the Bible-reading website noted: “As part of America Reads the Bible, President Trump read 2 Chronicles 7:11–22—a powerful call for a nation to humble itself, pray, and return to God.”

The United States of America has greatly benefited from the Holy Bible. When Ronald Reagan was president, the federal government declared 1983 as “The Year of the Bible.”

On the eve of that year-long celebration, Newsweek had a cover story (12/27/82) on the Bible and its impact on America. They wrote: “[F]or centuries [the Bible] has exerted an unrivaled influence on American culture, politics and social life. Now historians are discovering that the Bible, perhaps even more than the Constitution, is our founding document: the source of the powerful myth of the United States as a special, sacred nation, a people called by God to establish a model society, a beacon to the world.”

I wouldn’t call it a myth. But the Bible as “our founding document” makes sense to me.

Later, TIME magazine had a cover story, “Whatever Happened to Ethics,” which included an article, “Looking to Its Roots” (5/25/87). The article indirectly paid homage to the Bible’s influence on the founding of our nation: “Ours is the only country deliberately founded on a good idea. That good idea combines a commitment to man’s inalienable rights with the Calvinist belief in an ultimate moral right and sinful man’s obligation to do good. These articles of faith, embodied in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution, literally govern our lives today.”

Many people today are not Biblically literate, so even if they read writings of early Americans, they may not see that the Bible (in particular the King James Version) contributed heavily to the prose, concepts, and institutions of the nation in the first few centuries.

The Bible was the number one book, found in virtually every home. The number two book was Pilgrim’s Progress by John Bunyan, which is completely based on the Bible.

The settlers and the founders of our nation knew the Scriptures. For example, George Washington, the father of our country, knew the Bible well and phrases from its pages flow into his writings and speeches. Public and private statements drip with phraseology from the Bible.

Dr. Peter Lillback and I have an entire Appendix on this in our book, George Washington’s Sacred Fire (Providence Forum, 2006). Here are just a few (among dozens of) examples: “measure of iniquity,” “edict of Pharaoh—bricks without straw,” “Lord of Hosts,” “the Lord gives and takes,” “Lord and Ruler of Nations,” etc.

Our first president’s favorite Bible verse is Micah 4:4. “But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of the Lord of hosts hath spoken it.”

Washington cited this verse in whole or in part more than 40 times. He saw this as a metaphor for America. He even cites this verse in some of the encouraging letters he wrote to Jewish assemblies—such as Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island. He was grateful that here in America, “there shall be none to make them afraid,” including Jews, who have often been persecuted.

Our 16th president clearly read the Bible. Like George Washington, if you cut him, it is as if Abraham Lincoln also would bleed Scriptures.

Don’t tell the ACLU, but there are at least three Bible verses chiseled in stone in his Second Inaugural Address at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.

One of our great icons is the Liberty Bell. It has a Bible verse on it. “Proclaim liberty throughout the land to all the inhabitants thereof” (Leviticus 25:10).

And we could go on and on. Perhaps, President Andrew Jackson summed it all up the best: The Bible is “the rock upon which our republic rests.” Kudos to Bunni Pounds and her team at Christians Engaged for organizing this event, America Reads the Bible. We need more Bible, not less.

©2026 All rights reserved.

White House Shooter Manifesto: Would-Be Trump Assassin Was a Radical Anti-Christian Leftist

By The Geller Report

Fox News reporter: The shooters manifesto said he wanted to target administration officials.

A bloodbath was averted. The Democrat party should be designated a terrorist organization.

WATCH: Hakeem Jeffries doubles down after shooting at correspondence dinner again calls for ‘maximum warfare’ on Republicans

According to reports, Allen’s brother alerted New London Police Department after receiving the alleged manifesto before the incident.

U.S. Secret Service and Montgomery County Police Department later interviewed Allen’s sister, Avriana Allen, at the family home in Rockville. Key points from the interview:

  • She said her brother often made radical statements and spoke about doing “something” to fix today’s world.
  • She confirmed he bought 2 handguns and a shotgun from Cap Tactical Firearms and stored them at their parents’ home without their knowledge.
  • He regularly trained with those firearms at shooting ranges.
  • He was reportedly linked to a group called “The Wide Awakes.”
  • He also attended a “No Kings” protest in California.

WHCD gunman Cole Allen sent anti-Trump manifesto, said he wanted to take out Trump officials

By Amanda Macias Fox News

ASHINGTON — Gunman Cole Allen sent an anti-President Trump manifesto to his family members about 10 minutes before opening fire at Saturday night’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner — calling himself the “Friendly Federal Assassin” and revealing he was trying to kill Trump administration officials, The Post has learned.

“Turning the other cheek is for when you yourself are oppressed. I’m not the person raped in a detention camp. I’m not the fisherman executed without trial,” Allen wrote in the document, which a relative provided to police, a US official said.

“I’m not a schoolkid blown up or a child starved or a teenage girl abused by the many criminals in this administration. Turning the other cheek when *someone else* is oppressed is not Christian behavior; it is complicity in the oppressor’s crimes.”

Allen described his targets as including “Administration officials (not including [FBI Director Kash] Patel): they are targets, prioritized from highest-ranking to lowest.”

“I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes,” Allen wrote, apparently referring to the president.

WHCD shooting suspect was targeting Trump officials in attack on ballroom, officials say, trying to ‘take whoever he could’

Continue reading.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Puts Ambitious White House Ballroom Project Back Into National Spotlight Following Third Assassination Attempt

DOJ Investigating Alleged Leftist Ties to White House Correspondents’ Dinner Suspect

‘You’re A Disgrace’: Trump Snaps At ’60 Minutes’ Reporter After She Reads From Would-Be-Assassin’s Manifesto

Alleged Shooter’s Manifesto Included DEI Self-Audit Before Attack On Trump Officials

Ex-US Gymnast Jennifer Sey Reacts After ‘Terrifying’ Shooting At White House Correspondents’ Dinner

Would-Be Trump Assassin Wasn’t Only One Encountering ‘Insane’ Security Arrangement At Glitzy Dinner

TERROR ATTACK: Would Be Assassin At White House Correspondents’ Dinner Was ‘TEACHER OF THE YEAR IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY”

POSTS ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Young Men Are Becoming Increasingly Religious, Polling Confirms

By Family Research Council

Newly released polling data has confirmed what many pastors and churchgoers have long suspected: young men are bucking the cultural trend of declining religiosity and returning to the church in droves. A Gallup survey released Thursday revealed a remarkable surge in young men saying that religion is “very important” to them, with data from 2024-2025 showing 42%, a 14-point increase from 2022-2023.

The poll found that the phenomenon happening among young men aged 18-29 is not happening among their female peers, only 29% of whom said that religion is “very important” to them (a figure that has stayed roughly the same since 2020). The upward trend in religiosity is also largely not occurring among other age groups, with the exception of men aged 30-49 (who saw a five-point increase over the same timespan) and men aged 50-64 (who saw a three-point increase). Notably, the numbers mark a clear reversal from the beginning of the millennium, when young women led young men in saying that religion was “very important” to them (52% vs. 43%).

As reported by The New York Times, college students like Mason Gubser likely epitomize the changing attitudes of many young men in their approach to faith. Gubser told the Times that he had become dissatisfied with a life centered on constant phone scrolling. “All my entertainment is right here in front of me, but there’s no fulfillment from that,” he said. “I wanted something new and something traditional and something that felt holy.”

Gubser, now 21, eventually found the Catholic center on the Texas A&M University campus, where he became Catholic two years ago and is now engaged to be married. “What I was really looking for, and still am, was purpose,” he remarked. “The church definitely provides that.”

The surge in religion among young men is likely driving upward trends in different segments of Christianity, particularly Catholicism. Data acquired from 140 of the country’s 175 dioceses “saw a 38 percent increase in Easter converts across U.S. dioceses relative to last year.” In addition, Orthodox churches are also seeing increases in both attendance and membership, which reportedly is being driven by young men. Another sign of a potentially budding revival are sales of Bibles, which saw a 22% spike in sales in 2024 and are currently seeing an explosion in the sales of high-end versions.

David Closson, who serves as director of the Center for Biblical Worldview at Family Research Council, sees the new Gallup data as highly significant.

“The new Gallup data is striking, particularly because it reverses a long-standing trend,” he told The Washington Stand. “For decades, young women have been more religious than young men, but that gap has now flipped. One factor appears to be political realignment. The report itself notes that much of the increase is concentrated among young Republican men, suggesting that broader ideological shifts are influencing religious engagement.”

