Does the experience of raising children confer an advantage on those seeking positions of public leadership?
This conversation hit a fever pitch when a clip resurfaced of Donald Trump’s vice presidential pick, Sen. JD Vance, telling Tucker Carlson about the childless status of many prominent Democrats.
"We’re effectively run in this country via the Democrats via our corporate oligarchs by childless cat ladies ... the entire future of the Democrats is controlled by people without children. How does it make any sense that we have turned our country over to people who don’t really have a direct stake in it?” Vance said.
The left's reaction has centered on three critiques of Vance's position.
First, leftists argue it's unfair to those unable to have children. Second, they claim it's a suggestion that a childless person is less capable of making long-term wise and moral decisions. And third, they declare that it's none of your business. People can choose whatever unique life choices they want.
The problem of the younger person — or childless person without a stake in the future — making self-interested decisions is a plague on our modern politics.
But I’d like to take a step back and explore how a biblically minded Christian might see the question of whether children play a unique role in making someone qualified for public leadership. Because, fair or unfair to those who are single or physically unable to bear children, the Bible in both the Old and New Testament links a person’s family life to his or her fitness for governance.
While listing the qualifications for appointing a council of elders for governance, the apostle Paul writes, “If someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?” (1 Timothy 3:5 ESV).
Likewise when listing the qualifications for an official position of serving, Paul mentions that deacons must “manage their children and their own households well” (1 Timothy 3:12 ESV).
Some have asked: Does this mean that single people are not able to hold these positions? Does this make a childless person — like the apostle Paul, who wrote these statements, or Jesus Christ, who was celibate and single — unqualified to sit on a council of elders?
I would answer yes, Paul and Jesus are not appropriate candidates for these two positions.
This understanding that certain lifestyles align with certain positions is deeply offensive to Western culture because we tell children from the earliest age possible, “You can be anything you want to be,” and we see the ability to attain certain positions as not primarily a matter of service or role but of identity.
However, this modern lens is not the lens used in ancient times or in the scriptures.
The pathway to become a village elder in ancient cultures and in certain places in the world today begins in the home. In a village, everyone can see the fruit of every parent’s management in how those subjected to it are fairing.
This is why Jesus quotes the ancient proverb, “Wisdom is justified by all her children” (Luke 7:35 ESV). The word “all” is important in this proverb. Fathers and mothers with multiple children have to manage the very tricky circumstances of a variety of personalities, and if, despite this enormous challenge, all of their children are thriving under their leadership, then their wisdom is justified.
But the second element that explains why raising children qualified someone for governance was their season of life. The Greek word for elder, like the English word, literally means “old man.” In other words, we want those who have fewer years ahead of them and have a huge stake in the future of the village through their growing number of grandchildren to make decisions and set the policies for our community. A younger man, on the other hand, might be more worried about himself and what he can gain when making decisions for the whole village.
The problem of the younger person — or childless person without a stake in the future — making self-interested decisions is a plague on our modern politics. We can all see how it has become the norm, and it's one of the factors responsible for Congress' abysmal approval rating in recent years as we’ve grown to suspect politics to be a game of every person out for him or herself.
So as we consider the variable of raising children as a qualification for leadership, there are three buckets that most positions on this topic fit into.
Bucket #1: Having successfully raised healthy, happy children gives no indication as to someone’s qualification for leadership.
This seems to be an extreme position, and my guess is that many Democrats are moving to this position, not because they are unable to see the benefits that the experience of parenting may give to a candidate, but because admitting these benefits is unfair to those who cannot or have chosen not to have children.
In other words, they are more concerned about their perception of fairness than fitness for leadership.
I’m concerned by the prospect of more and more people who have never ruled a household but who nevertheless rule over millions of other people’s households.
Bucket #2: Having successfully raised healthy, happy children is one of many variables and is an achievement that ought to be considered in that candidate’s favor.
This seems to be a moderate position, and it's difficult to imagine someone arguing in good faith and refusing to admit that this should play some role in evaluating a candidate's fitness for office.
Then there is a third, more extreme position.
Bucket #3: Having successfully raised healthy, happy children is a necessary qualification for public leadership.
This appears to me to be too narrow of a position in pluralistic society.
My position and the position being described by JD Vance sounds like it fits broadly in Bucket #2. Vance was pointing to the trend of childless leaders as a troubling development — not arguing they be banned from public office.
I’m concerned by the prospect of more and more people who have never ruled a household but who nevertheless rule over millions of other people’s households.
