Why turning the other cheek won't stop the godless left



The image was unforgettable.

A grieving widow, standing before thousands, chose not to curse the darkness before her. Erika Kirk spoke words of grace instead of vengeance, forgiving the man who allegedly gunned down her husband. Days earlier in California, the family of slain pastor Felipe Ascencio had done the same, turning the other cheek even as sorrow filled the air.

This is not politics guided by conscience. It's ideology married to contempt, unmoored from God, and unashamed of evil.

Two funerals. Two acts of radical mercy. In an age of rage, such restraint is astonishing.

Forgive, but resist

This deserves respect. In a culture where cruelty passes for cleverness and malice poses as morality, forgiveness stands out like a candle in the night. It is not weakness but strength, drawn from God and lived in public. It recalls Saint Stephen praying for his killers and Christ forgiving from the cross.

To forgive when the mob demands fury is its own form of defiance. It unsettles a culture addicted to vengeance. But forgiveness is not a shield. Mercy eases the wound, but it does not stop the next bullet.

That's the truth conservatives must face.

We are not dealing with decent opponents who stumble now and then. We are dealing with a godless left that sees mercy as impotence. Leftists do not mourn their enemies; they mock them. Scroll through their comments after a killing — laughter, sneers, excuses. Watch their pundits explain why the victim had it coming.

This is not politics guided by conscience. It's ideology married to contempt, unmoored from God, and unashamed of evil.

Forgiveness is holy. But when it's met with ridicule, it signals that more blood can be spilled without cost. A movement that forgives but never fortifies will not survive. A church that turns the cheek but never guards the body will be broken. This age does not admire meekness; it exploits it. And those who delight in Charlie Kirk’s death will not be moved by hymns or prayers. They will be encouraged by them if nothing else follows.

So what next?

First, vigilance. Christians can no longer assume that sharing a country means sharing values. That illusion has been broken for years. Many Americans share a land, yet dream of different nations. In media, schools, and politics, hostility to faith, family, and country is open and unapologetic. The hatred is plain, and the influence is real.

To look away is to invite defeat.

Second, unity. The left thrives on division within the right, and too often it prevails. Grudges, disputes, and rivalries weaken those who should be standing shoulder to shoulder. A fractured right is an easy target.

RELATED: How Erika Kirk answered the hardest question of all

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Third, cultural strength. Politics follows culture, and culture is where the left has won most ground. Leftists control classrooms, newsrooms, and streaming services, the feeds in every young person’s pocket. They shape imaginations before ballots are ever cast. To counter this, those on the right cannot retreat into nostalgia. They must build schools that teach truth, create art that uplifts, and support media that speaks with honesty about faith, family, and country.

Culture shapes politics, and if culture is lost, the future is lost.

Fourth, law and governance. Forgiveness mends hearts, but law restrains hands. A society that refuses to punish evil guarantees more of it. Prayers for the dead are not enough. There must be laws that protect churches, policies that guard families, courts that resist ideological pressure. To love an enemy does not mean allowing him to wage war.

This is not a call to violence but a call to clarity.

Steadfast in mercy — and might

History shows that kindness alone cannot conquer wickedness. Rome admired the martyrs, yet still threw them to the lions. Emperors preached justice while crucifixions lined the roads. Popes spoke of humility while selling indulgences. Dictators praised virtue while locking believers in prisons. Across ages and empires, evil has never yielded to gentle words. It retreats only before courage, conviction, and steadfast resistance.

Forgive your enemy, but do not let him rule your household. Pray for his soul, but do not let his ideology shape your child’s classroom. Bless those who curse you, but do not hand them the levers of power they would use to curse your grandchildren.

Erika Kirk’s words lifted eyes to heaven and shamed a culture of retribution. But if her forgiveness is mistaken for a strategy, we will see more widows, more orphans, and more funerals. Forgiveness is a balm, not a barricade. The barricade must be built by all decent Americans — through faith, family, unity, vigilance, and cultural strength.

Two thousand years ago, Christ carried the cross and conquered death. Today, his followers are called to carry their own. Sometimes that means granting grace where none is earned. Sometimes it means resisting a culture sinking into decay.

Always, it means standing firm — steadfast in mercy, steady in might — until right overcomes wrong and heaven defeats hell.

What if Johnny Carson turned MLK’s murder into a punch line?



What if, in 1968, after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., Johnny Carson opened “The Tonight Show” with jibes about how one of King’s own supporters had pulled the trigger? What if he followed with a gag suggesting that President Lyndon Johnson didn’t care much about losing a friend? Or how maybe we need to keep up the pressure on conservatives who think free speech includes engaging those who disagree with them in civil dialogue?