“At the same time,” Closson continued, “we should not ignore deeper cultural dynamics. For years, young men have been told that traditional expressions of masculinity are problematic or even harmful. In that context, it is not surprising that some are gravitating toward faith communities that offer a clearer sense of identity, purpose, and moral framework. For many young men, church provides structure, accountability, and a vision of ordered freedom, all of which can be especially compelling in a culture that often feels unmoored.”

Clossen further noted that cultural factors are likely key to understanding the differences between the religious movement of young men and their female counterparts.

“The divergence between young men and young women also raises important questions. While young men are showing renewed interest in the importance of religion, young women’s numbers have remained flat and, in some respects, are at historic lows,” he explained. “That suggests we are not simply seeing a general religious revival, but a more targeted shift that may reflect differences in how young men and women are responding to cultural pressures and expectations.”

As for the church, Closson posited that the current moment “presents a significant opportunity. The data suggest that many young men are open to deeper conversations about meaning, truth, and faith. Churches should be ready to meet that moment with serious teaching, intentional discipleship, and a robust vision of biblical manhood that emphasizes responsibility, service, and spiritual leadership. At the same time, the church must not lose sight of the need to engage young women thoughtfully and faithfully, ensuring that the message of the gospel speaks clearly and compellingly to both men and women in a rapidly changing cultural landscape.”

Joseph Backholm, who serves as senior fellow for Biblical Worldview and Strategic Engagement at FRC, observed that the new Gallup data points toward an inevitable cultural yearning for the eternal. “I think young men are discovering that materialism doesn’t have the answers to the questions they’re asking,” he told TWS. “A life without rules or meaning creates chaos, inside of us and around us. Secularism has an obvious appeal because it offers the opportunity to do whatever you want, but it doesn’t work because everyone does what they want. What was supposed to make everyone happier actually makes everyone more miserable, and secularism can’t explain why. So, it shouldn’t be surprising that young people are turning to church in an effort to understand the world as it actually is.”

“Young men also might be drawn to religion as a form of rebellion,” Backholm elaborated. “The Left has been waging a war on men for a while now, so it’s possible that young men are being drawn to religion as a way of rebelling against everything on the Left. If that’s true, that might be part of the reason young men are more religious than young women. Secularists like women better than men. As a result, women like secularism more.”

Still, “It’s also true that the Holy Spirit is at work in the world and Jesus is drawing us to Himself,” he reflected. “We live in a war between truth and lies, but Jesus promised us that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church. While we see evidence of the war all around us, we shouldn’t be surprised when we see the truth advancing in measurable ways. Over time, that’s the only possible outcome.”

“Lies are eventually exposed as such,” Backholm concluded. “It often takes longer than we prefer, but lies do not endure because they cannot endure. The world was never going to just descend into universal secularism. We need to be confident that the truth is true, and right now, it seems young men are discovering this in a new way.”

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘America Reads the Bible’ Kicks Off in D.C. in Record-Breaking Fashion

God’s Presence Is His Greatest Provision

RELATED VIDEO: America Reads the Bible — Opening Ceremony

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

“Practicing Muslims Can’t Disavow ‘Sharia’ Even If They Wanted To”

By The Geller Report

As a professor at Georgetown University and Washington Post columnist, Shadi Hamid is a made guy in today’s leftist establishment, and it is from those positions of oracular authority that he has delivered a sobering message to the growing movement to ban Sharia in the United States. In the WaPo on Wednesday, he declared that Muslims should not have to assimilate into American society and should not be expected to do so, and that efforts to ban Sharia were not only bigoted and “Islamophobic,” but also futile, as Muslims simply weren’t going to give Sharia up. And he’s right about that part, albeit in the midst of being wildly disingenuous about the nature of Sharia itself.

This being the Washington Post, and the leftist establishment being what it is, Hamid strikes the expected victimhood pose. He complains that “the Sharia-Free America Caucus has swelled to 60 House members. Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Alabama) recently said, ‘I’m ready to get rid of the Muslims.’” Hamid claims that this sort of thing is completely unjustified in the face of evidence that Muslims are loyal, patriotic Americans: “The instinct, when faced with this, is to marshal the evidence. Over the past decade, surveys have shown that American Muslims are patriotic, civically engaged and more likely than the U.S. general public to say that political violence is never justified. You’d think that would be enough. Except it shouldn’t have to be. And this is where it gets uncomfortable — for me, at least.”

Hamid is uncomfortable because he believes that Muslims in America shouldn’t be expected to become like other Americans. “The assimilation defense — look how well we’ve integrated — is satisfying to make. But it concedes a premise I no longer accept: that a minority community’s right to be in the United States depends on its willingness to converge with the cultural mainstream. It shouldn’t depend on that. It shouldn’t depend on anything.”

Muslims are different, he says, and that’s a good thing: “This is where the conversation needs to shift, and where it becomes less about politics and more about culture: Muslims are different in certain ways. How could they not be? Islam shapes how its adherents think about family, sexuality and what it means to live a good life. Simply put, Islam is also a more public religion than Christianity. Muslim prayer is visually striking and often communal. If a Muslim doesn’t drink alcohol or fasts during Ramadan, that will be more noticeable to others. Moreover, practicing Muslims — despite being repeatedly asked to — can’t disavow ‘sharia’ even if they wanted to. Sharia, roughly translated as Islamic law, includes guidelines on how to pray, fast and otherwise observe what it means to submit to God in daily practice.”

The bad faith that is manifest in this and all other recent defenses of Sharia against the supposedly bigoted “Islamophobes” who are trying to oppose it is that all these defenses of Sharia completely ignore the political, supremacist, expansionist, and violent aspects of Sharia, and bank on their audience’s ignorance of the fact that those aspects even exist. Hamid, as a professor at Georgetown’s Saudi-funded Islamic apologetics mill, the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (ACMCU), certainly knows that Sharia isn’t simply about “guidelines on how to pray, fast and otherwise observe what it means to submit to God in daily practice,” and that it asserts authority over non-Muslims and institutionalizes discrimination against non-Muslims in numerous ways.

Yet he doesn’t come even close to hinting that those aspects of Sharia exist. Anyone who isn’t sure whether Hamid or I are telling the truth about this need only look at the fact that Iran, Saudi Arabia, and several other Muslim countries are Sharia states. Their entire systems of law are based on Sharia. If Sharia were simply religious governing one’s observance of Muslim practices, that would make no sense.

Shadi Hamid, however, as a Georgetown professor and Washington Post columnist, is a cosseted member of the leftist establishment. That establishment has decreed that anyone who is outside that establishment and questions anyone within it is simply a racist “Islamophobe,” and thus safely ignored. Shadi Hamid is thereby freed of any obligation to confront the reality of Sharia or his disingenuousness in this article. He can and will simply wave it away as “bigotry.” And the whole charade will go merrily on.

AUTHOR

Robert Spencer

RELATED ARTICLES:

For Israel, Things Are Looking Up In Latin America

U.S. Warship Cripples Iranian Vessel That Tried to Break Hormuz Blockade

Multiple Islamic Attacks on Jewish Targets in The UK

More Antisemitic Displays in an Italy Gone Mad

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

U.S. Ambassador to Vatican: It is ‘intolerable that Christians are being targeted for persecution in Nigeria’

By Jihad Watch

Kudos to Brian Burch for raising the issue of Muslim s murdering Christians for their faith in Nigeria. The Vatican has not prioritized  the issue as it should have done. Just days ago, Pope Leo XIV in Cameroon urged “Christians and Muslims to heal wounds of conflict,” but the situation there doesn’t involve Christians wantonly murdering Muslims for being Muslims. It’s Muslims killing Christians, and so it is appalling that the pope put both groups on the same level. It also signifies how flippantly the leader of the world’s 1.4 billion Catholics is handling the critical issue of Christian persecution. He’s more concerned about support for open-door migration policies that allow free societies to be flooded with illegal migrants, including jihadists and those who harm innocent people.

“US Embassy to the Vatican: Nigerian Christians Are Being Targeted,” by Ishmael Adibuah, National Catholic Register, April 18, 2026:

ROME — It is “intolerable” that Christians are being targeted for persecution in Nigeria, said U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See Brian Burch during an event in Rome on Friday.

The group Solidarity with the Persecuted Church (SPC) and the Embassy of the United States to the Holy See organized the April 17 conference at the embassy on threats to religious freedom in Nigeria.

Burch spoke to EWTN News on the sidelines about the stance of the U.S. on religious violence in Nigeria. He described the current situation as a “conflict between radical Islamic groups and Christians because of their faith.”

“The United States is the greatest friend of religious liberty,” Burch said. “The purpose of this event is to call attention to the plight of Christians who are being targeted and killed in Nigeria. Unfortunately, there are extremist Islamic groups that have been targeting Christians specifically in their churches and their homes, and the scale and size of the persecution of Christians there is intolerable.”