Finally, for those who have chosen to be childless and to put a political career above family life, it’s fair to ask why they’ve made that decision. Perhaps there are good reasons for making that decision — but let's hear them.
If you want to rule over us, we have a right to know why you chose not make the sacrifices required to raise a family.
Ultimately, I hope we can all agree that we need fewer leaders who use public office to fill a void in their identity and more leaders who see public office as the next and perhaps final stage in a long progression of successful leadership roles that began in the home, continue in the workplace, and conclude in service to the public.
Ben Shapiro shut down Rep. Eric Swalwell on Wednesday after the California Democrat tried — but failed — to weaponize Shapiro's personal religious beliefs.
At a House Judiciary Committee hearing on the controversial Global Alliance for Responsible Media, Swalwell chose to question Shapiro about a topic unrelated to the hearing: Project 2025, the forward-looking plan for America created by the Heritage Foundation.
'Yes, I'm a religious Jew. That's true. You've found me out.'
After, ironically, Swalwell admitted he agreed with much of the project's proposals — for example, less government bureaucracy, more government efficiency, less government waste — the California Democrat tried to question Shapiro about immigration. And when Shapiro knocked those questions out of the park, Swalwell turned to abortion and same-sex marriage.
But that's when the hearing took a bizarre turn.
Shapiro attended the hearing as a representative of the Daily Wire, which had been unfairly targeted by GARM. But Swalwell chose to question Shapiro about his religious beliefs, instead.
"Do you support that part? ... Banning same-sex marriage?" Swalwell asked, referring to Project 2025.
"I am in favor of traditional marriage between a man and a woman, and I'm perfectly fine with anyone having any sort of voluntary sexual arrangement they seek," Shapiro responded. "That's a different thing from whether the government should attach benefits to that personal relationship."
That answer, however, was not sufficient for Swalwell, who responded by more precisely probing Shapiro's religious beliefs.
"But you think it's a sin to have same-sex marriage?" the Democrat followed up.
"I mean, I'm confused. Are you asking me as a religious Jew what I think about biblically?" Shapiro responded.
"I'm just asking: Is it a sin to be gay?" Swalwell asked again.
"From a religious Jewish perspective, orientation is not a sin, but activity is, that's also the same perspective of most major religions so far as I'm aware," Shapiro pointed out.
For the next minute, Swalwell asked Shapiro two questions on different topics. But, oddly, he later returned to the question of same-sex marriage, claiming to have found "receipts" of Shapiro's previous comments condemning homosexuality. Swalwell proceeded to read one such quote.
"Yes, I'm a religious Jew. That's true. You've found me out," Shapiro fired back. "I agree with me. Yes, that's true."
The response drew laughter from the crowd gathered in the hearing room.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The leading polling outfits all indicate that the majority of American adults believe in hell. The trouble with that determination is that there is a wide range of views on what exactly the word "hell" means.
For existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, for instance, hell was apparently other people. As became clear in part one of "Understanding hell," the Jewish conception of hell, or Gehinnom, closely resembles the Roman Catholic conception of purgatory. Meanwhile, hell according to Catholics is an eternal place of torment effectively chosen over God and love by sinners.
Blaze News has endeavored to further explore the particularities of various views on hell.
In part two of "Understanding hell," a British Old Catholic priest, a professor of Jewish studies at the University of Toronto's Department for the Study of Religion, a Christian Universalist executive minister, and an Anglican bishop share their respective thoughts on and insights into the inferno.
Rev. Fr. Robinson, formerly a deacon in the Free Church of England, was ordained a priest last year through the Nordic Catholic Church of the Old Catholic denomination of the high church Lutheran patrimony and concluded his service in an Anglican parish in Harlesden, England, last month.
Fr. Robinson has served as a radio presenter, a television presenter for GB News, and as a political adviser, and has worked ardently in various media to defend traditional values in and outside the church.
Blaze News put questions to Fr. Robinson over the phone while he was visiting the Lone Star State.
Fr. Robinson said that belief in the existence of hell is one of the "fundamental pillars of our faith." After all, "Christ came to earth as God incarnate to offer us eternal salvation from eternal damnation."
While through His death and resurrection, Christ has gifted mankind salvation, some may nevertheless opt out. This comes down to a choice: "We get to choose to live forever in Christ or to be damned forever without Him," said Fr. Robinson.
'It is up to us to accept it.'
Hell is the place where those who freely willed themselves into damnation reside for eternity.
Fr. Robinson indicated that we have but our short time on earth to make that choice of infinite consequence, telling Blaze News that "our lives here are so important because we have the opportunity to repent of our sins, to be baptized in water and the Holy Spirit, and to have faith in Christ — to accept the offer of eternal salvation that He gives us. It is up to us to accept it."