Does anyone believe NBC executives would have shrugged and said, “Let Johnny talk — free speech, you know”? Does anyone think Carson’s 12 million nightly viewers would have treated it as harmless banter and tuned in the next night with curiosity about what he might say next?

Jimmy Kimmel needs to ‘grow a pair,’ take his lumps, and find another venue.

When the members of the first Congress wrote the First Amendment, enshrining freedom of speech, they did it within the context of the words of John Adams: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

St. Paul puts it this way: “‘I have the right to do anything,’ you say — but not everything is beneficial. ‘I have the right to do anything’ — but I will not be mastered by anything” (1 Corinthians 6:12).

Sadly, I was included in an email from a dear relative who chided anyone who did not protest Jimmy Kimmel’s firing, citing the First Amendment. My relative felt very strongly about this. In his own words, if you didn't loudly defend Kimmel, you needed to “grow a pair.”

My wife and I had just finished watching the entire eight-hour-long, beautiful, uplifting, and spirit-filled memorial service for Charlie Kirk. Before I went to sleep, I decided to clear out my email inbox for the day. Unfortunately, I opened the email from my relative (thinking it was just the usual newsy missive) and read his thoughts.

He had written his opinions before the service, so I am not sure if he would have sent the same message; he made it clear that what happened to Charlie was certainly serious and evil.

No buts about it

My relative used words I had heard before from those who want to virtue signal, while also insisting that doing bad things is not acceptable. It was a variation of this: Yes, what happened to Charlie Kirk was wrong, terrible! But ...

If you hear people on the left — or even people who consider themselves rational, reasonable people “in the middle” who like to play the both-sides-are-wrong card — you need to push back. Comparing the temporary suspension of a mediocre, inconsequential talent like Kimmel to the assassination of a beautiful, influential man like Kirk — well, they are not in the same arena.

Since I was the only one on the email thread who knew Charlie personally (we had been colleagues at Salem Radio), I felt my comments would carry more weight.

I highlighted the Martin Luther King Jr.–Carson comparison and then focused on the “free speech” aspect from a purely business standpoint.

Jimmy Kimmel loses tens of millions of dollars for the network annually. It's been said that his viewership was so low that if you posted a video on X of your cat playing the piano, you could attract more viewers than Kimmel gets on any given night.

Moreover, the claim that Kimmel was denied his First Amendment rights is simply untrue. Kimmel remains free to say whatever he wants anywhere else. For example, when Tucker Carlson (who had the hottest show on Fox, making millions for the network) was canceled for speaking the truth politically, he launched his own “network.”

The funny thing is (no, not jokes from Kimmel’s opening monologues), unsuccessful shows hosted by people with varying degrees of talent get canceled all the time in the world of television. If that were not so, we would all be subjected to the 59th season of “My Mother the Car,”starring Jerry Van Dyke.

RELATED: I experienced Jimmy Kimmel’s lies firsthand. His suspension is justice.

Photo by Tommaso Boddi/Getty Images for UCLA Jonsson Cancer Center Foundation

Lackluster shows are replaced by something for which the viewing public actually cares to tune in. The public had clearly tuned out of Kimmel’s show a long time ago.

What Jimmy Kimmel needs to do is “grow a pair,” take his lumps, and find another venue. Nevertheless, Kimmel has (viola!) returned after all, because I suppose the network figures it still hasn’t lost enough money — or influence.

Prove Him wrong

Young Charlie Kirk paid the ultimate price for standing against the obvious evil he saw in plain sight. And in the days, weeks, months, and years ahead, many more, unfortunately, may join him.

My relative closed out his email challenging those of us who didn't agree with him to respond à la Charlie: “Prove me wrong,” he wrote.

I closed my email response to him in a way I think the humble Charlie Kirk might have done: “Jesus said, ‘I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me'” (John 14:6).

“Prove Him wrong.”

How Erika Kirk answered the hardest question of all



The assassination of Charlie Kirk left many Americans stunned, angry, and grieving. For those who loved him, admired his courage, or relied on his voice in the public square, the loss feels personal and almost unbearable.

Christians face a sharper question: How do we respond to the killer who took his life?

Forgiveness does not excuse evil. It does not mean the legal system should look away. It does not erase grief. But it does keep hatred from having the final word.

The human heart cries out for justice. We want the killer to feel the pain he caused. Scripture acknowledges that longing. In Psalm 13, David pleads, “How long, O Lord? Will you forget me forever?” It is a lament, an honest cry from a wounded soul. God hears that anger.