Asked about the denial by some Nigerian government officials that Christians specifically are being targeted, Burch insisted that the current violence against Christians is alarming, citing U.S. President Donald Trump, who designated Nigeria as a country of particular concern in 2025.

“The president has said that Christians face an existential crisis in Nigeria, and thanks to his leadership, he is now acting to bring an end to this. We have called on the Nigerian government to take necessary steps to protect Christians, and the United States government is now working in partnership with the Nigerian government to assist them in doing just that,” he said.

Steven Wagner, president of SPC, underscored the importance of Nigeria for Christianity in Africa and the need for the Holy See to be involved in raising awareness.

“As Nigeria goes, so goes Africa. More Christians are martyred for their faith in Nigeria than in any other country on earth. There is a huge crisis of internally displaced persons. We are calling on the Vatican to increase public awareness of the problem and to continue to encourage the government of Nigeria to make progress in protecting its people,” Wagner said.…

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

IDF Unit Destroys Much of Hezbollah’s Terrorist Infrastructure, Including a Vast Network of Tunnels

Cadet suspended from RAF officer-training course for saying Islam is main security threat to UK

Iranian top dog: Trump lacks the guts for suicide, but ‘the Americans will arrest Trump and put him in prison’

Palestine Action Thug Hits Policewoman With a Sledgehammer

Chicago: Muslim migrant used social media to encourage attacks on enemies of the Islamic State and recruit jihadis

Israel and Lebanon Share a Common Enemy

France: New Muslim mayor of La Courneuve, Paris hoists ‘Palestinian’ flag at city hall

Yemen’s Houthis threaten to close Bab al-Mandeb Strait, claim ‘no force will be able to open it’

Palestinian Authority accuses Israel of introducing rats to chase Palestinians

RELATED VIDEO: Benjamin Netanyahu: ‘Israel is fighting the battle against radical Islam…that threatens the future of the world’

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

For God and Country — Or for Myself?

By The Catholic Thing

David G. Bonagura, Jr.: Americans must rediscover a love of God and country, and a willingness to serve them above all else.

Irecently discovered All Creatures Great and Small, a 1930s-set British comedy-drama chronicling a trio of veterinarians working in rural Yorkshire. In the latest episode that I watched, Great Britain declares war on Nazi Germany and the draft began. The characters, remembering only too well the horrors of World War I, automatically took up the old practices: advising younger men about enlisting arrangements and rationing food items.

That last really struck me. For the vets and their families, Mrs. Hall baked hot cross buns as she had twenty years earlier, using a less-than-ideal substitute for sugar, which was being rationed. The results: a knowing laugh over the poor-tasting treats to come.

The United States last practiced rationing during World War II. What would happen today if, for whatever grave reason, our political leaders asked us to ration? I think we all know. We, the citizens of the most prosperous nation the world has ever known, blessed with food and beverage in quantities and quality that the Greatest Generation could not have imagined eighty years ago, would break into open rebellion. 

Sacrifice? That’s no longer a virtue. Personal fulfillment is the name of the contemporary game. And our incredible abundance of material goods, which has spoiled us rotten, exists to serve this end. We ask only what our country can do for us — surely, we don’t owe it anything. 

But it’s not just our country we refuse these days. Collectively, as Catholics, we largely do not sacrifice for God either. Our Church-imposed Lenten fasting has been whittled down to the barest minimum of two days; self-imposed fasts — the thing we “give up” — typically are from a single luxury item. We also are not much inclined to put a decent offering into the parish basket each week, and many outright refuse to give to diocesan appeals. Care for the poor, help for the sick, healthcare for retired priests and religious, training for seminarians? No thanks, we tell ourselves — we know better where to direct our money. 

“For God and Country” was once a proud motto for Americans. We can find the phrase, sometimes in English and sometimes in Latin, inscribed into the cornerstone of churches and even public buildings. Its ubiquity implies widespread acceptance of the need to sacrifice for these two great entities that are bigger than we are. We should serve them – and most once believed that they were worth serving.

What’s striking today is not the widespread individualism that has long since replaced this service mentality. It’s that the leading institutions of God and Country – the Church and the State – have unwittingly contributed to our selfishness rather than call us out of to it. 

Many Protestant denominations have forsaken the Ten Commandments for a “love is love” ersatz morality. In 1966, the American bishops ended the obligatory penance of Friday abstinence in favor of a penance of one’s choosing (an exhortation that almost no one knows about, but I digress). 

Some Holy Days of Obligation have gradually been lifted or shifted. Most pastors blanch at the suggestion of requiring Mass attendance for children seeking the sacraments. There seems to be a persistent fear that if the faithful are asked to do too much, they won’t come back. So they are left to do largely as they please. 

As religion’s influence has waned, the State has tried to fill the power vacuum. Now nearly every aspect of human life is subordinated to it. Having subsumed the roles of community and local governments, the State fans the flames of selfishness with laws that pit individuals over families and local institutions — as well as with programs, such as healthcare and entitlements, that are administered directly from the government to individuals. From 2001-2006, the U.S. Army tried to tap into the individualist mindset with its “An Army of One” recruiting campaign.

Can Americans rediscover a love of God and country along with a willingness to serve them above the self? Without a public Christian presence and with every aspect of public life torn by political partisanship, a near-term resurrection is highly unlikely. 

What is needed, ironically, are individuals — millions of them — who find a motive greater than themselves and then step forward to make things happen in their communities and churches. 

The reclusive woman whose new maternity emboldens her to join the PTA. The new father who ditches his videogames to coach his child’s teams. The wayward couple who begins attending church once children are born. The school children who do so much service work that they practice it as an ingrained habit throughout their lives. The pastor who is so on fire with the faith that he inspires and teaches his parishioners to love Jesus Christ more deeply. 

The passion of each of these exemplars then, we pray, will inspire others to elevate God and country above themselves. 

Multiple cultures in history have espoused a “For God and Country” way of life. A Christian culture, shaped by faith in Jesus Christ who gave His live in service of all, should be the model of this kind of living. “Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” (John 15:13) 

But the self and its unquenchable desires, as every sincere believer knows, will not be mastered without a fight. And fight we must. The degree that the self can learn to serve rather than to be served is a fitting measure of the health of our faith and our nation. 

You may also enjoy:

David Carlin, Of Providence and Presidents 

Hadley Arkes, Reason, Revelation, and the American Regime

AUTHOR

David G. Bonagura, Jr. is the author, most recently, of 100 Tough Questions for Catholics: Common Obstacles to Faith Today, and the translator of Jerome’s Tears: Letters to Friends in Mourning. An adjunct professor at St. Joseph’s Seminary and Catholic International University, he serves as the religion editor of The University Bookman, a review of books founded in 1960 by Russell Kirk. His personal website is here.

EDITORS NOTE: This Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2026 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

The Politics of Shill

By The Catholic Thing

The pope may be many things in many contexts, but he should avoid becoming a shill for the Democratic Party. This is how he came across when he delivered a political statement just after he had been visited by David Axelrod, Obama’s behind-the-scenes heavy.

The effect was redoubled when leading liberal Cardinals, including Chicago’s Blase Cupich, put on a media floorshow to promote the pope’s  “message to America.” It was prattle we had heard many times before, from nice, peaceful politicians like Jimmy Carter: peace-not-war, appeasement, and negotiation at any price.

The pope had been proclaiming this himself on Twitter when he was only Cardinal Robert Prevost: simplistic Leftism along with Democratic talking points, and open immigration.

President Trump replied: “Leo should get his act together as Pope, use Common Sense, stop catering to the Radical Left, and focus on being a Great Pope, not a Politician. It’s hurting him very badly, and more importantly, it’s hurting the Catholic Church.”

I copy this concluding passage from his “Truth Social,” for it is routinely passed over by “the Media.” Trump was not attacking the Catholic Church. He was being characteristically candid, as we might hope that churchmen, too, might be candid, sometimes.

The contrary impression – that Trump was putting his boot in – was made by spokesmen for the anti-Trump side, with fond memories of the days when the Catholic Church could almost be presented as a department of the Democratic Party. This continues to be part of leftwing mythology, and the media still want to believe it, although American Catholics have mostly risen from the abortion sewer in which it deposited them.

Moreover, Pope Leo could not himself have wished to be seen, playing an obvious political game, even if he was. He was being used by a capable professional operative, who was exploiting his naivety and inexperience. He wasn’t trying to be mischievous, as his predecessor often was.

Of course, Trump can be worse than mischievous, and should practice the custody of his mouth, harder. He is much too articulate.