When pressed on whether human beings' eternal fates are sealed upon death, Fr. Robinson indicated, "That's what we don't know."
"We don't know what happens the instant we die," said Robinson. "We don't know when judgment takes place, which is why we pray for the souls of the faithful departed. It's why we pray that if they are in a purification process, if they are in some kind of limbo or purgatory, we pray that their journey is increased and they gain entry into heaven. That much is a little bit more vague."
Fr. Robinson indicated that hell is the opposite of the Beatific Vision, which is the immediate knowledge of God.
'Hell is the absence of God.'
"If heaven is the Beatific Vision — if heaven is communion with God in ... praise and worship of Him, in an intimate relationship with Him — then hell is the opposite," said Robinson. "Hell is the absence of God. And fear and damnation is the opposite of love and hope."
While opposites in at least this respect, heaven and hell share this much in common: They are both places, said Fr. Robinson.
"[Hell is] absolutely a place. I mean, the words 'physical' or 'spiritual' lose relevance when we're talking about the afterlife," Fr. Robinson told Blaze News. "It's not a place as in like Texas versus Canada. It's not an earthly place. But it is a place that, well — Christ descended into hell to free souls before His resurrection."
Seizing upon Fr. Robinson's allusion to Christ's harrowing of hell, Blaze News revisited the question of whether the damned might have a shot, ultimately, at redemption.
Fr. Robinson clarified that Christ had not rescued the damned from hell after the crucifixion, but rather lost souls who previously had nowhere else to go.
"The word the Bible uses there for hell is 'hades,' right, rather than Gehenna. So, it seems as though that was a place of lost souls rather than damned souls because there was no entry into heaven after the fall — not in the way we have it now," said Robinson. "So basically, when Christ descended into hell, what He was doing was opening the gates of heaven for the lost souls and for the rest of us who have faith in Him."
Blaze News asked Fr. Robinson whether the residents of hell would be conferred their bodies after the resurrection along with the saved in heaven.
"I don't think I've ever been asked that before," said Fr. Robinson, laughing.
Resuming a serious tone, the priest noted that "upon the resurrection, we know that Christ comes from heaven on a cloud and meets us, essentially, halfway, and we are resurrected for our glorified bodies and join Him. ... I think if we refer to Daniel, everyone gets a resurrected body. So, whether it's saved or not saved, everyone gets a resurrected body."
Fr. Robinson indicated that all sin separates humans from God, but mortal sin poses the greatest threat to their salvation. Fortunately, "We have the sacraments so we can be realigned with the graces of God."
'We also know that the gravest sin is the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as well, so we should always be wary of that.'
"So, for example, if we have mortal sin on our soul, then we should repent of our sins to be reassured of our salvation because we can lose our salvation," said Robinson.
While any mortal sin could drag a person down, the priest cautioned against one sin in particular.
"We also know that the gravest sin is the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as well, so we should always be wary of that," said Robinson.
Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is regarded by some Christian theologians as an unpardonable sin, citing various gospel passages, including Matthew 12:30-32 where Christ says:
Wherefore I say unto you, all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
This warning is repeated in Luke 12:8-10 and Mark 3:28-30, and echoed elsewhere in the New Testament.
Augustine of Hippo said that it is "being unrepentant that is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which will not be forgiven in this age, nor in the age to come."
Aquinas wrote that "in one way, to sin against the Holy Ghost is to sin through certain malice," specifically by "contemptuously rejecting the things whereby a man is withdrawn from sin." He noted further that it is unpardonable "by reason of its nature, in so far as it removes those things which are a means towards the pardon of sins."
"We should always avoid sin," reiterated Fr. Robinson, "but when we do sin, we should repent of our sins and realign ourselves with Christ."
When pressed on whether non-Christians — those who ostensibly never formally aligned with Christ — were hell-bound, Fr. Robinson responded, "It used to be said that there is no salvation outside of the church. However, we know that Jesus Christ died for all of us. So those who are ignorant of the faith, those who never had access to the faith — we can only hope and assume that God finds a way to reveal Himself to them."
While holding out hope for nonbelievers, Robinson added, "But we know the surest way to salvation is through the church, is through faith in Jesus Christ."
Fr. Robinson indicated that fear of hell should help orient us toward heaven and God; that we should fear what separates us from God and the judgment that may make definitive that separation.
"We're going to stand there before Jesus Christ one day and atone for our sins. We're going to hope that we've repented of our sins enough and had faith in Him enough to be accepted into heaven," said Robinson. "We should be afraid of the alternative."