Yet in Gethsemane, Christ redirected such impulses. When Peter lashed out and cut the high priest’s servant’s ear, Jesus stopped him: “No more of this!” (Luke 22:51) He healed the man who had come to help arrest Him. The cycle of vengeance broke under His touch.

That choice now confronts us.

At Charlie’s memorial in Glendale, Arizona, on Sunday, his widow, Erika, gave a stunning example of what it means to walk that path. Standing before thousands, she said through tears:

My husband, Charlie, he wanted to save young men just like the one who took his life. … That young man — I forgive him. I forgive him because it was what Christ did and is what Charlie would do.

She added, “The answer to hate is not hate. The answer we know from the gospel is love and always love — love for our enemies and love for those who persecute us.”

Erika refused revenge: “I do not want that man’s blood on my ledger. Because when I get to heaven, and Jesus is like: ‘Eye for an eye? Is that how we do it?’ And that keeps me from being in heaven, from being with Charlie.”

Her words challenge us: If the wife of a murdered man can forgive, why not us?

Forgiveness does not excuse evil. It does not mean the legal system should look away. It does not erase grief. But it does keep hatred from having the final word. Christians are called to stand apart from the world’s rage.

That calling is not easy. On our own, it is impossible. But through the Spirit of Christ, we can echo His command: “No more of this.” We entrust justice to God while extending the mercy we ourselves received.

RELATED: Why Charlie Kirk's murder feels personal — even if you never met him

Paul’s life proves that no sinner is beyond reach. Before his conversion, Saul approved of Stephen’s stoning and hunted Christians (Acts 8:1). By every human measure, he was an enemy of the church. Yet Christ met him on the Damascus road and transformed him into the apostle who carried the gospel to the nations. If God’s mercy could reach Saul, it can reach anyone.

The church’s witness matters now. Will we mirror the world’s anger, or will we display Christ’s mercy? That will require prayer, tears, and the daily work of the Holy Spirit. But the command is clear: “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44).

So let us grieve Charlie Kirk. Let us lift up his family and friends. Let us pray even for the man who killed him, while still pursuing earthly justice. In doing so, we honor Christ’s call to mercy and the God-given duty to uphold righteousness.

Forgiveness is not optional. It is the very heart of Christian faith. On the cross, Jesus looked at His executioners and said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34).

That is our charge now.

Crowd Goes Silent as Charlie Kirk’s Widow Says What No One Expected Her to Say Out Loud
play icon

Crowd Goes Silent as Charlie Kirk’s Widow Says What No One Expected Her to Say Out Loud

Accountability is the best way to honor Charlie Kirk’s legacy



The nation changed on September 10, 2025. An assassin’s bullet cut short the life of Charlie Kirk while he was speaking on a Utah college campus.

The coward who pulled the trigger chose political violence over debate. Reports indicate the weapon and its ammunition carried “anti-fascist” slogans — a chilling reminder that ideology now drives some Americans to kill.

Do what Charlie did. Do what Christ commands. Love your neighbor. Show grace. Demand justice — but refuse to become the thing you despise.

Charlie Kirk did not deserve to die. The founder of Turning Point USA was murdered for defending what he believed, walking into academia’s den of hostility, and calling students and faculty back to truth. He embodied both the American spirit and, more importantly, Christian faith. Kirk welcomed argument, offered the gospel, and lived it in an age when many Americans are turning away from Christ.

His wife should not be left without her husband, and his children should not be left fatherless. They certainly should not have to endure online mobs mocking and defaming their murdered husband and father. Yet, they do. Teachers, federal employees, even military personnel — people sworn to serve the public — joined in the sick celebration.

An active-duty Army captain called Kirk “a monstrous ghoul.” A Navy petty officer wrote “better luck next time friend.” An Army sergeant piled on. A Fort Bragg elementary school teacher employed by the Department of War branded him “a garbage human.” Most grotesque of all, a War Department supervisor posted that Kirk “got what he deserved,” sneering, “rest in pieces,” and warning that more killings could come for “those who choose to spread hate and division.”

This is not fringe behavior. It is radicalization in plain sight, coming from people in positions of trust. And it has metastasized. On the left-wing social platform BlueSky, users are openly fantasizing about assassinations of Ben Shapiro, Michael Knowles, Andy Ngo, President Trump, Vice President JD Vance, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Matt Walsh, J.K. Rowling, and more. When hate this brazen circulates unchecked, another attack is not hard to imagine.

Regardless of your opinion of Charlie Kirk — his politics, his faith, or his legacy — the American way of life rests on peaceful discourse and on the Judeo-Christian command to love our neighbor. That foundation is under assault.

But not all the signs are dark: Younger Americans are turning to Christ in increasing numbers. If anything can pull us back from the abyss of political murder, it is the renewal of faith.