The role of political trolls has now migrated, with other disagreeable creatures, to the Left both in America and in Western Europe. It still has not penetrated deeply into Eastern Europe, where people still retain the experience of Communism, and the many unpleasant connotations of the word “peace” in Communist propaganda.

American Democrats can carry the brainless tradition one ocean-width farther. They can now teach Europe a thing or two, for instance: how to become catastrophically “woke.”

Christ’s expression, “Forgive them for they know not what they do,” is one that we should all meditate upon. It is not a spiritual advantage to be terminally stupid. And if you are, someone is needed to take care of you, for you will be a danger not only to your community, but to yourself.

Indeed, as I have argued here and elsewhere, that is a “problem with democracy,” which becomes ever worse, now that we have entered the era of “artificial intelligence.” More and more extreme forms of know-nothingness have become possible in the general population.

Previously, one had to know at least how to tie one’s shoes, and there were levels of common sense that were equivalently “known” to everyone. Now, no matter how low the bar is set, all bets are off.

Those who are familiar with Christianity, and for that matter usually the other “great religions,” know, or knew, that peace was not obtainable without some level of judgement. If, for instance, someone is plausibly trying to kill you, “peace talks” with him will not necessarily make him desist. 

If he has, by reputation, the habit of killing anyone with whom he disagrees – as the Iranian Mullahs and ALL their allies most certainly have – you need options including appropriate weapons, and disciplined training.

Christ, incidentally, surrendered, and had He not we can’t possibly know how it would have gone. He was escorted down the Via Dolorosa “peacefully,” to His Crucifixion. The individual Christian has that standard constantly before him.

But a society, except perhaps a fighting one like Masada, will seldom agree to be crucified, without complaint. It cannot possibly be incumbent upon them to “submit” (Islamic term) to violence, in service of vicious evil. Even the individual need not submit, when he is properly armed; and if the reader consults the historical chronicles of the last two thousand years, he will see that Christians have been consistently unlikely to welch out.

If we had not been so, Christianity would not be even an historical memory. No one would have thought its quick and brutal fate worth recording.

But Christians must live in a real, threatening world, and Christianity was designed for them, by a real, loving God.

Unlike Islam, for instance, or the more Nominalist excesses of Scholasticism, or Presbyterianism, or other extravagances, Catholic Christianity does not consist of an exhaustive rule book (including, in Sheikh Khomeini’s case, detailed instructions on how to wipe yourself).

We are told to become individual Saints, even though we should appreciate that such Sanctity is beyond us; nevertheless, we must persist in our attempt. We are told not only “to do no murder,” but also to live, and let live, in this theatre of the Divine. And we have received the possibility of faith, and reason, in pursuit of these mysterious, and lasting, goals.

When we are dealing with an enemy that is very evil, and has repeatedly announced his intention to exterminate us Americans and Jews, and acted whenever he could on that intention, we do not need the permission of a priest to respond aggressively.

We need the command and the obedience of soldiers.

David Warren is a former editor of the Idler magazine and columnist in Canadian newspapers. He has extensive experience in the Near and Far East. His blog, Essays in Idleness, is now to be found at: davidwarrenonline.com.

PERKINS: Civil Leaders and Spiritual Authority

By Family Research Council

President Trump’s Truth Social post last weekend which seemed to depict him as the Great Physician (though he later deleted it) serves as a reminder of why the biblical principle often described as the separation of church and state still matters.

Yes, I support that separation and always have. Let me explain.

When many on the Left invoke “separation of church and state,” they often mean the exclusion of God from government, suggesting He has no authority or place in public life. That is neither biblically grounded nor practically sustainable. As the Apostle Paul writes in Romans 13:1, “there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.” Civil leaders get their authority from God.

And when governments deny or marginalize that truth, they ultimately erode the very foundation of their own authority.

Scripture draws a clear boundary. Civil leaders are not to assume roles or authority that belong to God or His ordained institutions, yet spiritual leaders are responsible for upholding those boundaries.

We see this vividly in 2 Chronicles 26 during King Uzziah’s reign. Israel was flourishing, economically strong, militarily secure, and territorially expanding. But success gave way to pride:

“But when he [Uzziah] was strong, he grew proud, to his destruction. For he was unfaithful to the LORD his God and entered the temple of the LORD to burn incense on the altar of incense. But Azariah the priest went in after him, with eighty priests of the LORD who were men of valor, and they withstood King Uzziah and said to him, ‘It is not for you, Uzziah, to burn incense to the LORD, but for the priests…’” (2 Chronicles 26:16-18)

He entered the temple to burn incense, a duty reserved exclusively for the priests. Azariah and 80 priests confronted him, warning that he had crossed a line established by God. Uzziah’s judgment was swift and sobering.

The lesson is clear: God establishes both authority and limits. The king was not above those limits. The priests had the authority not only to defend the sacred but also to confront and correct the king. To do so, they needed to be independent of the king.

This is the proper understanding of the separation of church and state: civil leaders must not assume spiritual authority, and spiritual leaders must not surrender moral authority. It protects the church’s independence so it can speak truth to power — and it restrains the state from assuming spiritual authority it does not possess.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. captured this well in his sermon “A Knock at Midnight”: “The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool. If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority.”

When any political leader is portrayed — or allows himself to be portrayed — in explicitly messianic terms, a line has been crossed. And when the church remains silent, the line fades.

The question is not merely about one post or one moment. It is whether the church will faithfully serve as the conscience of the state — or quietly surrender that role.

Because when the line disappears, both institutions suffer — and truth is the casualty.

AUTHOR

Tony Perkins

Tony Perkins is president of Family Research Council and executive editor of The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

The Most Important Debate in Cuba Happening Today: Christians and Politics (Part 1)

By Family Research Council

My perspective on several matters has changed. One view that evolved naturally — and without external pressure — is that faith and political engagement need not be mutually exclusive.

Back in 2012, in “Pasajes de la Luz,” I wrote about this very subject. What I failed to grasp at the time was that the church interacts socially not only as an institution but also as a collective body of believers. In that same book — written when I was just 21 — I called for advancing Christian influence through the realm of culture.

And that is precisely what has come to pass, marked by the rise of young evangelical influencers who have emerged as the most far-reaching independent political voices on the island — a status cemented by their actions. Driven by the potency of their messaging — which fuses a Christ-centered worldview with a rejection of the socialist system — there has arisen both implicit and explicit pressure for the Cuban church as an institution to issue a clear, unequivocal political statement regarding the grave crisis currently gripping Cuba.

Should the institutional church do just that? This question — though by no means new — lies at the heart of a newly invigorated debate currently unfolding in Cuba.

Since late 2025, a significant number of Cuban church members have become highly visible figures, speaking out directly and forthrightly on political matters. Consequently, many of us began to wonder whether the institutional church itself would follow suit. The prevailing context only served to heighten these passions: the hope for freedom fueled by the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign against the Castro regime, coupled with the continuous popular protests that collectively came to be known as the “Spring of Fire,” beginning in March.

The debate currently taking place within the evangelical community is, however, of pivotal importance to the country as a whole. Why? Because the ecclesial body is one of the few entities independent of the State that operates legally within the country; it boasts a rapidly growing membership (estimated at 10% of the population); it plays a prominent role in society and possesses a proven organizational capacity for delivering humanitarian aid; and it fosters an institutional network that generates alternative modes of thought — ones distinct from the official socialist orthodoxy.

The recent controversy in Cuba regarding the church’s political engagement under a dictatorship began in the digital sphere (YouTube videos, Facebook posts, etc.) and among genuine faith leaders — those operating outside the pro-regime circuit. Some called upon the institutional church to emulate the “vocalness” of certain members, while others pushed back, asserting that the church should focus exclusively on preaching the gospel.

With few exceptions, the tone of the debate reached extremes. Discursive lines were drawn between those speaking from exile and those experiencing the rigors of totalitarianism firsthand within the island. Some went so far as to call for pastors on the island to be cut off from material aid provided by the global church; others labeled those advocating for a louder political voice as “zealots.”

A Recent History

Prioritizing direct criticism of the State versus engaging in Christian action to alleviate the problems generated by that very State has been a constant source of tension since 1959. This tension is not without cause: churches have been shuttered, Christians interned in concentration camps, and believers driven into exile or imprisoned.

Contrary to what a reductionist might assume, institutional discretion — or even silence — regarding the regime’s cruelty (distinct from the outspokenness of many individual pastors) does not, in most cases, stem from direct complicity, but rather from prudence. In the minds of many faith leaders, were the church to confront the dictatorship directly, the ensuing consequences would severely hinder the institution’s charitable work — and could even result in the loss of its legal status, along with the few benefits currently associated with its pastoral and evangelistic mission.

