#571: Tying Trump's Politics and Religion with Those of the Late Charlie Kirk

By Rudy Barnes, Jr., November 7, 2025

In the New York Times, Ben Rhodes summarized the politics of Trump as an unabashed quest for authoritarian power, while the Religious News Service has reported that in the weeks following the death of Charlie KIrk, that “Trump and his supporters have tried to make KIrk’s distorted Christian faith the bedrock of Trump’s authoritarianism.”

They have Ignored the moral imperative of Jesus in the greatest commandment to love God by loving your neighbors as yourself, even those you dislike.  It’s a moral imperative as easy for Trump to ignore as the legal restraints of the Constitution.  That put Trump on a level not only with kings and demagogues in autocracies but  also with God in Christian democracies.

“If Kirk was a Christian evangelist, his call wasn’t to amplify the traditions and stories taught by Jesus like the greatest commandment.”  Instead of accepting sinners and showing compassion on marginalized people, “Kirk antagonized transgender people and stoked Islamophobia, warning conservatives that Marxism and wok-ism were combining with Islamism to go after the American way of life.”

“Kirk’s words show that while he was certainly a missionary for conservative values, he was not a proponent of the universal teachings of Jesus.  “That so many Christians aren’t scandalized by Kirk’s ascent to apostolic status speaks volumes about the Christian culture behind their silence or vocal approval.

‘Kirk’s cruel campaigning for conservatism is a formidable political force and has shaped what voters do at the ballot box and how they behave in their communities. Kirk’s Turning Point has promoted his distorted merger of Christianity and radical right politics into a danger that must be resisted.  Until this consensus shifts, authoritarian elements will continue to thrive on it.”

Attempts to sanitize Kirk into a dedicated Christian demonstrate a perilous consensus among many Christians to make their faith the bedrock of authoritarianism, and it has corrupted the religious and political beliefs of many young people.  But Charlie Cook is just the latest charlatan who has promoted a toxic mix of religion and politics in America.

The good news is that such radical religious and political beliefs are usually short term;  but traditional churches are in a long term decline, leaving a religious and moral vacuum in America.  The two elections of Trump are evidence that America has lost its moral compass, and that we need to hope for a new enlightenment to restore our altruistic morality.

American virtues need a strong dose of common sense and reason to prevent the crazy manifestations of religion and politics that have plagued our nation over the years.  Moral standards in politics can be expected to change over time, but altruistic virtues of concern for others and humble service are eternal and needed to usher in a new enlightenment for America.

Notes:

In the New York Times Ben Rhodes summarized Trump’s politics as an “unabashed quest for authoritarian power.”  Rhodes contributes to NBC News and MSNBC regularly as a political commentator. He is also a Crooked Media contributor, and co-host of the foreign policy podcast Pod Save the World.  Religious News Service has reported that since Charlie Kirk’s death that Trump and his supporters have tried to make Kirk’s distorted Christian faith “the bedrock of Trump’s authoritarianism.” see also   https//www.dailycardinal.com/article/2025/09/the-trump-administration-has-dangerously-distorted-the-line-between-faith-and-politics. Rudy Barnes, Jr., November 7, 2025

#570: Might Makes Right According to Donald Trump

#570: Might Makes Right--According to Donald Trump

By  Rudy Barnes, Jr., November 1, 2025 

Ben Rhodes has opined that Donald Trump’s lust for power motivates all that he has done. “Whether it’s seeking a cease-fire in Gaza or Ukraine, or bombing boats off the coast of Venezuela or deploying troops to American cities, Trump’s objective is personal aggrandizement and the empowerment of his presidency. And when Trump pursues peace, it’s personalized with deals made with other strongmen that don’t address the underlying causes of the conflict.”  

“When Trump makes war, it is also personalized, with no expectation, that Congress must authorize his actions.  “Trump applied more pressure on Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel than did Joe Biden, but  there was little clarity about post-war issues on who would administer Gaza, how Hamas would disarm, or whether Israel would resume its efforts to  annex the West Bank. It felt more like a victory lap than a beginning of a true peace process.”

Since the beginning of the war over 2 years ago, the International Criminal Court has charged Mr. Netanyahu with war crimes and experts determined that Israel committed genocide. As the cease-fire took hold, there was no reckoning with that reality. Instead, Trump called Netanyahu “a man of exceptional courage,” and suggested that he be pardoned over criminal charges he is facing in Israel, and for the “victory” Israel won.”