Ephesians 4:26-27 admonishes, “In your anger do not sin: do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, and do not give the devil a foothold.” Anger over this atrocity is justified. What we do with that anger will determine whether America chooses vengeance or redemption.

RELATED: Why Charlie Kirk’s assassination will change us in ways this generation has never seen

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

Kirk wanted to be remembered as a man courageous in faith. To honor that, we must follow Christ’s example. Forgive those who dance on his grave. Forgive those who cheer for the next act of political bloodshed. Forgive even the soldiers, sailors, and public servants who lent legitimacy to his assassination with their words.

Forgiveness does not mean forgetting. It does not mean impunity. Without accountability, this poison spreads and more violence follows. But accountability can be Christ-like: firm, just, and free of vengeance.

So to those who read the online bile and feel tempted to answer hate with hate: Turn to prayer. Do what Charlie did. Do what Christ commands. Love your neighbor. Show grace. Demand justice — but refuse to become the thing you despise.

That is how we ensure the assassin’s bullet does not win.

Silence isn’t peace — it’s just surrender in slow motion



Blaze Media recently published my opinion piece “Agree to disagree? More like surrender to the script.” In the days that followed, readers left thoughtful and reasonable comments.

But when the Christian Post republished the same article, the comment section there sparked a firestorm.

If God the Father had been willing to 'agree to disagree' with humanity about sin, He wouldn’t have sent His Son to die in our place.

If you don’t have time to read the article or browse the responses, here’s the short version:

The piece centers on a conversation I had with my friend Jeffrey, who strongly dislikes President Trump. Over the four years of the Biden administration, Jeffrey never once criticized Biden or his team — no matter how egregious their actions. Yet, barely two months into Trump’s return to office, Jeffrey was already taking shots at him. And he did so during what had been, until that moment, a relatively uneventful phone call.

To be clear, I didn’t bring up the topic of the president. I knew it was a sensitive subject for Jeffrey. But during a conversation about a recent movie, he found a way to insert his objection to Trump’s deportation policy, calling those deported “asylum seekers.” He also declared that Trump was “bad for democracy.”

I pushed back gently, noting that America is not a democracy but a constitutional republic. Jeffrey agreed.

When I pointed out that an open border has led to sex trafficking, fentanyl deaths, and violent criminals infiltrating small towns, he said he didn’t support any of that. But then he quickly ended the conversation with, “Let’s just agree to disagree.”

Trump broke the truce

I found that well-worn phrase — “agree to disagree” — strange in this context. It suggests any disagreement, no matter how serious, can be casually brushed aside. Sure, my wife prefers chocolate ice cream, and I prefer vanilla. On that — and countless other minor things — we can “agree to disagree.” But when the stakes are higher? When lives are at risk — even the future of the nation? People should articulate and defend their positions.

After my “agree to disagree” article appeared in the Christian Post, commenters there came after me. Apparently, I wasn’t being a good Christian because I stirred the pot by bringing up Donald Trump — “the great divider,” as some called him. Never mind that I didn’t bring up his name. My friend did. But I wasn’t about to let his cheap shots go unchallenged.

In the original piece, I asked whether my friend — a faithful Christian — also sees his allegiance to the Democratic Party as an “agree to disagree” matter. Can a Christian’s loyalty to any political party cloud his judgment on what’s clearly right or wrong?

Jeffrey said he opposes sex changes for kids and drag queen story hours. But when it comes to deportation, he sees Trump’s second-term policies as domineering and out of bounds.

Disagreeing isn’t a sin

On critical issues — like the devastating effects of open borders — silence is complicity. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer warned, “Silence in the face of evil is evil. Not to speak is to speak.” When others looked the other way — or “agreed to disagree” — during the Nazi rise in 1930s Germany, Bonhoeffer stood firm. He was one of the few pastors who refused to be silent.

Today, the American left censors, cancels, and silences anyone who disagrees. Leftists expect us to “agree to disagree” but only if we’re the ones doing the agreeing — and the disagreeing. That demand for submission is part of why the country now finds itself in such dangerous and unstable times.

In my earlier article, one line struck a nerve:

It’s hard to imagine these days that the words ‘Christian’ and ‘Democrat’ can be mentioned in the same sentence.

That line sparked outrage. One commenter at the Christian Post wrote: “Nothing ends discussions — or even friendships — faster than questioning someone’s salvation over their political party.”

But here’s the problem: That’s not what I said. That commenter assumed I questioned my friend’s salvation. I didn’t. Within the context of the article, it’s clear I questioned his wisdom — something entirely different.