'Having fear of hell and having love of heaven go hand in hand.'
Fr. Robinson noted further that "we should be afraid of living out our lives focused towards hell because it's not somewhere we want to be. We want to be in heaven. Having fear of hell and having love of heaven go hand in hand. It's difficult to have one without the other."
A waning belief in hell may correspond with an increase in immorality because it takes consequence off the table, suggested Fr. Robinson.
"If there is no hell, you can do what you like — it doesn't matter. We center our lives on Christ and we do things out of love, of course, but we also have to do things out of fear of hell because if we don't, then we are passive. Then we have dead faith," said the priest.
Rev. Dr. Lance Haverkamp, executive minister of the Christian Universalist Association, studied at Denver Seminary and at the Wagner Leadership Institute, earning a master's degree and a doctorate in practical ministry.
The Christian Universalist Association is a "loose association of CU congregations, who provides needed coordination for things like military and hospital chaplaincy, globally recognized ordination."
Rev. Dr. Haverkamp shared some Christian Universalist insights into hell and salvation with Blaze News via email.
In the first complete American translation of Italian poet Dante Alighieri's "The Divine Comedy," Canto III opens with a description of the vestibule of hell:
Through me the way is to the city dolent;
Through me the way is to eternal dole;
Through me the way among the people lost. ...
Before me there were no created things,
Only eterne, and I eternal last.
"All hope abandon, ye who enter in!"
Those Christian Universalists who believe that this antechamber sees regular traffic apparently believe there is ample cause for hope.
Rev. Dr. Haverkamp told Blaze News that Christian Universalists generally believe that "through the saving work of Jesus Christ, all people will ultimately be reconciled to God."
Accordingly, hell, should it exist, is not a place of eternal torment but rather a place for correction, not wholly unlike Gehinnom as described by Rabbi Aron Moss.
Rev. Dr. Haverkamp noted that while Christian Universalists largely see eye-to-eye on the big picture, there is "diversity of thought" on the specifics. He identified three main branches of Christian Universalist thought:
This belief — in the ultimate reconciliation of all — is based on a scriptural understanding "of God's boundless love, Christ's victory over sin and death, and God's desire for all to be saved," said Rev. Dr. Haverkamp.
While Haverkamp alluded to other scriptural passages, he specifically referenced 1 Timothy 2:4, 1 Corinthians 15:22, and John 3:17 as verses bolstering the belief in universal salvation.
The first passage notes that "God our Savior ... wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." The chapter goes on to note that Jesus "gave Himself as a ransom for all people."
The second passage, in 1 Corinthians, notes that "for as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive."
The third passage states, "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved."
Blaze News staff writer Christopher Enloe highlighted several additional verses that hint at the salvation of all, including Romans 5:18-21, which states:
Just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Rev. Dr. Haverkamp said, "We understand biblical references to a correction for unbelievers as real warnings, but see them in light of larger themes of redemption and reconciliation."
The Rt. Rev. Dr. Stephen Andrews is the principal of Wycliffe College at the University of Toronto. The American-born Anglican served as the bishop of the Diocese of Algoma from 2009 to 2016.
A graduate of Cambridge University and Wycliffe College, Andrews has explored the Jewish biblical interpretation of the Second Temple period and taught courses on the prophets of Israel, the Pauline epistles, the development of Christian thought, St. Mark's Gospel, and Christian worship. He is also a father of two, a grandfather, and a woodworker.
Bishop Andrews responded to Blaze News' questions via email.
Bishop Andrews indicated that there is "no consistent doctrine of hell in Anglicanism, but to the extent that we affirm the Creeds."
The Anglican Church, which does not define its doctrine in a single confession, affirms in multiple creeds and in the church's 39 Articles of Religion that Christ descended into hell.
The hell referenced in Article III in reference to the divine descent is "widely interpreted as 'the place of departed spirits,'" said Bishop Andrews.
When asked whether hell could be conceived of as a place, Andrews replied, "Of course it is 'conceived of' as a place because of the imagery the Bible uses to describe it. But many understand these images metaphorically, and hold that hell is better thought of as a state of being."
The bishop added that C.S. Lewis' "The Great Divorce" is "quite evocative in this way."
Lewis' hell is a gray town devoid of joy and subject to constant rain. While only a bus-stop away from the periphery of heaven, the souls inhabiting the place are more often than not self-made captives to pride, vice, and/or delusion.
'There will be a new heaven and new earth. But these are also understood as realms of the spiritual.'
