Why I observe the Sabbath — and you should too



Every Friday evening, our house goes offline. My wife and I close our laptops, silence our phones, and step away from the world for about 24 hours.

We don’t watch any movies, don’t listen to any music, don’t drive anywhere in the car, and don’t buy anything at the store. Our kids may not be as plugged in as my wife or I am, but they too retreat from the world outside our family.

I remember what actually matters. I feel less angry, less anxious, and less consumed by things beyond my control.

We do this every week because we observe the Jewish Sabbath, which begins just before sundown on Friday night and ends just after sunset on Saturday.

Pressing pause

The truth is not many people observe the Sabbath like we do. Of course, all traditionally inclined Jews observe in our same way, but there aren’t that many traditionally observant Jews in the world. In terms of world population, the number of people who take a 24-hour break from the internet every single week on the Sabbath is rather small.

That number should be larger. I say that not because I think more people should be religious in the same way we are; in my view, everyone has their own faith, and it’s not my place to tell people what to believe. But I do think people should observe some sort of Sabbath because it’s good for you.

I'm not the first to suggest that both gentiles and Jews could benefit from this ancient tradition. The late Charlie Kirk observed the Sabbath much like we do. At the time of his assassination, he was preparing to launch a book on the personal benefits of stepping away from the world every Friday evening.

Creative control

I can personally vouch for all the benefits the Sabbath brings. Getting away from the internet for a solid 24 hours every single week keeps me sane. Really, I’m not exaggerating. I would lose my mind without it. I don’t know how I would handle being plugged in 24/7 — 24/6 I can do, but no more than that.

To be honest, I feel myself starting to get sick of X, Instagram, news, and everything else searchable by Friday afternoon. I feel myself starting to get physically ill and more angry than I ought to be as the hours wind down before the weekend.

After six days of online living, I start to feel like a rubber band about to snap. Too many competing signals crowd my brain, making it impossible to think clearly. By the time the sun begins to set, I hate the internet so much that I just want to unplug from everything.

So that’s what I do.

And why not? Even God — the original Sabbath-keeper — needed a break after creating the world:

And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made (Genesis 2:2-3, NKJV).

And He didn't have social media.

Stranger danger

Never before in history have human beings had such constant access to the wider world. We can read news from every corner of the globe, peer into places our ancestors never knew existed, and absorb information about people we don’t know and never will. We can even enjoy the strange, modern pleasure of being insulted by random strangers online who, for reasons known only to them, have decided they hate us.

These are all recent developments — and they come with modern, often negative consequences.

Our ancestors never lived in a world like this. And it is, frankly, a wild one. It has a way of convincing us that trivial things matter more than they do, of distracting us from what truly matters. It pulls our attention away from our families and from God and pushes it instead toward a constant stream of strangers, gossip, and noise. It wears on you. It drives you a little crazy.

I think we’re seeing the effects of that now. A world permanently plugged into the internet is a world slowly losing its bearings. People become meaner, more confused, more absorbed in distant controversies and less attentive to the people right in front of them. They become less themselves and more like the mob — less human, in a subtle but troubling way. The always-online state has made us coarser, and we are worse for it.

RELATED: Erika Kirk joins Glenn Beck to discuss Charlie’s legacy and his book on honoring the Sabbath

Glenn Beck, Erika Kirk. Image source: Blaze Media

Keeping quiet

Every week when I unplug, I arrive at the same realizations. They usually come sometime around Saturday afternoon. I remember what actually matters. I feel less angry, less anxious, and less consumed by things beyond my control. I feel more like myself. My mind is clearer. My heart is gentler. I am, quite simply, more at peace.

I wish I could remember all of this without the Sabbath. But I can’t. I’m not perfect — far from it. And maybe, just maybe, God knew something about the people He created when He gave us a day of rest.

I step away from the internet and the world of work every Friday night. I don’t think you have to do it exactly the way I do — or even on the same day — for it to matter. Maybe for you it’s Saturday night to Sunday night. Maybe it’s all day Sunday until Monday morning. Whatever works for you is fine.

I only know what works for me: turning off my phone every Friday evening, watching my wife and daughter light the Shabbat candles, sharing a meal together, not checking the news, and spending 24 hours in a small, quiet cocoon — safe, for a time, from a chaotic world.