Jesus didn’t flinch

A few years ago, it was trendy to wear wristbands with the initials “WWJD?” — short for “What Would Jesus Do?”

But I always thought the better question was “WDJD?” — “What Did Jesus Do?”

Without knowing the Gospels, we risk projecting our own preferences onto Christ. We imagine He would act just like us in any given situation. But if we read scripture and study His words, we begin to understand how He actually responded — and how we should, too.

Nowhere in the four Gospels does Jesus “agree to disagree.” He never split the difference. He never wavered. He always led from a position of authority.

Take His encounter in the Temple. Jesus didn’t debate the moneychangers. He didn’t issue a polite warning. He flipped their tables and drove them out (Matthew 21:12-13). He didn’t scold them and promise to check in again next Sabbath for a follow-up heart-to-heart.

Jesus didn’t agree to disagree. He made it unmistakably clear: God’s house would not be defiled.

Oswald Chambers, in his classic devotional “My Utmost for His Highest,” ends the March 24 entry with this piercing line: “You may often see Jesus Christ wreck a life before He saves it.”

He cites Matthew 10:34, where Jesus says, “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”

That doesn’t sound like someone looking to “agree to disagree.”

Debate or dodge

One commenter tried to compare disagreement to a hung jury — where jurors can’t reach a unanimous verdict. But that analogy falls apart under scrutiny. Hung juries don’t arise from casual disagreement or an early vote. They happen only after jurors rigorously examine the evidence, debate the facts, and dig into every detail.

A jury doesn’t begin deliberations by taking a straw poll and calling it quits. It doesn’t return to the judge after a 7-5 split and declare, “Let’s just agree to disagree.”

A fair trial demands serious discussion — so should any conversation where truth and justice are at stake.

If God the Father had been willing to “agree to disagree” with humanity about sin, He wouldn’t have sent His Son to die in our place. We could have gone on living however we pleased — hurting others, being hurt, and suffering the consequences. Jesus might have shown up just to stand on the sidelines, shaking His head as we destroyed ourselves.

Consider the woman caught in adultery in John 8:1-11. The Pharisees reminded Jesus that the law required her to be stoned. He could have done what Pontius Pilate would do later — wash His hands of the situation. He could have said, “The law is the law,” and let the crowd do as it pleased. Agree to disagree, right?

But Jesus didn’t do that. Instead, He delivered a mic-drop moment that spared her life. Then, He told her, “Go and sin no more.”

Compare that to what happened when Jesus stood before Pilate. Pilate, faced with the mob, knew Jesus was innocent. But instead of standing up to the crowd, he caved. He agreed to disagree — and sent Christ to the cross.

When it comes to sin and judgment, “agree to disagree” is just cowardice dressed up as compromise. Jesus never did that.

You posted, didn’t you?

Some readers of my original article accused me of sounding self-righteous for taking a firm stance with Jeffrey. But I don’t believe we should compromise — or “agree to disagree” — on matters of real consequence. That’s why I laid out the facts clearly, whether Jeffrey knew them or not.

There’s more to be said, but let me end with this:

A surprising number of commenters on the Christian Post insisted that we should always “agree to disagree,” even on major issues. But every one of those comments proved my point. Not a single person “agreed to disagree” with me. Instead, they made sure their dissenting views were heard — some twisting my words, others going straight for personal attacks.

If they truly believed in “agreeing to disagree,” they wouldn’t have commented at all.

So who’s right about the value of “agree to disagree”?

Well, it appears it's debatable, after all.

Elon Musk shows us how to kill cancel culture once and for all



Elon Musk knows how to end cancel culture.

Earlier this month, a member of Musk's Department of Government Efficiency team, Marko Elez, resigned after the Wall Street Journal reported that the young DOGE staffer once posted "to a deleted social-media account that advocated racism and eugenics." The story primarily focused on the DOGE's efforts and offered little evidence to support the serious accusation, giving readers only two examples.

For liberals angry over the DOGE's mission to uncover and eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars, the story proved to be confirmation that Musk is operating a rogue campaign with immature and inexperienced loyalists.

A watershed moment?

What happened after Elez's resignation may prove to be a turning point that erodes cancel culture.

It began when Vice President JD Vance spoke up.

"Here’s my view: I obviously disagree with some of Elez’s posts, but I don’t think stupid social media activity should ruin a kid’s life," Vance said. "We shouldn’t reward journalists who try to destroy people. Ever. So I say bring him back. If he’s a bad dude or a terrible member of the team, fire him for that."

That prompted Musk to promise Elez's return — for an important reason.

"He will be brought back," Musk vowed. "To err is human, to forgive divine."