From a purely instrumentalist perspective: if the regime were to shut down a church building or impose even greater obstacles on the delivery of donations from the global church, how many more elderly people and children would be left without food (1, 2,)? How many more Cubans would be left without medical care (4)? How many would be left without Bibles? And what would become of the struggle for the right to life (5)? The dilemma facing ecclesial leadership under totalitarianism does not lie — either predominantly or primarily — in whether or not they agree with the regime (which the majority detests; of this, I can personally attest), but rather in the choice between surviving in order to act and the possibility of institutional demise.

Precisely for this reason, it is remarkable how the church — at the institutional level — has recently and categorically surmounted that abyss.

During the Evangelical Civic Movement (MoCE, 2018-2022) — by virtue of its practical results and mobilizing capacity — the Cuban church emerged as the leading force within civil society in opposition to Castroist policies. It highlighted the lack of freedoms within the Castroist Constitution and Family Code; it advocated for the release of prisoners of conscience; and it founded an organization operating beyond totalitarian control: the Alliance of Evangelical Churches of Cuba — an entity they still refuse to dissolve.

(Read Part 2)

AUTHOR

Yoe Suarez

Yoe Suárez is an exiled journalist, writer, and producer who investigated in Havana about torture, political police, gangs, government black lists, and cybersurveillance. A graduate of Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, he was a CBN correspondent, and has written for outlets like The Hill and Newsweek. He has appeared on Vox, Univision, and Deutsche Welle as an analyst on Cuba, security, and U.S. foreign policy.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Trump Doubles Down Attacks On Pope, Refuses To Apologize

By The Daily Caller

President Donald Trump refused to apologize for his weekend comments tearing into Pope Leo XIV as a “weak” leader who caters to the radical left.

Trump on Sunday blasted the Pope as “weak” on multiple issues, and said the Christian leader should “focus on being a Great Pope, not a Politician.” Trump ran through a list of complaints on issues from Iran and Venezuela to crime and drugs in the Truth Social post. That fury came after the pontiff took issue with Trump’s comments about the Iran war and his threat to end a “whole civilization.” At an Oval Office presser on Monday, Trump doubled down on his criticisms after he was asked by a reporter whether he owes the Pope an apology.

“I don’t, because Pope Leo said things that are wrong. He was very much against what I’m doing with regard to Iran, and you cannot have a nuclear Iran. Pope Leo would not be happy with the end result,” Trump told reporters. “You have hundreds of millions of people dead and it’s not going to happen, so I can’t. I think he’s very weak on crime and other things, so I’m not. I mean, he went public.”

WATCH: Trump Doubles Down Attacks On Pope, Refuses To Apologize

“I’m just responding to Pope Leo,” Trump continued. “And, you know, his brother is a big MAGA person and he’s a great guy, Louis. And I said, I like Louis better than I like the Pope. Now you have to have law and order in our country and that’s what we have now. We have the lowest crime numbers we’ve had in a long time, despite the fact that many criminals were allowed into our country, but we’ve gotten a lot of them out. We’ve done a great job on crime.”

The reporter noted that Bishop Robert Barron, a Roman Catholic clergyman who serves on the Religious Freedom Commission, called for Trump to apologize in a Monday morning post on X.

“The statements made by President Trump on Truth Social regarding the Pope were entirely inappropriate and disrespectful. They don’t contribute at all to a constructive conversation,” Barron posted. “It is the Pope’s prerogative to articulate Catholic doctrine and the principles that govern the moral life. In regard to the concrete application of those principles, people of good will can and do disagree.”

“I would warmly recommend that serious Catholics within the Trump administration – Secretary Rubio, Vice President Vance, Ambassador Brian Burch, and others – might meet with Vatican officials so that a real dialogue can take place,” Barron continued. “This is far preferable to the statements on social media.”

Trump doubled down on his criticisms in remarks to reporters, saying that he has nothing to apologize for because the Pope is “wrong.”

“So we have the lowest murder rate in 125 years since 1900, the lowest murder rate. So we believe strongly in our order and he, he seemed to have a problem with that,” Trump said. “So there’s nothing to apologize for. He’s wrong. And the other thing is he didn’t like what we’re doing with respect to Iran, but Iran wants to be a nuclear nation so they can exterminate the world. Not going to happen.”

AUTHOR

Harold Hutchison

Media Reporter

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Claims Viral Healing Post Was Him Playing Doctor, Not God

Trump Announces Naval Blockade To Counter Iran’s ‘WORLD EXTORTION,’ Warns They Risk Being ‘BLOWN TO HELL’

RELATED VIDEO: THE VATICAN HAS FALLEN: The Pope has built a Muslim prayer room inside its Apostolic Library

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Artemis II Mission Testifies to God’s Glorious Greatness

By Family Research Council

“The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge” (Psalm 19:1-2). So testified a handwritten card on Artemis II, as it carried the message of heavenly majesty further from earth than any human-occupied vehicle has ever traveled. These inspired words of David direct the eyes of men upward in wonder and direct the hearts of men God-ward in worship. As America’s latest space mission broke records, advanced science, and laid a foundation for even greater exploits of man, the voyage also pointed beyond man to his greater Creator.

Since the moment NASA’s Artemis II mission launched from Cape Canaveral on April 1, the United States has been abuzz with excitement over the mission’s astronomical exploits and the renewed vision for American space travel.

Mission pilot Victor Glover conveyed the sense of excitement, “When those solids [solid rocket boosters, the rocket’s means of propulsion at takeoff] lit, it’s a ride where you’re trying to be professional, but the kid inside of you wants to break out and hoot and holler.” Even for spectators, there is an inherent thrill in a rocket-launching explosion powerful enough to propel an entire vehicle and crew clean out of Earth’s atmosphere.

But Artemis II is not just any rocket launch. In a total journey of 695,081 miles, it orbited Earth before looping around the dark side of the moon, reaching a maximum distance of 252,760 miles from Earth, farther than any astronauts have ever flown before. “This is unbelievable, that we can put our minds to something and pull it off,” said mission commander Reid Wiseman. “This is an unbelievable technical accomplishment.”

Adding to the excitement is Artemis II’s role in concluding NASA’s extended hiatus from moon travel. NASA last sent astronauts to the moon in 1972, more than 53 years ago. With the Artemis program, NASA aims to return America to the moon, with the eventual goal of building a Moon Base.

Those intervening 50 years have witnessed breathless technological change, especially in fields like computing. The Artemis II astronauts captured photos of Earth from the moon (not to mention on board their spaceship) on the cameras of their iPhone 17s — technology that would be incomprehensible to the astronauts of 1972.

While on voyage, “Artemis II astronauts … will conduct manual spacecraft operations and monitor automated activities; evaluate Orion’s life-support, propulsion, power, thermal, and navigation systems; perform proximity operations activities; assess habitability and crew interfaces; and participate in science activities, including lunar surface observations and human health studies, that will inform science operations on future Moon missions,” NASA described. Additionally, “this mission will verify Orion’s life support systems can sustain astronauts on longer-duration missions ahead.”

Thus, while the astronauts may not place a space boot on a moon, they take more than “one small step” for the advancement of mankind’s endeavors in space — and particularly the United States of America.

But while America basks in the national glory of a historic rocket journey, the Artemis II mission points to something greater. While mankind is still just beginning to travel through the heavens, those same heavens proclaim the glory of the God who created them. Mankind may one day succeed in building a base on the moon. God set it in place (Psalm 8:3).

Throughout history, men have often “worshiped and served the creature [or creation] rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:25). In one center of ancient Greek commerce, locals rioted over perceived affronts to the dignity of Artemis, their moon god (Acts 19:28). Today, largely due to the influence of Christianity, scientific discovery has advanced to a point where few people (at least in the West) are tempted to worship the moon as a personified God. But the corrupted heart of man still seeks to worship the creature rather than the Creator, often himself.

Against this temptation, the heavenward mission of Artemis II invites us to lift our eyes beyond ourselves to the splendor God has created and turn our wonder into worship. To Glover, the most impactful part of traveling through space was “looking back at the beauty of creation,” he said. “When I read the Bible and see all the amazing things that were done for us who were created, you have this amazing place … that was created to give us a place to live in the universe.”

The God who made the moon and stars also made a wonderful world for us to enjoy, and that should provoke us to turn to him in wonder, gratitude, and worship.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

EASTER JIHAD: Muslims Slaughter 26 Christians, Churches Burned, Women and Children Kidnapped in Nigeria

By The Geller Report

26 Christian worshippers slaughtered in Easter Sunday attacks across Nigeria.

Churches burned.