“Any semblance of a rules-based international order lies buried in Gaza’s mountains of rubble. Yet the new order emerging from this reality seemed just fine to most leaders gathered in Egypt. The host, Mr. el-Sisi, has detained an estimated 60,000 political prisoners and was celebrated by Trump for his effective crime-fighting.”

“Far from resolving conflicts, Mr. Trump is simply embracing the Machiavellian strategy of the stronger parties. In Ukraine, he has reportedly pressured its president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to cede roughly 20 percent of his country, leaving them dismembered and vulnerable. Meanwhile, Russia’s Putin, continues his assault knowing that he can end the Ukraine war when he chooses, on his own terms, without facing consequences for war crimes like Mr. Netanyahu.”

“This geopolitics of might-makes-right suits Mr. Trump’s ambitions. He has declared himself “the peace president.”  But, this is not peace.  He has created a world without the rules established after World War II to prevent a return of the lethal mix of authoritarianism and aggression that is once again ascendant.  But history shows that when might makes right, things go terribly wrong.”

While Trump has declared himself the “peace president,” his newly rebranded Department of War is blowing boats out of the water in the Caribbean with no domestic or legal restraints on the violence.  That’s an extension of might makes right policy that needs to be changed to might must be right to be legitimate.  Trump has claimed that his aggressiveness is part of his counternarcotics strategy,  but he has not yet published a National Security Strategy. 

Notes:

The above commentary is taken from The Thread Tying Together Everything that Trump Does, by Ben Rhodes, at NYTimes, October 26, 2025.  

According to Wikipedia, as of 22 October 2025, over 71,200 people (69,236 Palestinians[4][9] and 1,983 Israelis[c]) have been reported killed in the Gaza war according to the Gaza Health Ministry (GHM) and Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as well as 217 journalists and media workers,[46][d] 120 academics,[49] and over 224 humanitarian aid workers.

For a comprehensive overview of the role of military legitimacy and national security strategy to concepts of military legitimacy that emphasize the need for standards of law and diplomacy applied to peacetime military operations, see Rudolph C. Barnes, Jr., Military Legitimacy, Might and Right in the New Millennium, published by Frank Cass, 1996.

Will the Teachings of Jesus Ever Take Priority Over Church Doctrine?

#569: Will the Teachings of Jesus Ever Take Priority over Church Doctrine?

By Rudy Barnes., Jr., October 18, 2025

David French has written that Something Is Stirring in Christian America, and It’s Making Me Nervous.  “That’s understandable since church doctrine limits salvation to Christian believers.  At the memorial service for Charlie Kirk, there were mixed calls for love (most notably Erika Kirk’s decision to forgive her husband’s killer) compared to Trump’s explicit hate.”

Charlie Kirk supported Trump, and to the laughter and cheers of the crowd at Kirk’s memorial service--Trump said that he hated his opponents.  Stephen Miller, the president’s top domestic policy advisor, declared that his perceived political enemies were “nothing.  You are nothing, he said, You are wickedness.  You are jealousy.  You are envy.  You are hatred.”  The contrasting views of Charlie Kirk reflect the conflicting views of Christianity in America.

According to French, “Revival begins with the people proclaiming by word and deed: I have sinned.  MAGA Christianity has a different message.  It looks to American culture and declares, You have sinned.”  And America sinned grievously when it elected Donald Trump, not once, but twice .  Democracy has allowed us to sin collectively.           

Jesus never limited salvation to Christians.  His teachings were universal, timeless and altruistic, as reflected in the hymn Others, in The Cokesbury Hymnal.  But exclusivist doctrines remain; and even though Christianity is in decline, it remains the world’s largest religion, with popularity the measure of success in both America’s religion and its politics.

Even democracy is losing popularity around the world today, with autocratic and populist politics gaining strength over democracy.  Nationalism has subverted the universal moral appeal of democracy.  Trump, Putin and Netanyahu are demagogues who represent the shift from support for the common good in democracy to populism and religious nationalism.

Church attendance has never been a true measure of the strength of the teachings of Jesus in the church, and his universal teachings have never been popular; even so, Christianity has remained the most popular religion in the world, even though it’s now in decline.  Jesus was a universalist Jew who never taught that God limited salvation to any religion, not even his own.