— (@)

Forgiveness over punitive exile

What Musk said cannot be emphasized enough. He has, in fact, highlighted the fundamental problem with cancel culture: the absence of forgiveness and redemption.

Understanding this is key to ending cancel culture once and for all.

If our culture fails to forgive, our society will collapse under the weight of our own hypocrisy.

In the social media age, cancel culture has become a popular tactic of the easily outraged. When a small corner of the internet is angry over the words or actions of the victim, those people demand the accused be boycotted and shunned — and even fired from his job. Unfortunately, employers all too often bend the knee and comply with the aggrieved because they don't want online controversy to impact business.

But we must understand what cancel culture does: It seizes on the worst moment of a person's life and forces him to pay for his alleged sin.

This phenomenon is almost unrecognizable in real life. We intuitively know that (in most cases) one mistake, one misstep, one taken-out-of-context act of speech should not result in perpetual exile.

And yet, cancel culture exists. Why?

The power of digital 'reality'

Perhaps it is because social media exists in a disembodied reality that lures us to do and say things that we would never say or do in real life. Just one scroll through any online comments section proves this to be true.

From that perspective, it's easy to see why cancel culture advocates feel no empathy for their victims. The aggrieved forget the humanity of their victims. Even worse, the aggrieved forget their own humanity. They forget that every person — themselves included — has done or said something that some corner of the internet would demand cancellation for.

But real life isn't punitive like cancel culture.

When I make a mistake in real life, my friends don't organize a mob and demand that my employer hold me accountable. Rather, I am provided space for correction, opportunity to express remorse, and a chance to seek amends.

Most mistakes, no matter how egregious, don't define us. Rather, it is our response to error that speaks volumes.

In his book "Mere Christianity," C.S. Lewis writes about an "important paradox": the connection between mercy and justice. "Mercy, detached from justice, grows unmerciful," he warns.

If he were writing about cancel culture, Lewis might have written, "Justice, detached from mercy, grows unjust."

Mercy, in the case of cancel culture, is forgiveness. Cancel culture, therefore, is never about justice — only unmerciful punishment. But where there is forgiveness, there is accountability, grace, and redemption.

Christian foundations

The beauty of Musk's response is not only its emphasis on the connection between mistakes and forgiveness but that forgiveness is divine.

Alexander Pope, an 18th-century poet, wrote the words that Musk tweeted. Pope was a devout Christian, which means his use of "divine" is a clear reference to God — not any random divine force. The allusion to God is important because Christianity places unique emphasis on forgiveness. It is central to God's redemptive mission in and through Jesus Christ.

Forgiveness, moreover, is a central theme in Jesus' teaching. It's in the Lord's prayer and His instruction to the disciples, and He beautifully petitioned God the Father to forgive His executioners as He died a brutal death on the cross. The apostle Paul, meanwhile, exhorts Christians to forgive "just as in Christ God forgave you" (Ephesians 4:32).

The way forward

The blueprint for ending cancel culture is found in Musk's response. We don't ignore mistakes, for that dodges accountability. But we don't define people by their worst mistakes, either. Instead, we offer them something divine, something that is of God: forgiveness, grace, and redemption.

If our culture fails to forgive, our society will collapse under the weight of our own hypocrisy. Remember the words of Jesus, "For you will be judged by the same standard with which you judge others, and you will be measured by the same measure you use" (Matthew 7:2).

The path forward — one that ends with cancel culture's demise — requires us to deny the bloodthirsty digital mob. It requires acknowledging that everyone makes mistakes, that we all have flaws, and that, indeed, we are all sinners. God, in and through the person of Jesus Christ, has shown us the way forward.

Cancel culture is destructive. But forgiveness — and following God's path to life — builds something better. God, with His unfathomable grace, forgives repentant sinners and offers them redemption. We should go and do likewise.

This is how we end cancel culture once and for all.

Baby Jesus stolen from nativity scene, but thief returns it just in time for Christmas with remorseful apology



A baby Jesus Christ figurine was stolen from a nativity scene in Colorado. However, the alleged thief felt supreme guilt over his improper actions and returned baby Jesus just before Christmas with a touching apology for his sins.

On Dec. 17, the Fort Collins Police Department notified the public that a baby Jesus figurine had been stolen from the Old Town Square in Colorado, located approximately 60 miles north of Denver.

"I am really sorry. I made a dumb mistake in the moment. It won’t happen again."

"This Grinch tried to ruin Christmas by stealing the baby Jesus from the Old Town Square nativity scene," the Fort Collins Police Department stated.

Police included a photo of the suspect in question in hopes of the public identifying the alleged "Grinch." The suspect in the police screenshot was a teen white male.