Women and children abducted.

The world stays silent.

Wholesale slaughter. Muslims butchering mon-Muslims. No news. No coverage. It’s expected. Silent affirmation and sanction of Islamic brutality.

Nigeria: The night before Easter Sunday, Muslims storm Christian area in Borno state, set church and homes on fire

  By 

Then the next day, jihadis carried out attacks against two churches.

The world continues to stand by in complete indifference to this jihad genocide, which has been going on for years.

“BREAKING: Terrorists Storm Chibok Community In Borno On Night Before Easter Sunday, Burn Church, Homes,” Sahara Reporters, April 5, 2026:

SaharaReporters learnt that the insurgents set a church and several homes ablaze in what residents described as a coordinated attack on the predominantly Christian settlement.

Fresh terror struck Kwapul community in Chibok Local Government Area, Borno State, as suspected insurgents carried out a late-night raid on Saturday that extended into the early hours of Sunday.

SaharaReporters learnt that the insurgents set a church and several homes ablaze in what residents described as a coordinated attack on the predominantly Christian settlement.

Although no lives were reported lost, the assault left families displaced and traumatised, with growing calls for urgent security intervention.

Locals said the “attackers operated for hours without resistance,” underscoring fears that rural populations remain highly vulnerable despite years of counterinsurgency efforts.

The attack comes at a sensitive time, as Christian communities observe the Easter season, a period that has repeatedly been targeted in Nigeria’s conflict-prone regions….

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

Noticing the Muslim slaughter of Christians is ‘Islamophobic’ says the United Nations

EASTER JIHAD: Muslim Driver Rams Loader Truck Into Christian Procession in Pakistan, Over 60 Wounded

POSTS ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Why the Resurrection of Jesus Is the Most Important Event in History

By The Daily Signal

History is chock-full of pivotal moments, from Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon to Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolf Hitler deciding to invade Russia, to George Washington turning down power. One moment eclipses them all—and most people at the time had no idea this moment would change the world forever.

Mankind has a virtually guaranteed 100% death rate, but one obscure carpenter-turned-rabbi defied the odds. He set off a chain reaction that didn’t just offer eternal salvation, but also inspired movements of compassion and invention that made life better for billions in the here and now.

I know I’m biased—I worship Jesus Christ as the Son of God and believe he will come again. But I also honestly think his Resurrection is the pivotal moment in human history, and not just because it offers eternal salvation to those of us who believe.

It’s hard for us to grasp just how painful most of human existence in the past truly was. Not only did people live for thousands of years without modern conveniences like refrigerators, microwaves, and washing machines, but high infant and child mortality was a fact of life—for the poorest of the poor as well as for the wealthiest and most powerful.

In Ancient Rome, when a plague began spreading, the wealthy quickly departed and the poor secluded themselves. Christianity spread, by contrast, in part because Christians started risking their lives to care for the sick; with a little help, many of the sick recovered.

Rodney Stark, a now-deceased social sciences professor at Baylor University and author of the book “The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success,” told PJ Media that without the Resurrection, “we would still be in a world of mystery and probably in a world of repressive empires.”

He argued that Christianity has been the driving force behind limited government, science, capitalism, the abolition of slavery, medicine, organized charities, and more—and Christianity would have been impossible without the Resurrection. In fact, the Gospels record that Jesus’ disciples scattered—and Peter even denied Jesus three times—but the Resurrection brought them together. According to church tradition, all but one of the apostles died painful deaths under torture, refusing to reject the faith.

The Roman authorities persecuted the early Christians, and this history arguably helped foster limited government.

Jesus told his followers to “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,” and to render the more important things to God. St. Augustine further developed this idea in his distinction between the “City of Man” and the “City of God.” Over time, Christians developed limits on political power and demarcated the sacred from the secular.

Christians also forbade the common practice of “exposing” infants, leaving babies in the wilderness to die. Instead, they established orphanages to care for the unfortunate and set up charitable institutions that further bolstered a civil society separate from the state.

Christian societies fought for justice. While slavery has been a near-universal human institution, Christianity eradicated it not once but twice: first in Medieval Europe and second, more lastingly, in the abolition movements of the 1800s.

While the New Testament does not require Christians to oppose slavery, outlawing the practice is the logical conclusion of key Christian doctrines. The Apostle Paul urged Philemon to free his former slave Onesimus, and Paul wrote to the Galatians that with God’s grace, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).

Christian teaching also arguably fostered the development of scientific inquiry.

Stark explained that while many cultures considered the universe “far too mystical to be worth thinking about,” Christians believe “the universe was created by a rational God, and consequently it runs by rules and, therefore, it makes sense to try to understand and discover the rules.”

Great scientists emerged in the Western world as modern universities grew out of Medieval cathedral schools. While Aristotle—revered in the Islamic East and the Christian West—taught that the universe was eternal, and used deductive reasoning to reach conclusions about it, Christians believed that God could have created the universe differently, leading them to eventually discover how he actually made it.

Last, but certainly not least, Christianity arguably inspired the free market system that enriches our lives today.

The German sociologist Max Weber famously traced capitalism back to the “Protestant work ethic,” but Stark found an earlier source—the Catholic monasteries in the Middle Ages. These monasteries set up a complex network of lending at interest, helping to build the economic engine that enriches life across the globe.

Each of these achievements came slowly and with fits and starts, and non-Christians have also helped improve the world in myriad ways, but I find Stark’s argument convincing: Christianity inspired these positive historical trends.

Jesus urged his disciples to be the “salt of the Earth” and the “light of the world,” and Christianity teaches that the Holy Spirit dwells in the hearts of true believers. If so, we would expect to see Christians change the world for the better.

I’d argue that’s the major theme of world history, and it bolsters my faith that the Resurrection actually happened.

AUTHOR

Tyler O’Neil

Tyler O’Neil is senior editor at The Daily Signal and the author of two books: “Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center,” and “The Woketopus: The Dark Money Cabal Manipulating the Federal Government.”  Tyler on X: @Tyler2ONeil.

RELATED POSTS:

Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address Has a Sobering Message for America Today

What If You Could Walk Through the World of the Bible?

Are the Jews Responsible for Jesus’ Death?

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

The New Cost of Religious Belief

By Majority Report

Across nations and institutions, expressing faith is no longer just a right, it’s a risk. 

In this modern age of social media, we’re told that what “trends” is what matters. If something is important, it spreads. It dominates headlines. It demands attention.

But not everything that trends reaches the masses. They don’t dominate the news cycle. They don’t spark immediate outrage.

They move like waves beneath the ocean, building, rolling forward, and cresting without most people ever noticing.

A kind of stealth trend.

Not in one country. Not in one court. Not in one isolated headline.

Across the Western globe, the treatment of Christian belief is shifting. Not outlawed. Not banned outright. But increasingly scrutinized, interpreted, and, in many cases, penalized.

And people are starting to notice.

In Sweden, a Christian family lost custody of their children after authorities began investigating their Christian beliefs, which included going to church three times a week.

In Finland, a sitting member of parliament was prosecuted for expressing her views on human sexuality, rooted in her Christian faith. After being acquitted twice, the case was pursued all the way to the Supreme Court, where she was ultimately convicted and fined for statements in a pamphlet written years earlier.

Even where courts acknowledged she had not incited violence, the line had shifted, where interpretation, not just intent, became decisive.

In Canada, lawmakers passed legislation that removed a long-standing legal protection for religious speech. Soon, Canucks could be jailed for criticizing homosexuality.

And here at home this week, the Chicago Bulls waived guard Jaden Ivey for speaking openly about his Christian faith.

Different nations. Different systems. Different facts.

But the same pattern.

It is about something more subtle, and in many ways, more powerful.

The lines of religious expression are becoming harder to see. The protections are becoming less explicit. And the consequences are becoming less predictable.

There was a time when you could hold your beliefs and express them. Others might disagree, even strongly, but the ground beneath you was firm.

That clarity is fading. In its place is something else. A system where belief is technically allowed, but increasingly monitored, scrutinized, and penalized.

A system where the question is no longer simply, “Is this what the Bible says?” quietly becomes:

“Is this permitted?”

And when the answer to that question is unclear, something predictable happens.

People begin to weigh their words, soften their convictions, and stay quiet when they once would have spoken.

Not because they no longer believe, but because they are asking a new question:

What will this cost me?

This is how speech changes without ever being formally banned.

Not through a single law.

Not through a single ruling.

But through a pattern of consequences that people can’t predict.

Say the wrong thing, and something bad happens.

Maybe it’s legal.

Maybe it’s professional.

Maybe it’s social.

But it’s enough. Enough to make the next person hesitate.