"Once again, because of the images Scripture uses, earth, heaven and hell are conceived of as spatial," said Bishop Andrews. "Heaven and earth are also described in temporal language, so there will be a new heaven and new earth. But these are also understood as realms of the spiritual. Lewis's 'gray town' is a literary image that invite[s] us to think of the spiritual (and psychological) aspects [of] eternity."
The traditional view is that the occupants of the heavenly and hellish spaces both "inhabit resurrected bodies (Matthew 25), though theologians since the time of Augustine have struggled to understand this," said Bishop Andrews. The embodied in the latter camp may not be long for existence, according to some Anglicans.
Despite the variability in Anglican beliefs on hell, Bishop Andrews indicated that "many do believe it is eternal, though many would adopt a conditionalist or annihilationist reading of the biblical text."
According to conditionalism, the damned, having rejected the gift of immortality conditional upon belief in Jesus Christ, will ultimately be erased from existence rather than suffering eternally in hell.
When asked about the apparent insinuation in the Rainer fragment of the apocryphal Apocalypse of Peter that the damned could ultimately be saved, Bishop Andrews clarified that "there is a section in this fragment where those who are saved see the torment of the damned and pray for their salvation. There is no biblical warrant for this, though the practice of praying for the dead comes from the earliest centuries of the Christian church."
"In this case, the teaching of the Catholic Church is that those being prayed for exist in purgatory (i.e., the fate of the damned is unalterable)," said Bishop Andrews.
The Anglican Church, meanwhile, discounts the existence of purgatory, stating in Article XXII, "The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Reliques, and also invocation of Saints, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God."
Bishop Andrews noted, however, that those Anglicans "who pray for the dead may have some vague idea of an intermediary state the dead inhabit for a time."
Such prayers would apparently be wasted on those who deliberately reject God. Bishop Andrews indicated such rebels "will not be forced to live with God for eternity."
While Jesus' description of hell was taken from the Hebrew Bible, Bishop Andrews indicated that the concept metamorphized in Hellenistic cosmology, where Sheol and Gehenna became Hades and hell.
"In the Hellenistic period, hell becomes more straightforwardly understood as a place associated with punishment," said the bishop.
'A balance of perspective is required.'
The promise of hell as punishment, as an expression of divine justice, can be beneficial in this mortal realm. Bishop Andrews said that this understanding of hell "can guide moral behavior and be the basis of social cohesion."
However, the "prospect of heaven can also be a source of hope for those who live in discouragement and despair," said the bishop. "But a balance of perspective is required, lest someone think that salvation is a matter of living a virtuous life."
Dr. Kenneth Green is a professor at the University of Toronto's Department for the Study of Religion where he specializes in Jewish studies and the philosophy of religion. Green has written extensively on the thought of Leo Strauss, whom he figures for one of the greatest Jewish thinkers of the 20th century.
Green, who earned his doctorate in Jewish philosophy at Brandeis University, is presently working on a book tentatively titled, "What Moses Saw: Maimonidean Meditations, or On the Torah as a Speculative Teaching." His latest book, "The Philosophy of Emil Fackenheim: From Revelation to the Holocaust," was published in 2020 by Cambridge University Press.
Green responded to Blaze News' questions via email.
Dr. Green indicated that "Jewish views on hell are a complicated matter" and that there is no "simple, single view of hell in Judaism." While there is certainly a concept of hell in Judaism, some faith groups give it more consideration than others.
The hell of the Jews, Gehinnom, derives its name from a valley surrounding the Old City of Jerusalem. Dr. Green noted that this particular valley, the Vale of Hinnom, was referred to in the Book of Jeremiah "as the location in which Jews who had succumbed to idolatry sacrificed their children (Jeremiah 7:31 and 19:2-6), which the prophet cursed as a horrifying deed."
While sharing the valley's name, Gehinnom is a spiritual locale, albeit possessing a "quasi-physical aspect," said Dr. Green.
"It is not precisely clear just how it stands 'geographically' in relation to heaven and earth, but it is clearly somehow 'beneath' the world, following the word 'Sheol' in the Book of Numbers, Job, and Samuel," continued Dr. Green. "It is unclear what happens in it, whether it is reward and punishment or only eternal sleep."
'Hitler and his Nazis would qualify for such a sentence.'
When pressed about Gehinnom's possible eternal nature, Dr. Green noted that "Hell is 'eternal' — for some. A theological debate has erupted at several points in Jewish history about whether it is 'eternal,' or only seemingly so, i.e., until the Messiah arrives = the redemption occurs, which will be a historical event."