Jesus, Trump, Charlie Kirk reportedly named role models by elementary students — but school staffer allegedly squashes picks



Elementary school students in Kansas reportedly chose the likes of Jesus, President Donald Trump, and Charlie Kirk as role models during an assignment — but a guidance counselor reportedly squashed those picks, KWCH-TV reported.

The incident at Marshall Elementary School in Eureka took place in late October, the station said, citing a civil rights complaint the American Center for Law & Justice filed Tuesday.

'This action undermines trust between schools, students, and parents.'

The ACLJ is representing a parent and an elementary school student in the case, KWCH said.

The station reported that a guidance counselor assigned sixth-grade students to call out their role models in a project called “Find Your Voice" while one student designated as a "student teacher" wrote the names on a board.

The ACLJ provided the following narrative of what it said happened, KWCH noted:

"When a student identified Charlie Kirk as a role model, [the guidance counselor] got very uncomfortable and refused to allow this name to be written on the board, yelling that he was 'not a hero,' and that he was not a role model. The student teacher had already started writing Charlie Kirk's name on the board, and was ordered by [the guidance counselor] to remove it. When another student selected President Donald J. Trump as a role model, [the guidance counselor] reiterated her prohibition even more angrily, stating that students could not write political or religious figures on the board, and in fact excluded political and religious topics altogether. However, [the guidance counselor] permitted other controversial figures to be listed as heroes."

The station said it spoke with a Eureka parent of a sixth-grade student who recalled that another student wanted Jesus as a role model, but that choice also was not allowed as part of the assignment.

RELATED: Yet another SoCal HS teacher allegedly embroiled in anti-Trump controversy — this time it's over a student's MAGA clothing

The ACLJ's complaint accuses the school district of religious discrimination, political/viewpoint discrimination, violation of free speech rights, and retaliation, KWCH noted.

Oh, and the law firm also accused the powers that be of encouraging students to not tell their parents about the incident, the station said.

Specifically, the ACLJ called out "egregious conduct in engaging in viewpoint-based discrimination against students who identified conservative political figures as role models, and the subsequent directive instructing students not to report concerns to their parents," KWCH reported.

In addition, the ACLJ maintained that while students were allowed to list whomever they wanted in their written assignments, they were prohibited from calling out the names of "religious or political heroes publicly on the board," the station said.

The ACLJ further argued that "the selective prohibition created immediate confusion among students about whose voices were valued and whose were not," KWCH said.

More from the station:

The group also called out school's response to what happened, saying that the administration claimed that prohibiting political and religious figures from being discussed in the "Find Your Voice" activity was in the name of being "inclusive and neutral."

The American Center for Law & Justice particularly took issue with an alleged instruction for students to bring concerns to teachers or the principal first, not directly to their parents.

The ACLJ said the directive "instructing children not to report concerns to their parents ... violates fundamental principles of parental rights, educational ethics, and child safety," KWCH added.

The Eureka school board reportedly addressed the issue during a Dec. 8 meeting and met in executive session, the station said. However, the ACLJ said "no public response was provided, no corrective action has been announced, and the violations continue to remain unaddressed," KWCH reported.

U.S. Rep. Ron Estes of Kansas' 4th Congressional District, which includes Eureka, shared the following on social media about the controversy, the station said:

"It's alarming to hear of a Kansas teacher silencing students' voices in the classroom. Schools shouldn't be a place where a teacher's political beliefs are forced onto students. This is a violation of their constitutional rights and does not represent Kansas schools' fundamental principles.

"Parents should have the confidence in schools to allow their children to grow and engage in classrooms that support their children's ideas and opinions. This action undermines trust between schools, students, and parents. I do not condone this type of political censorship in any school."

Marshall Elementary School Principal Stacy Coulter noted the following in response to the civil rights complaint and a request to discuss the issue, KWCH reported:

"We are aware of this incident and are always working with families and our school staff to make sure every learning activity is a positive and encouraging experience for every student.