On Dec. 19, the Fort Collins Police Department noted that the baby Jesus statuette had been turned in — just in time for Christmas Day.

"The baby Jesus figurine reported stolen from the Old Town Square Nativity scene four days ago was today anonymously dropped off at Poudre Fire Authority Station #1 in Fort Collins, along with an apology note," the Fort Collins Police Department declared in a statement.

The alleged thief begged for forgiveness for his crime, "I am really sorry. I made a dumb mistake in the moment. It won’t happen again."

The Fort Collins Police Department added, "No further information has been obtained about the person who swiped the statuette."

Local firefighters could be seen posing with the baby Jesus Christ figurine.

The statuette does not appear to be damaged based on photos released by local authorities.

The business that maintains the nativity scene proclaimed that it didn't want to pursue charges against the suspect, according to the Associated Press.

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

Biblical truth outshines feminist fiction in Lily Phillips’ OnlyFans stunt



The reaction to the OnlyFans model who recently slept with 100 men in a single day is a needed reminder that feminist propaganda is no match for biblical truth. Lily Phillips is the 23-year-old British woman who recently filmed herself having sex with dozens of strangers and posted it to her OnlyFans page. But the YouTube documentary about her stunt sparked intense reaction online when it was released in early December.

Despite decades of feminists trying to convince the public that women should — and can — have sex just like men, I didn’t see a single think piece claiming Phillips as an exemplar of sex positivity. In fact, several female commentators wanted to shift attention to the men who participated in Lily’s experiment.

Lily Phillips decided to play with fire and is feeling the burn right now. Let’s hope she will come to her senses before she is completely consumed.

This didn’t surprise me one bit. Many women want every “privilege” they associate with being a man — except being responsible for their actions. Yes, Phillips was visibly shaken after having sex with 100 men in a day, but she was no victim. She came up with the idea, recruited the men, and posted her activity on her OnlyFans page.

If Andrew Tate said he wanted to sleep with 100 women in a day, no one would have a problem criticizing him for being a sex-crazed degenerate. To make things worse, Lily Phillips is now planning to have sex with 1,000 men in early 2025 in an attempt to break a world record.

The women whose first impulse was to criticize the men who participated in Phillips’ self-degradation were tacitly acknowledging that attempts to reclaim the word “slut” and declarations that “sex work is work” are lies. Despite decades of social conditioning meant to convince us that men and women are identical sexual beings, deep down they believe those men should have protected Lily from herself.

They are right. I would be ashamed of my sons if they walked into a room with condoms strewn on the floor to participate in something so degrading, but the men who participated didn’t show their faces or allow their real voices to be broadcast.

Lily is the person trying to become famous for selling sex, and the physical consequences of her actions are likely the least of her worries. She already admitted feeling a sense of shame over her chosen “career” path. She will likely find it hard to find a decent man willing to marry her. Many people will hear her confessions and think they are a sign that society needs to become more tolerant and accepting. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The revulsion people feel when reading Lily’s story — and the conflicted emotions she expressed in the documentary — are signs of a conscience that has not been completely destroyed.

On a personal level, the news really is bad for Lily Phillips. She sounded like a woman whose soul died in that room.

Thankfully, Christians are made spiritually alive through Jesus. As it says in John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” This is the good news that she needs to hear.

Some people claim to believe in God but think Christ’s atonement for sin only covers the minor, private sins. When it comes to strippers, prostitutes, fornicators, adulterers, or homosexuals, they assume some people are too far gone for God to save.

The apostle Paul certainly wasn’t one of these people. After rattling off a list of sins that keep people in spiritual bondage, he utters six of the most important words in the Bible: “And such were some of you.” Lily Phillips hasn’t done anything in front of a camera for money that disqualifies her from receiving the forgiveness God promises to every person who turns from sin to follow Jesus Christ.

The responses to Lily Phillips were not just a repudiation of second-wave feminism. They were also a useful reminder that atheism can attempt to explain the origins of human life but has no answer for the source of human worth. If humans are simply evolved creatures who make their own choices and define their own reality, nothing would justify the reactions provoked by a woman having sex with 100 men in a day.

People who truly believe Lily Phillips and the men who subscribe to her content are no more than apes with agency wouldn’t assign any moral value to what they are doing. They would nod in agreement when she refers to herself as a feminist and explains her decision to profit from the men sexualizing her.

But Christians who believe men and women are made in the image of God know that dignity and worth come from our creator — not our bank accounts or subscriber counts. They know that sex creates a powerful connection between a man and a woman, which is why it’s meant for a husband and wife within a marriage covenant.