Dr. Green indicated that some Jews believe that there are some sins "so great as to preclude a soul's ascent to heaven ever, hence guaranteeing one's permanent sentence of punishment in hell for eternity."
"In our era, Hitler and his Nazis would qualify for such a sentence, and probably some terrorists also," added Dr. Green.
Rabbi Moss, who spoke to Blaze News in Part One, and Rabbi Shana Goldstein Mackler, whose insights are featured in Part Three, have both expressed the alternative belief that wicked persons who have evidenced an unwavering commitment to evil may instead be annihilated for good.
Dr. Green noted that the Jewish concept of hell has changed periodically over the ages.
"For the ancients, it was not as defined clearly or in detail," said Green. "Then it became defined clearly and in detail in the medieval era."
Now, the professor indicated it is "much vaguer" for most Jews, with some moderns even discounting the need for such a concept.
While the Christian concept of hell is rooted in the Jewish tradition, Dr. Green noted it still plays a much bigger role, "or at least in orthodox Christian belief."
Dr. Green noted that extra to having greater significance in some forms of Christianity, "It's also different in being defined in greater detail and pictured in Christian tradition almost from the beginning."
Another distinction is that whereas some Christians attest that entry to heaven is conditional on faith in Christ, "Heaven isn't believed to be reserved only for Jews," said Dr. Green.
"The most famous and authoritative statement on this point is that any Gentile who observes the basic religious laws (no idolatry allowed) and the basic moral laws ('the seven commandments of Noah') qualify for the reward of eternal life," added the professor.
The Noahide Laws prohibit the worship of idols, the cursing of God, the commission of murder, the commission of adultery or sexual immorality, stealing, and the consumption of flesh torn from a living animal. The seventh law requires the establishment of courts of justice.
In Part One, Archbishop Emeritus Cardinal Thomas Collins details the Roman Catholic views on hell and mortal sin, and Rabbi Aron Moss discusses the "kindness" of hell and the nature of Gehinnom.
In Part Three, Rabbi Shana Goldstein Mackler provides some Reformed Jewish thoughts on the prospect of hell and the afterlife, and American conservative talk radio host and writer Erick Erickson goes deep on the Presbyterian Church in America's views on perdition.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Louisiana state Rep. Dodie Horton (R) succeeded last year in getting House Bill 8 enacted, such that all public schools in the state are now required to display "In God We Trust" in every classroom.
Evidently keen to retake more ground lost after decades of secularizing efforts, Horton introduced legislation early this year that would require K-12 public schools, colleges, and universities to display the Ten Commandments on campus and in the classroom.
In April, the Louisiana House voted 82-19 for Horton's House Bill 71. On Thursday, the Louisiana Senate voted 30-8 in favor of the bill after it had undergone multiple changes aimed at preempting various legal challenges.
All eight state Senate votes in opposition to the bill were cast by Democrats. The Advocate reported that Sen. Royce Duplessis (D), among them, was the only to speak out in opposition to HB 71.
"I didn't have to learn the Ten Commandments in school. We went to Sunday school," said Duplessis. "You want your kids to learn about the Ten Commandments, take them to church."
Duplessis further suggested that the bill would expose Louisiana to lawsuits, stating, "We're going to spend valuable state resources defending the law when we really need to be teaching our kids how to read and write."
According to Nola.com, ratification of the bill would make Louisiana the first state to mandate the display of the Ten Commandments in the classroom.
The legislation would require every public school governing authority and the governing authority of each nonpublic school that receives state funds to display the Ten Commandments "in each building it uses and classroom in each school under its jurisdiction."
While each governing authority will have some latitude concerning the nature of the display, at a minimum, the Ten Commandments must feature prominently in a framed document at least 11 inches by 14 inches.
The text is to read: "The Ten Commandments[:] I AM the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven images. Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his cattle, nor anything that is thy neighbor's."
Anticipating legal challenges, state Sen. Jay Morris added amendments to the original bill highlighting the U.S. Supreme Court's recognition in 2005 that "it is permissible to display the Ten Commandments on government property."
In a 5-4 decision, the court found in Van Orden v. Perry that "simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the establishment clause."
Morris noted also that the Louisiana Legislature previously enabled the secretary of state to publish the Ten Commandments "and other historically significant documents for posting in court houses and other public buildings to address 'a need to educate and inform the public as to the history and background of American and Louisiana law.'"
After noting the Supreme Court's 2019 recognition of the Ten Commandments' significance, Morris added, "Including the Ten Commandments in the education of our children is part of our state and national history, culture, and tradition."