"We are unable to comment on the individuals involved because of our commitment to the privacy of our students and employees. This information is also protected by confidentiality laws. Thank you for your understanding."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Charlie Kirk’s Murder Prompts New Hate Crime Bill

'We've got to lower the political temperature'

Charlie Kirk murder online role play banned from Grand Theft Auto: 'Tasteless, unacceptable'



The online world for Grand Theft Auto V is seeing a rare instance of censorship despite its usually anything-goes environment.

GTA Online is the game's online platform, which has thrived for more than a dozen years since its original 2013 release.

'Tasteless, unacceptable, and inappropriate.'

In December, publisher Rockstar Games launched a feature that allows players to design and publish their own missions online for other users to play. At this point in the game's lifespan, this was about the only thing that users could not yet do.

It only took a few days for this feature to be immediately taken to its limits, though, as at least one user took it upon themselves to recreate the murder of Charlie Kirk, which happened on September 10, 2025.

A user named "Yaarpen98" created a mission titled "We are Charlie Kirk," in which the gamer is meant to go on a rooftop and shoot a person standing in front of school under a fruit stand.

YouTuber ICER relayed fan reactions to the created mission, saying it had users split, with half of the fans saying it was simply dark humor and an example of player freedom. The other half of fans, he explained, described the mission as "tasteless, unacceptable, and inappropriate."

He added some have argued that "players have crossed a line that even the developers should not tolerate."

RELATED: Honor Charlie and put America first at the ballot box in 2026

As reported by Variety, Rockstar Games has banned missions of this nature and added "Charlie Kirk" to its list of prohibited terms through its "profanity filter." Furthermore, the developers will change the name of this tool to something that reflects how it will be used to flag content violations, not just profanity.

Rockstar's community guidelines already prohibit showcasing "violent extremism," which includes "glorification or promotion of real-world terrorist, extremist, or criminal organizations and their ideologies."

This rule has already been allegedly enforced in regard to rapper and producer Sean "Diddy" Combs, after missions that recreated a raid on his home were removed.

RELATED: Conor McGregor removed from Hitman video game after losing sexual assault case

Photo by Trent Nelson/The Salt Lake Tribune/Getty Images

A user named "Vexnyllith" said he created a mission that had authorities raiding the home of a "celebrity" known for "hosting parties and is wanted for serious crimes."

The user said he also created a mission called "Diddy Disciples," but both missions were removed. He then vowed to create a new series of missions and advised fans to follow him.

The mission creation feature is similar to that of Hitman Online, which also sparked controversy when UFC fighter Conor McGregor was removed from the game over real-life legal troubles.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The crisis of 'trembling pastors': Why church leaders are ignoring core theology because it’s 'political'



At Turning Point USA’s annual AmFest, BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey and Senior Director of TPUSA Faith Lucas Miles dove into one the most pressing spiritual issues facing our nation right now: weak pastors.

Miles calls them “trembling pastors.” They aren’t necessarily “traitorous” in that they’re deliberately spreading ideas antithetical to Scripture, but they also aren’t “true pastors” willing to boldly speak truth no matter the cost.

These men, fearful of dividing their congregations or financial loss, steer clear of politically charged subjects.

But the problem with that approach is that so many political issues today are theological at their core. Abortion, marriage, gender, race, and justice have deep spiritual implications, but because these issues appear on the ballot, many pastors turn a blind eye to them and fail to lead their congregations.

But Allie and Miles argue that truth only prevails when pastors courageously lead in all areas.

“I remember one of the things that Charlie [Kirk] said to me is that courage is easy. All you have to do is say yes. You don't have to have a degree on the wall; you don't have to have a bunch of money; you don't have to have good looks. You just have to be willing to say, like, ‘Here I am, Lord. Send me,”’ says Miles.

“I think we need more pastors to do that. … What we're trying to do at TPUSA Faith is be that voice coming alongside of them and saying, ‘Rise up, you mighty valiant warrior. It's time to get in the fight here."’

One type of weak pastor Allie says she sees a lot of are those unwilling to touch anything related to race. They’ve “got it on abortion; they've got it on marriage and gender,” she says, but “the racial social justice stuff” is where they “totally fumble the ball.”

This was especially apparent during 2020, when the death of George Floyd set off a social justice movement that razed entire cities to the ground. During that time, there were so many pastors who “sounded so much like BLM or the world when it came to race and justice,” she tells Miles.