It’s no wonder that David French is nervous about a Christian religious revival in America, since its doctrine is controlled by the church and continues to emphasize Christianity’s exclusivist beliefs as the only means of salvation, rather than the universal teachings of Jesus in the greatest commandment to love God and our neighbors of other races and religions (others) as we love ourselves.

Will the next church revival (if it comes) be an institutional church revival that emphasizes popular doctrinal themes that were never taught by Jesus, or promote less popular themes of altruistic love that were taught by Jesus--like providing for the common good and loving all Others as we love ourselves?  

So long as church doctrines measure their success based on popularity, expect Jesus to remain an outsider.  Popularity will always remain the measure of success in democratic politics, but the American church should promote providing for the common good as the measure of its success.  That’s probably what’s making David French so nervous about a church revival.  See David French, Something Is Stirring in Christian America, and It’s Making Me Nervous, See https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/16/opinion/christianity-charlie-kirk-revolution-revival.html.

  

Notes:  

On Popularity as the measure of success in the church and democracy, see  https://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2024/08/musings-on-popularity-as-measure-of.html.

Charles D. Meigs, Wrote the Hymn Others, The Cokesbury Worship Hymnal (1938), p, 177:

Lord, Help me live from day to day In such a self-forgetful way, 

That even when I kneel to pray, My prayer shall be for others.

Refrain: Yes, others, Lord, yes, others,
Let this my motto be; Help me to live for others,
That I may live like Thee,
Help me in all the work I do
To ever be sincere and true,
And know that all I’d do for You
Must needs be done for others.

Let “Self” be crucified and slain
And buried deep: and all in vain
May efforts be to rise again,
Except to live for others.  

So when my work on earth is done,
And my new work in heav’n’s begun,
I’ll praise You for the crown I’ve won,
But praise You more for others.

In 2009 Robin Meyers wrote, Saving Jesus from the Church: Or How to Stop Worshiping Christ and Start Following Jesus.”  Meyers’ book illustrates the dichotomy between following Jesus and worshiping Christ. What are those remaining Christians who are committed to following Jesus (discipleship) supposed to do?  We might begin with The 8 Points of Progressive Christianity:

1.  Believe that following the path and teachings of Jesus can lead to an awareness and experience of the Sacred and the Oneness and Unity of all life;

2.  Affirm that the teachings of Jesus provide but one of many ways to experience the Sacredness and Oneness of life, and that we can draw from diverse sources of wisdom in our spiritual journey;

3.  Seek community that is inclusive of ALL people, including but not limited to:

conventional Christians and questioning skeptics, believers and agnostics, women and men,

those of all sexual orientations and gender identities, and those of all classes and abilities;

4.  Know that the way we behave towards one another is the fullest expression of what we believe;

5.  Find grace in the search for understanding and believe there is more value in questioning than in absolutes;

6.  Strive for peace and justice among all people;

7.  Strive to protect and restore the integrity of our Earth;

8.  Commit to a path of life-long learning, compassion, and selfless love. See https://progressivechristianity.org/the-8-points/.

#568: How Civil Military Relations Could Reshape America's Future

#568: How Civil-Military Relations Could Reshape America’s Future

By Rudy Barnes, Jr., October 18, 2025

America’s Political Future is shaped by its civil-military relations, as it was in 1860 when President Abraham Lincoln declared martial law and deployed Union forces to counter the secession of 13 states.  But there has been no internal threat to the U.S. since the Civil War, contrary to the claims of Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth on September 30.

Even so, last week Donald Trump activated and deployed National Guard forces to U.S. cities, from Chicago to Memphis, Tennessee, with more to come; and he urged Secretary of Defense (and War) Hegseth to use the cities where forces have been deployed as training grounds for a new military mission to protect the U.S. from an unknown internal political threat.  

Republicans have effectively shut down Congress, leaving Trump’s Executive branch as the only operational branch of American government.  On September 30 Trump convened senior military officials in Quantico, Virginia, and alarmed onlookers by invoking the need to mobilize military forces to quell an unseen “invasion from within;” and Trump has continued to consider using the Insurrection Act, a rarely used 1807 law that gives the president authority to deploy military forces to stamp out rebellion and ensure order at home. 