In addition to exempting private schools, the amended bill also requires that the Ten Commandments be displayed with a "context statement" indicating that the Commandments "were a prominent part of American public education for almost three centuries," "were also included in public school textbooks published by educator William McGuffey," and "also appeared in textbooks published by Noah Webster."
In the spirit of including documents of historic importance in the classroom, the amended bill also provides for the display of the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, and the Northwest Ordinance.
Lea Patterson, senior council with the First Liberty Institute, suggested to Nola.com that the amendments will serve to strengthen the bill when scrutinized by a court.
"It's generally accepted in many legal cases that the Ten Commandments has historical significance," said Patterson, "and that its display is consistent with history and tradition, which is the governing legal test in such matters."
The ACLU, which has fought ardently to ensure that LGBT propaganda and pride displays can be exhibited in school settings, made clear it is opposed to having any traces of biblical morality in the classroom.
"No federal court has upheld the display of the Ten Commandments in public schools, regardless of context," Heather Weaver, senior staff attorney at the ACLU told Nola.com. "There's a good reason for that too: Public schools shouldn't be used to religiously indoctrinate or convert students."
The ACLU, the ACLU of Louisiana, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the anti-Christian Freedom from Religion Foundation, released a joint statement Friday calling the bill "unconstitutional."
Blaze News reached out to Horton for comment but did not receive a response by deadline.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Several Republican lawmakers and political commentators are expressing concern that a controversial new law could criminalize parts of the New Testament.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), for example, said on Wednesday that she voted against the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023 because it "could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing the Gospel that says Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified by the Jews."
— (@)
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) — and commentators like Tucker Carlson and Charlie Kirk — voiced the same concern.
"The Gospel itself would meet the definition of antisemitism under the terms of this bill!" Gaetz claimed.
It's true the bill uses a working definition of "anti-Semitism" established by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, which claims that contemporary anti-Semitism includes:
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
So does the bill criminalize parts of the New Testament, or at least expose Christians to the possibility of breaking the law?
According to Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), one of the bill's co-sponsors, absolutely not.
"Those pushing that nonsense are truly idiotic and irrational. The bill does not criminalize Christianity — I’m Catholic. It’s [sic] gives contemporary examples of potential antisemitism," Lawler said. "Calling all Jews Christ killers is a form of antisemitism. Believing in the gospel is not."
In an interview on CNN, Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) echoed what his Republican colleague said.
"I want Christians to be able to practice however Christians deem that they need to, and we're not interested in messing with the gospel nor does this language do that," Moskowitz, a co-sponsor of the bill, explained.
As a matter of historical fact, the Jews — a collective reference to all Jews — did not kill Jesus. In fact, the only person with the authority to order an execution and dispatch Roman soldiers to carry it out in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' death would have been the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate.
Moreover, the fact that Jesus was crucified — not stoned — is clear evidence that Jesus died at the hands of Romans, not Jews. Crucifixion was a form of Roman execution that is not Torah-authorized.
It is true, however, that a relatively small group of powerful Jewish leaders colluded to have Jesus killed, and thus it's accurate to say that both Romans and Jews ultimately played a role in Jesus' death.
But to claim "the Jews killed Jesus" raises the obvious question: Which ones? Jesus himself was a Jew, all of his disciples were Jews, and the first generations of the Christian movement were mostly composed of Jews. Did those Jews play a role? Almost certainly not.
And yes, it's true the Apostle Paul refers to "Jews who killed the Lord Jesus" in his letter 1 Thessalonians. But it's impossible that Paul was deploying a broadside against all Jews; Paul himself, after all, was a Pharisaic Jew. Rather, Paul was almost certainly referring to his contemporary zealous Jewish opponents, who persecuted early non-Jewish followers of Jesus or enacted on them Torah observances that Paul did not believe gentile followers should — or, in many cases, could — perform.
Meanwhile, it's true that throughout history, Christians were often the biggest perpetrators of violence against Jews, and the claim that "the Jews killed Jesus" has been used to justify anti-Semitism.
But the bill does not establish a criminal statute, and it does not outlaw Christianity or any part of the New Testament. Christians, therefore, have no reason to fear the bill regarding its potential implications on the Bible or their faith.
A more prudent concern, however, are the free-speech implications of the bill should it become law.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The leftist media has been equating American Christians with “Christian Nationalism,” and Mark Levin knows exactly what they’re doing: fueling hate against Christians and Jews.
“What they want you to think about when they say ‘Christian Nationalism’ is the Klan,” Levin says. “White robes, white people, white hoods, the Klan.”