Miles says that while he has grace for the pastors who posted black BLM squares before it came out that it was “Marxist, anti-family, anti-God organization,” his sympathy ends with those who never repented.

“I've not seen one of these guys go back and repent of that and actually acknowledge this,” he says.

While it’s easy to write this off as pride, part of the problem is lack of education.

Many of these pastors simply “don't know the history of liberation theology. They don't know that it's a hybrid between Marxism and Christianity. They don't know about James Cone. They don't know about this idea of crucifying the white Jesus,” says Miles.

To learn more about how TPUSA Faith is walking alongside pastors, educating and encouraging them to boldly proclaim truth and, as Charlie Kirk is famous for saying, “make heaven crowded,” watch the full interview above.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

How do you solve a problem like Wikipedia?



Wikipedia has recently come under the microscope. I take some credit for this, as a co-founder of Wikipedia and a longtime vocal critic of the knowledge platform.

In September, I nailed (virtually) “Nine Theses About Wikipedia” to the digital door of Wikipedia and started a round of interviews about it, beginning with Tucker Carlson. This prompted Elon Musk to announce Grokipedia’s impending launch the very next day. And a national conversation evolved from there, with left- and right-leaning voices complaining about the platform’s direction or my critique of it.

As long as Wikipedia remains open, it is entirely possible for those who think differently to get involved.

As its 25th anniversary approaches, Wikipedia clearly needs reform. Not only does the platform have a long history of left-wing bias, but the purveyors of that bias — administrators, everyday editors, and others — stubbornly cling to their warped worldview and vilify those who dare to contest it.

The “Nine Theses” are the project’s first-ever thoroughgoing reform proposal. Among the ideas:

  • Allow multiple, competing articles per topic.
  • Stop ideological blacklisting of sources.
  • Restore the original neutrality policy.
  • Reveal the identities of the most powerful managers.
  • End unfair, indefinite blocking.
  • Adopt a formal legislative process.

Such ideas were bound to be a hard sell on Wikipedia. It has become institutionally ossified.

Nevertheless, I was delighted that the discussion of the theses has been robust, without much further prodding from me. Following the launch, Jimmy Wales actually stepped into the fray on the so-called talk page of an article called “Gaza genocide,” chiding the participants for violating Wikipedia’s neutrality policy. I chimed in as well. But the criticism was thrown back in our faces.

This brings me to the deeper problem: Wikipedia is stuck in its ways. How can it possibly be reformed when so many of its contributors like the bias, the anonymous leadership, the ease of blocking ideological foes, and other aspects of dysfunction? Reform seems impossible.

Yet there is one realistic way that we can make progress toward reform.

Above all else, those who care should get involved in Wikipedia. The total number of people who are really active on Wikipedia is surprisingly small. The number editing 100 times in any given month is in the low thousands, and this does not amount to that much time — perhaps one or two hours per week. Those who treat it as a part-time or full-time job — and so have real day-to-day influence — number in the hundreds.

In interviews, I have been urging the outcasts to converge on Wikipedia. You might think this is code for saying that conservatives and libertarians should try to stage a coup, but that is not so. Hindus and Israelis, among others, have also complained of being left out in recent years. The problem is an entrenched ruling class. As long as Wikipedia remains open, it is entirely possible for those who think differently to get involved.

RELATED: Wikipedia editors are trying to scrub the record clean of Iryna Zarutska’s slaughter by violent thug

Photo by Peter Zay/Anadolu via Getty Images

If you are a conservative or libertarian who is concerned about the slanted framing of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, get involved. If you are a classical liberal who is alarmed by the anti-Semitism within Wikipedia — like Florida Democrat Debbie Wasserman Schultz — it is time to make your presence felt. Wherever you may fall on the ideological spectrum, I call on good-faith citizens to become engaged editors who take productive discourse seriously, rather than scapegoating “the other side.”

Even a dozen new editors could make a difference, let alone hundreds or thousands who might be reading this column. Given that Wikipedia attracts billions of readers, in addition to featuring prominently in Google Search, Google Gemini, and elsewhere, improving the platform will strengthen our collective access to high-quality information across the board. It will bring us closer to truth.

So how do we solve the Wikipedia problem? With you, me, and all of us — individual action at scale.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.