The military is a part of the Executive Branch that can quell insurgency and provide essential public services through its civil affairs personnel.  As fears grow about how far Trump will go in politicizing and reshaping the mission of the military, Republicans have continued to support Trump’s norm-busting and self-serving policies.  While Democrats oppose Trump, they don’t have enough power to stop Trump and his Republicans in Congress.

I’m a retired JAGC colonel and a graduate of the Army War College who was taught that the ultimate purpose of America’s military is to preserve peace, not to make war.  I was privileged to wear a green beret and awarded the Legion of Merit, and I have published numerous articles in military journals and a book on Military Legitimacy, Might and Right in the New Millennium in 1996.

If civil-military relations are left to Trump and Hegseth, America could go the way of Hitler’s Germany, Putin’s Russia, and Netanyahu’s Israel with a totalitarian regime.  It will take an enlightened electorate and new political leadership to reaffirm the duties and obligations of the military to support and defend the Constitution; otherwise all could be lost.

On September 30 Trump and Hegseth openly advocated domestic military deployments that would constitute a military insurrection and give Trump and his supporters effective control of America’s military.  Can America correct this threat of insurrection that could undermine the Constitution and civil-military relations in America?   Can we save our freedom from ourselves?             

#567: Trump has Created a Civil-Military Crisis in American Democracy

Rudy Barnes, Jr. October 11,  2025

Trump has talked too much about the use of military force and not enough about national security policy and the civil-military relations that are so essential for a stable democracy.  For Trump, talk about the military is cheap and honesty on the rule of law is in short supply.  That was evident during  an unexplained and unprecedented meeting of US military brass called by Trump’s Secretary of Defense (or War), Pete Hegseth on September 30.

The meeting was notable for its timing.  It came just as Trump had started to act aggressively to deploy National Guard troops to Democratic cities as training grounds to reduce crime, despite state and city officials opposing Trump’s uninvited military invasions.  In a real sense it proclaimed an invasion to proclaim Trump’s political power.

“Several hundred top military commanders turned up at Quantico having flown in from places as far away as Germany, Brussels, Japan and South Korea, and they sat mostly in silence as Trump talked for 73 minutes about the same things he talks about almost every day, no matter where he is or to whom he is speaking.” Trump did not elaborate on deteriorating civil-military relations or national security strategy, or how the military would be deployed in American cities.  Instead he talked about the media, tariffs and the border, and going to a restaurant in Washington to eat dinner, and not being awarded a Nobel Peace Prize that he felt he had earned.

The words of Trump and Hegseth should leave no doubt in anyone’s mind that the civilian leadership intends to use the threat and actuality of violence to infringe on Americans’ constitutional rights. Where Americans can take some comfort is in the quiet professionalism displayed by our military in this disgraceful and dangerous maelstrom.

What transpired was the commander in chief darkly asserting that “we’re under invasion from within.” Trump extolled his executive order “to provide training for a quick reaction force that can help quell civil disturbances. This is gonna be a big thing for the people in this room, because it’s the enemy from within, and we have to handle it before it gets out of control.”  The president claimed Washington, D.C., was more violent than anything our military experienced in Afghanistan.

Hegseth preceded the president, calling for a “historic reassertion of our purpose.” Sounding like the infamous sergeant major from the HBO series Generation Kill, he emphasized the importance of grooming standards and physical fitness. He also asserted ignoring the Law of War and to end “stupid rules of engagement,” saying that the military’s job is to “break things and kill people.”   

The words of Trump and Hegseth should leave no doubt in anyone’s mind that the civilian leadership intends to use the threat and actuality of violence to infringe on Americans’ constitutional rights. Where Americans, like me, can take some comfort is in the quiet professionalism displayed by our military in this disgraceful and dangerous maelstrom. Hegseth called all the military’s commanding officers to Quantico, Virginia, for a pep rally and Gave the Military Brass a Rehashed Speech.  See Shawn McCreech, NYTimes, at https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/30/us/politics/trump-military-brass-speech.html.