In a segment on MSNBC, a reporter from Politico discussed the topic, saying that Christian Nationalists “believe that our rights as Americans, all human beings, don’t come from any earthly authority.”
According to her, our rights don’t come from God — despite our country being founded by those who believed in natural law.
“Our rights don’t come from God? Oh my goodness,” Levin says, adding that “it would surprise the men at the Second Continental Congress in Philadelphia at Independence Hall who drafted and voted on and approved the Declaration of Independence.”
“If man has the power to give you rights, man has the power to take them away,” Levin says.
Levin points out that most people don’t choose not to murder because they’ll get in trouble with the government and go to jail, but because it’s simply wrong.
“What they’re trying to do is deny the fact that Judeo-Christian morals and ethics are the basis of the founding of America because they are,” Levin says.
To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
A raving anti-Semite from El Salvador marched into Joel Osteen's Houston-area megachurch on Sunday and opened fire using a gun with a brand-new "Palestine" sticker on its stock. Two off-duty officers quickly returned fire and made quick and definitive work of the attacker.
While it is not yet entirely clear why the gender-bending pro-Palestinian shooter opened fire in the pro-Israel Christian church, there appears to be an effort under way to downplay the possibility that religious and political hatred were major factors and instead blame gun access.
Blaze News previously reported that Genesse Moreno, 36, bypassed a security guard and entered Lakewood Church with a 7-year-old child in tow just before the 2 p.m. Spanish-language service was scheduled to begin. Moreno, reportedly the child's biological mother despite sometimes going by the name Jeffrey Escalante, was dressed in a trench coat and armed with an Anderson Manufacturing AR-15 rifle. She was also carrying a .22 caliber rifle in a duffel bag.
According to police, Moreno began firing inside the hallway on the west side of the church at 1:55 p.m., prompting a response from a 28-year-old off-duty Houston Police Department officer and a 38-year-old Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission agent, who fatally shot her.
The child who accompanied Moreno inside the building was struck in the head by a bullet during the exchange. He remains in critical condition at Texas Children's Hospital. Tom George Thomas, a 57-year-old volunteer at the church, took a bullet to the hip but has since been released from a hospital.
While certainly her last, this was not Moreno's first run-in with the law.
Over the past two decades, Moreno has been slapped with charges for drug possession, assault, illegal possession of a weapon, resisting arrest, and forgery, reported CNN.
Houston Homicide Commander Christopher Hassig indicated that the gender-bending shooter was also temporarily detained in 2016 over mental health concerns and has a history of mental illness.
KHOU-TV reported that Moreno's former mother-in-law, Rabbi Walli Carranza, claimed in court documents that the shooter had a diagnosis of schizophrenia and Munchausen by proxy; had harmed her child more than once; and had been the subject of multiple child protective services investigations.
The Houston Chronicle noted that Moreno lost custody of her son to her Jewish ex-husband at one point but apparently regained it in 2022.
Early in the investigation, police also indicated they had uncovered some of the shooter's "anti-Semitic writings."
One of Moreno's neighbors told KPRC-TV that she routinely threatened nearby residents with weapons. Extra to painting a swastika on a neighbor's fence, she is alleged to have repeatedly made Nazi salutes in public.
Carranza told the New York Times that Moreno frequently targeted her Jewish in-laws with "very anti-Semitic" rants that "were very profane and ... horrible."
Despite acknowledging that her former daughter-in-law had been a practicing Muslim, Carranza stressed, "This has nothing to do with Islam. This ranting, I'm sure, was fueled by mental illness."
The former mother-in-law appeared to suggest in a Monday Facebook statement that religious or political hatred were ultimately the "excuse" for Moreno's attack.
"Although my former daughter-in-law raged against Israel and Jews in a pro Palestinian rant yesterday this has nothing to do with Judaism or Islam. Nothing," wrote Carranza. "But this is what happens when reckless and irresponsible reporting lets people with severe mental illness have an excuse for violence."
After highlighting a potential trigger for the violence, Carranza pinned blame on the Lone Star State for "not having strong red flag laws that would have prevented her from owning or possessing a gun. Let it be clear that the second amendment stops where the first amendment right to life begins and it's time to remove from the US Constitution any protection for gun ownership."
Various Democratic lawmakers, including state Reps. Ann Johnson and Gene Wu, have amplified the suggestion that red-flag legislation such as Texas House Bill 3057 "could have prevented this very incident," reported the Chronicle.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Harris’ religious beliefs embody a syncretistic pluralism that appeals to the left’s perversely manipulative obsessions with identitarianism.
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com