A flame can warm a home when it’s contained in a fireplace but will destroy a house if it escapes its proper place. In the same way, sex creates a sense of security and closeness when enjoyed within marriage but leads to a very different set of emotions outside that context. Lily Phillips decided to play with fire and is feeling the burn right now. Let’s hope she will come to her senses before she is completely consumed.

'People are going to try and kill him': Catholic priest who gave rally benediction recalls assassination attempt on Trump



The man entrusted with giving the invocation at former President Donald Trump's rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, recalled his experience that fateful day both before and after Trump was nearly assassinated.

A few days before the event, members of Trump's team contacted Fr. Jason Charron — a Ukrainian Catholic pastor in charge of churches in Carnegie, Pennsylvania, and Wheeling, West Virginia — to see whether he would be willing to lead rally attendees in prayer. Charron agreed.

'We are called to a bloody faith,' Charron claimed. 'Christ calls us to get dirty and to have a nail go through the hand sometimes and a crown of thorns through the temple.'

So on Saturday evening, Charron stood before the podium on the rally stage and asked God to send His Holy Spirit to help make America and the world "great again in God's sight."

"Through Christ, Our Lord, amen," his prayer closed to thunderous applause from the crowd, which Trump estimated to be some 55,000 people.

Charron had to leave the rally shortly thereafter, but before departing the main area, he instructed a small group of a couple dozen people to pray for God's protection over President Trump. "The reason I said that is because people are going to try and kill him," he said. "They're going to try and shoot him."

His words were remarkably prescient.

By the time Charron reached his car just a few minutes after the benediction, he heard reports of gunshots and then witnessed an eruption of chaos. "That's how the devil works," the good father explained. "He loves chaos."

Charron then left the rally and soon after sat down for an interview with popular Catholic YouTube channel "Pints with Aquinas." In fact, the interview began so soon afterward that Charron learned from the host about the death of beloved father, husband, and former fire chief Corey Comperatore and the injuries to two other individuals.

When asked about a priest's role during such horrific tragedies, Charron resolutely insisted that suffering is a necessary part of the Christian experience, pointing to Christ's suffering on the cross as the example all Christians must follow.

"We are called to a bloody faith," Charron claimed. "Christ calls us to get dirty and to have a nail go through the hand sometimes and a crown of thorns through the temple."

Regardless of circumstances, Charron continued, all Catholics — and Catholic priests in particular — must stand firm in their faith "without apology."

"It's important that we Catholics and particularly me, as a priest, that I be present to advocate for the gospel of Christ in the public square without apology," he said.

When some raised objections to Charron appearing at a Trump rally despite Trump's quibbling about abortion — an act that the Catholic Church calls a "moral evil" — Charron claimed that far too many people fall for "the fallacy of perfection," which convinces them not to vote for any candidate who is not "absolutely perfect."

Even though Charron unequivocally opposes abortion and "the anti-life culture in general," he expressed admiration for Trump — whom Charron believes to be a "baptized Christian" — and his work appointing pro-life justices who overturned Roe v. Wade.

Though grateful for the ending of Roe, Charron takes issue with some of Trump's beliefs regarding abortion. In fact, Charron views abortion as the source of almost all the violence plaguing America today.

"We have raised generations of of children with the understanding that it is okay to butcher and dispose of precious human life in the most sacred place, the womb of a mother," Charron explained with conviction. "And if that sacred gift is disposable in that sacred place, then we are all up for extinction."

But abortion, Charron insisted, is not the only pro-life issue. As a man of Ukrainian descent, he also sees the war in Ukraine as an important component of it, and he admires Trump for sending "defensive weapons" to Ukraine while in office in contravention to policies established under Barack Obama.

During a brief meeting with Trump just before the rally, Charron had the opportunity to thank the former president for his work on behalf of the Ukrainian people. "I said, 'Thank you,' and he was very grateful and he said, 'You know, it's heartbreaking to see what's happening in Ukraine with all these young men dying, and it's because weakness was projected,'" Charron recalled of their conversation.

In addition to his pitch for grace for Trump, Charron also encouraged Americans to offer forgiveness to the shooter, whom Charron characterized as "a madman."

"There are only two responses in the face of such evil like this. ... One is you become the evil, and the other is you forgive it," Charron claimed. "And the sooner we can go through that valley and come out on the other side, the better it is for us and for the lost souls in this world."

Charron suggested on "Pints with Aquinas" that Trump forgive the shooter and share this forgiveness with the public, citing Christ's forgiveness of his executioners and Pope John Paul II's forgiveness of his would-be assailant as models of Christian forgiveness properly understood.

"I think if President Trump is going to win over his enemies, then the greatest opportunity to win over the undecided and the hostile will be found the day when he can forgive his would-be assassin."

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