Trump extolled his executive order “to provide training for a quick reaction force that can help quell civil disturbances. This is gonna be a big thing for the people in this room, because it’s the enemy from within.  He said he had instructed the secretary of defense to “use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military.” The president claimed Washington, D.C., was more violent than anything our military experienced in Afghanistan. Sounding like the infamous sergeant major from the HBO series Generation Kill, Hegseth emphasized the importance of grooming standards and physical fitness, and asserted an end to “stupid rules of engagement,” saying that the military’s job is to “break things and kill people.”

The civilian leader of the Department of Defense instructed the brass that “if the words I’m speaking today are making your heart sink, then you should do the honorable thing and resign”—especially when coupled with the president’s calls for violence against fellow Americans. These are unprecedented and dangerous words from the civilian leadership of our military. What was reassuring was how the military leaders reacted. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine introduced the secretary as the secretary of war—distasteful, since only Congress has the authority to change the department’s name, and it has not done so. But Caine and his colleagues exemplified the professional restraint of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at State of the Union addresses: present but not participating in the politics.

Trump was clearly taken aback, encouraging them: “If you want to applaud, applaud.” They did not, just as the chiefs do not applaud at the political festival that is the State of the Union address. That is the appropriate professional response by the military when forced by their civilian leaders into being present at political events. See Foreign Policy, By Kori Schake, the director of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, see Foreign Policy, Oct 1, 2025.

At this unprecedented meeting, U.S. President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth behaved reprehensibly. Their speeches before several hundred assembled military commanders and their senior noncommissioned officers (NCOs) were tantamount to incitement—a genuinely dangerous effort to suborn the military’s oath and condition them for using violence against their fellow Americans. Their words should leave no doubt in anyone’s mind that the civilian leadership intends to use the threat and actuality of violence to infringe on Americans’ constitutional rights. Where Americans can take some comfort is in the quiet professionalism displayed by our military in this disgraceful and dangerous maelstrom.

Hegseth and Trump called all the military’s commanding officers to Quantico, Virginia, for a pep rally. What transpired was the commander in chief darkly asserting that “we’re under invasion from within.” Trump extolled his executive order “to provide training for a quick reaction force that can help quell civil disturbances. 

Trump said he had instructed the secretary of defense to “use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military.” The president claimed Washington, D.C., was more violent than anything our military experienced in Afghanistan. Hegseth preceded the president, calling for a “historic reassertion of our purpose,” emphasizing the importance of grooming standards and physical fitness over obeying the rule of law in the Constitution.

These are unprecedented and dangerous words from the civilian leadership of our military that deny the Constitutional rule of law in warfare.  What was reassuring was how the military leaders reacted. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine introduced the secretary as the secretary of war—distasteful, since only Congress has the authority to change the department’s name, and it has not done so. But that was probably unavoidable in the circumstances and was more than balanced out by the comportment of Caine and his colleagues. They exemplified the professional restraint of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at State of the Union addresses: present but not participating in the politics.

Trump is sure to be disappointed, as he was disappointed at the niceness of soldiers during the Army parade over the summer. Before today’s event, the president threatened: “I’m going to be meeting with generals and with admirals and with leaders, and if I don’t like somebody, I’m going to fire them right on the spot.” Nobody was fired on the spot, but the president and the secretary may retaliate for this disciplined response. Congress, the other constitutionally empowered source of civilian oversight of the military, ought to put its weight behind preventing any retribution.

During the 1867 constitutional crisis, Ulysses S. Grant, the commanding general of the Army, was pinioned between Congress impeaching President Andrew Johnson and that president threatening to disband Congress. Johnson fired Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, appointing Grant the civilian war secretary concurrent with his military appointment. Congress threatened Grant with five years in prison and a $10,000 fine if he accepted the appointment.

In what feels like an important decision for our time, Grant determined that in peacetime, the legislature has the superior claim to military subordination. Our current Congress might profit from the example and exercise its Article I authorities to establish military policies and shield our military from partisan onslaughts of the kind we saw today. From The Atlantic Daily <newsletters@theatlantic.com> October 7, 2025; and 

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2025/10/civil-military-crisis-trump-hegseth/684486. See also,  https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/10/01/trump-military-generals-incitement-civilians/.

Summary:

When the President and Secretary of Defense call for senior military leaders to ignore laws that restrict their use of force in military operations, they make a mockery of the rule of law and their oath to support and defend the Constitution as the foundation of the rule of law.  If any should resign, they should include the President and his Secretary of Defense.