And yet, for the Christian, hesitation is not the calling.

In Matthew 10:27, Jesus said:

“What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the rooftops.”

This was never meant to be a hidden faith.

It was meant to be declared. Openly. Publicly. Without apology.

And Scripture leaves no room for misunderstanding the cost.

In 2 Timothy 3:12:

“Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.”

Not occasionally. Not in extreme circumstances. But as a reality.

The silent are rarely persecuted, because those who say nothing risk nothing.

But that is not the path we are given.

At the same time, Christ gives us wisdom, not just boldness.

In Matthew 7:6, He says:

“Do not cast your pearls before swine.”

This is not a command to withdraw. It is a command for discernment.

We are not called to argue endlessly with those who are hostile. We are not called to provoke for the sake of reaction. We are called to proclaim truth, not weaponize it.

There is a difference.

We speak from the rooftops, not to target individuals, but to declare what is true.

We do not tailor that truth to fit the moment. We do not soften it to avoid consequences. And we do not abandon it because the cost has increased.

But neither do we waste it on those who have no interest in hearing it.

Some retreat into silence out of fear. Others charge into constant conflict without wisdom.

Christ calls us to neither.

He calls us to stand, to speak, and to discern.

And that brings us back to the moment we are in now.

Because what is changing is not the command.

What is changing is the environment in which that command is lived out.

The goalposts are moving. What was spoken freely now carries a cost.

But for the Christian, the path does not change.

It does not bend to culture.

It does not yield to pressure.

It does not adjust to avoid consequences.

It remains what it has always been.

A command. To speak. To stand. And when necessary, to endure.

Because in the end, the question is not whether the cost is rising.

The question is whether we are willing to pay it.

AUTHOR

Martin Mawyer

Martin Mawyer is the founder of the Digital Intelligence Project and the President of Christian Action Network. He is the host of the “Shout Out Patriots” podcast, and author of When Evil Stops Hiding. For more action alerts, cultural commentary, and real-world campaigns defending faith, family, and freedom, subscribe to Patriot Majority Report.

©2026 . All rights reserved.

Please visite the Patriot Majority Report substack.

Easter: God, Love, Life

By The Catholic Thing

Msgr. Charles Fink: The message of Easter is not that there will be no more crosses but that all our crosses, even death, can lead to new and eternal life, an eternal life begun here and now by our union with the risen Lord.

During the first half of the 20th century, there emerged an extraordinary constellation of English Catholic writers, many of them converts, who had the great gift of being able to explicate the Catholic faith on a popular level without watering it down.  Names like Chesterton, Knox, Sheed (originally from Australia), and Houselander come to mind.

Among these was a Jesuit priest named C.C. Martindale, who, after having spent five years of internment under the Nazis, was asked by the BBC to deliver six talks on radio during Holy Week of 1946.  Father Martindale ended his first talk with these words:

whether it be the problems set by long history or by the present hour, whether it be the problems set by our own soul and our inner experience, whether it be the Sufferings and Death of Christ – the Christian has but one starting point, that is to say God, His Love, and His will that we should live. This truth never changes, however much we may change. God wishes not the death even of the sinner, but that he should live. I cannot say it too often, nor too emphatically. . .that at the origin of all things, during all things, and at the end of all things are God, and Love, and Life.

Fr. Martindale was able to say those words, even after having endured the horrors of war and prison, because he had assimilated and made his own the bright, shining message of Easter.  It was this message that helped transform the cringing apostle Peter into the courageous and forceful preacher we meet in the Acts of the Apostles.  It was this message that prompted Paul to write to the Colossians, “If then you were raised with Christ, seek what is above,” and “you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.”

Paul understood that Christ hadn’t risen from the dead just for Himself but for us, that united to Him, we might already begin to rise with Him.  Our feet might be mired in the grime of earth, but our heads and hearts are with Christ in Heaven. What had Peter, what had Paul to fear on earth when already they shared in the risen life of Christ?

When Mary Magdalene, Peter, and John found the tomb empty on Easter morning, Christ’s burial clothes still lying there, the Gospel tells us that John believed, but also that “they did not yet understand the Scripture that he had to rise from the dead.”

John believed that Jesus was risen but did not yet fully comprehend all that was implied in the monumental fact of the resurrection. Understanding would come, however, and the only apostle to escape violent martyrdom would spend sixty more years on earth preaching the God who is love and who wants us to have life to the full, not only now, but forever.

The message of Easter is not that there will be no more crosses but that all our crosses, even death, can lead to new and eternal life, an eternal life begun here and now by our union with the risen Lord. We are like divers in those old movies, who are lowered into the sea from a ship, “strangers in a strange land,” surrounded by darkness, but all the while receiving life from above, our share in the risen life of Christ.

Easter must be for us what it was for Peter, Paul, Mary Magdalene, and all the saints, not just something we believe once happened and will someday benefit us.  It is that but so much more.  It is a present reality, something we share in here and now.  Let the world do its worst.  It can never do worse than to kill the Son of God, and we know what came of that.  And we share in His life.

We are all familiar with the expression “Rise and shine.” It can, of course, be just an annoying cliché or the interruption of a good night’s sleep.  But for Christians, it can be a reminder that, sharing in Christ’s life, we have already begun to rise and must manifest that by radiating Christ’s light and life and love in all we do.

Remember the words of Fr. Martindale: “at the origin of all things, during all things, at the end of all things, are God, and Love, and Life.”  Easter calls us, by the way we live, to make it easier for others to believe and experience that.  In a world so full of darkness and despair, conflict and confusion, with so many, especially young people, hungering and thirsting for meaning and hope, it is our moral imperative to be Easter people in season and out.  We simply cannot afford to hide our light, the light of Christ, under a bushel basket.

Msgr. Charles Fink has been a priest for 47 years in the Diocese of Rockville Centre. He is a former pastor and seminary spiritual director, living in retirement from administrative duties at Notre Dame Parish in New Hyde Park, NY.

PERKINS: God Hears the Prayers of Just Warriors

By Family Research Council

When God delivered the children of Israel from bondage in Egypt and defeated Pharaoh’s army, Moses responded with a song, recorded in Exodus 15. He declares, “The Lord is a man of war, the Lord is His name.”

That description is revealing. Scripture repeatedly presents God as one who defends His people, upholds justice, and ultimately triumphs over evil. He is not a distant observer of human conflict, but a righteous judge who acts in history.

And this imagery is not confined to the Old Testament. In Revelation 19, Jesus Himself is depicted as a warrior riding a white horse, bringing judgment against the nations, with a sword proceeding from His mouth. The biblical witness is consistent: God is both Redeemer and Righteous Judge.

War, therefore, is a tragic but real feature of a fallen world. The Bible does not ignore it — it regulates it. From these biblical principles, Augustine of Hippo articulated what would become known as Just War Theory, later refined by Thomas Aquinas. This framework has guided much of Western moral reasoning about war for centuries, recognizing that while war is never ideal, it may at times be necessary to restrain evil and protect the innocent.

Which is why recent comments from Pope Leo XIV in a Palm Sunday homily are both puzzling and concerning. He stated, in part, that Jesus “rejects war” and does not listen to the prayers of those who wage it.

Was the Allied effort in World War II — undertaken to stop Adolf Hitler and the atrocities of the Third Reich — contrary to the will of God? Were the prayers of leaders and soldiers, offered in humility and desperation, somehow rejected?

On June 6, 1944, as American troops stormed the beaches of Normandy, Franklin D. Roosevelt led the nation in prayer. He asked God’s blessing on those risking their lives to defeat tyranny and secure freedom. It was not a prayer for conquest — it was a prayer for justice, for deliverance, and for peace.

Likewise, during the brutal winter of the Battle of the Bulge, George Patton called for prayer. Facing impossible conditions, he urged his troops to seek God’s intervention. Two hundred and fifty thousand copies of that prayer were distributed to the soldiers of the Third Army.

And when the weather broke and the tide of battle turned, Patton famously remarked to his chaplain, “Well, Padre, our prayers worked.”

And thank God they did.

Scripture gives us confidence in this very truth. As the Apostle John writes in 1 John 5, if we ask anything according to God’s will, He hears us — and if He hears us, we have what we have asked of Him.

That is the key: according to His will.

Not every war is just. Not every cause is righteous. But when those entrusted with authority act to restrain evil, defend the innocent, and pursue a just peace, they do not stand counter to God, they stand within the very purposes of His justice.

And in those moments, prayer is not rejected — it is heard.

The question is not whether God hears the prayers of those in battle.

The question is whether those who lead — and those who fight — are aligned with the will of the One who is both Prince of Peace and the righteous defender of the innocent.

When they are, they can pray with confidence.

And history suggests — He answers.

AUTHOR

Tony Perkins

Tony Perkins is president of Family Research Council and executive editor of The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Where Evil Became Victory: Good Friday for a Suffering World

By Family Research Council

Good Friday is not a distant echo of tragedy. It’s the beating heart of one of history’s most astonishing days.

On this day, we stand in awe at the foot of the cross — where the sinless Son of God, the radiant Morning Star, was betrayed with a kiss, falsely condemned by the guardians of religion, abandoned by the very ones He came to save, and lifted up between heaven and earth under the cold gaze of empire. The powers of this age watched in indifferent silence. Religious leaders schemed in shadowed chambers. Pilate washed his hands in water that could never cleanse his guilt. And there, in the gathering darkness, the Light of the World cried out: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

It sounds like the deepest sorrow ever uttered. And yet we dare to call this day Good. Why? Because Christ’s suffering was not pointless. Rather, it was the deliberate, costly price of our redemption. Before the foundation of the world, when no eye had yet seen, the Triune God already knew His creation would shatter the perfect harmony. Sin would invade, corruption would spread, and all that was good, true, and beautiful would groan under its weight.

Yet before the foundation of the world, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit had already woven a plan of redemption so glorious it would turn the greatest evil ever committed — the murder of the perfect, innocent Lamb — into the greatest victory heaven and earth have ever known: forgiveness for the guilty, reconciliation for the estranged, and the crushing defeat of sin, death, and the grave.

And yet, Christ’s death was agonizing. In fact, the agony was unconscionable. Jesus endured the most brutal death devised by human cruelty — nails driven through flesh and bone, slow suffocation beneath the weight of His own body, burning thirst, mocking laughter, and the scornful crown of thorns. The crowd that could have chosen mercy screamed instead for His blood, their voices rising like a storm until reason itself drowned in the roar. He did not merely die. The Lamb of God was slain.

Even now, the shadow of innocent suffering stretches across our broken world. In Nigeria, for example, our brothers and sisters in Christ walk daily in the valley of the shadow of death, where radical Islamist jihadist violence burns villages, slaughters pastors and their families, kidnaps the faithful, and reduces sanctuaries to ash — all while the watching world too often turns its gaze away. And that’s just in one country.

The truth is, Christians all around the world suffer for the sake of Christ each day. In North Korea, believers risk everything to hide a single page of Scripture beneath their floorboards. In the Middle East, many are beheaded for refusing to deny the Name above every name. And even in lands of relative comfort, such as America, the principalities and powers of darkness still rage, seeking to steal, kill, and destroy all that reflects the beauty of Christ.

Scripture doesn’t sugarcoat this reality. We are called to suffer with Him. The world will hate us because it first hated Him. Yet James invites us to a strange and holy posture: “Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness” (James 1:2-3). Many of our persecuted family will be the first to tell you — through tears and with radiant faces — that the fellowship of His sufferings is worth it all for the sake of knowing Christ and being one with Him.

This is part of why Good Friday matters so deeply. Because the cross declares that God is no stranger to pain — to our pain. Jesus Himself was the Man of Sorrows, acquainted with grief, rejected, mocked, and executed. Yet even as nails held Him fast and darkness swallowed the sun, He did not curse His tormentors. Instead, He prayed, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” In that moment of infinite suffering, He purchased infinite grace — forgiveness, hope, and everlasting life for every soul who turns to Him in faith, including our suffering brothers and sisters around the globe.

When I think of the global church enduring flame and blade, I am struck by their faith. Their endurance is a strong, living testimony to the power of the cross. The pain of earthly torment is real — just as the nails that pierced our Savior’s hands and feet were real. But so is the hope — blessed, eternal hope. We hope in the breathtaking reality that the same God who raised Jesus from the tomb sees every tear shed in secret, every act of violence, and every quiet “Yes, Lord” whispered in the face of terror. And one day soon, He’ll wipe away every one of our tears. He will make all things new.

Good Friday challenges every one of us: Will we look away from the suffering of our family in Christ, or will we fix our eyes on the cross and respond with compassion, courage, and faith? Let us choose the latter. Let us remember the persecuted church in our prayers, our advocacy, and our generosity. Let us face our own trials with hope and joy, knowing that Good Friday was never meant to be the end of the story. In three days’ time, the stone was rolled away, resurrection light shattered the darkness, and eternity was forever sealed with this unbreakable promise: darkness does not — and never will — have the final word. Hallelujah!

AUTHOR

Sarah Holliday

Sarah Holliday is a reporter at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

What Is ‘Good’ about Good Friday?

Christ Our Refuge

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

The Founding Fathers and the Resurrection

By Jerry Newcombe, D. Min.

This week Christians around the world of all strands celebrate what we consider some of the most significant events in world history—the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ on behalf of the salvation for those who believe in the Lord.

There are many historical reasons to believe in these events, which I’ve addressed in previous columns, such as this and this.

Meanwhile, as a student of American history, I find it fascinating that, for the most part, the vast majority of our nation’s settlers and founding fathers also believed it.

Here are some examples just from the founding era. Special thanks to my good friend Bill Federer and his America’s God and Country for his indirect help with this column.

George Washington and the Plaque Behind his Sarcophagus

If you visit Mount Vernon, George Washington’s home, you can see where he and his beloved wife Martha are buried. Behind their two sarcophagi are the words of Jesus, chiseled in stone, from John 11:25-26 from the King James Version: “I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live…”

George and Martha affirmed their belief in the resurrection of the Lord regularly at church, as they arose with the rest of the congregation and read aloud the words of the Apostles’ Creed, which affirms that historical event.

Founding Father Roger Sherman and “the Resurrection of the Dead”

Roger Sherman from Connecticut not only signed the Declaration of Independence, but 11 years later, he played a significant role in the Constitutional Convention. He proposed a great compromise that “prevented a stalemate between states during the creation of the United States Constitution.” He argued that big states and little states each should have the same number of senators, while the number of representatives depended on the population of each. Adopting his idea helped them break a logjam in the proceedings.

Roger Sherman declared, “That the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are a revelation from God, and a complete rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him.” And, of course, the New Testament could not be clearer that Jesus rose from the dead, bodily.

Sherman also said, “I believe that the souls of believers are at their death made perfectly holy, and immediately taken to glory: that at the end of this world there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a final judgement of all mankind.”

Founding Father Elias Boudinot on “the Resurrection of the Savior of Mankind”

Before the Constitution, there was the Articles of Confederation, in effect from 1781-1789. We actually had a handful of presidents of the United States under that document’s governance. (George Washington is our first president under the Constitution, which has been in effect since 1789.) Boudinot of New Jersey was one of those earlier presidents. Later, as a Congressman, he helped frame the Bill of Rights (1791).

Boudinot once stated, “The deliverance of the children of Israel from a state of bondage to an unreasonable tyrant was perpetuated by the Paschal lamb, and enjoining it on their posterity as an annual festival forever….The resurrection of the Savior of mankind is commemorated by keeping the first day of the week.”

Founding Father Benjamin Rush and the “Glorious Resurrection”

Dr. Benjamin Rush, who signed the Declaration of Independence as a delegate from Pennsylvania, was a leading pioneer in American medicine. Upon his deathbed, he prayed to the Savior this classic invocation: “By the mystery of Thy holy incarnation; by Thy holy nativity; by Thy baptism, fasting, and temptation; by Thine agony and bloody sweat; by Thy cross and passion; by Thy precious death and burial; by Thy glorious resurrection and ascension, and by the coming of the Holy Ghost, blessed Jesus, wash away all my impurities, and receive me into Thy everlasting kingdom.”

And there are examples from…

President James Madison and the Doubting Thomas incident in John’s Gospel—where the previously skeptical disciple, seeing the resurrected Christ, declared, “My Lord and my God.”

President Thomas Jefferson (a bit of a Doubting Thomas himself) remarked at his deathbed to his weeping family, “Lord, now  lettest  thou thy servant depart in peace.” The third president was quoting Simeon, a man in the temple in Luke 2, who had waited for decades for the Messiah to come. When he saw the baby Jesus, he made this remark that Jefferson quoted centuries later.

First Chief Justice John Jay, who wrote to his children after his wife, their mother, died in 1802, on the comforting nature of the Lord’s resurrection.

The death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus are events that changed the world. And many of our founders and even presidents have found comfort in what the Savior has done for us. He is risen. He is risen indeed!

©2026  All rights reserved.

STAY INFORMED

Receive regular news, commentary, and analysis straight to your inbox.

POWERED BY

DrRichSwier.com | ThePricklyPear.org

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.