Swearengin is an author, emotional and spiritual well-being coach, podcaster and content creator known as Pastor Paul.
It seems quite a disconcerting time in the world. If only people wore white hats and black hats, like the old Westerns, so we could easily identify "good guys" and the “bad” ones. We find ourselves in such a tumultuous moment as horrifying pictures of violence come out of Israel and Gaza, causing a "who's right?” dividing line to form in America. For some, however, the question of right and wrong, good and evil, can become as simplistic as those old movies.
For example, many Christians believe it is their religious requirement to support anything Israel does as holy and heaven-endorsed. For others, the decades-long tragedy of Gaza may not justify the Oct. 7 attacks by Hamas, but certainly might be the cause for many to want Israel to silence weaponry and search for a lasting solution. Perhaps our attention needs to be drawn to the Hebrew story of Jonah for wisdom in these times.
Many know the story of Jonah’s "big fish" (Hebrew scripture does not call it a whale, by the way, in which his retreat from his commanded purpose is stopped when he is swallowed by a large ocean animal and returned to his God-commanded destination. What we might miss, though, is the necessity of the fish in compelling Jonah to consider his view of the people in Nineveh.
Jonah believed the Ninevites an enemy worthy to be wiped from the face of the earth and it’s easy to see why Jonah could have a right to believe so. The Ninevites had long been in conflict with Jonah's community and Jonah likely had witnessed the atrocities brought by war between factions. Jonah believed these people of a different culture, race and religion were terrorists and savages, more worthy of divine wrath than transcendent graciousness.
"I'd rather be dead than live in a world where my enemies receive mercy,” Jonah says in the story. The response from heaven was jarring.
"Do you do well to feel this way?” responded the divine voice. In modern parlance this is: "How's that mindset working out for you?”
Now, Jonah's desire for retribution can be justified by biblical texts. A fair argument can be made that the Hebrew and Christian Bibles seem to make allowances for governmental retribution against wrongdoers. That doing so might even be endorsed by these ancient texts. Without doubt, one can point to numerous times when the God of Israel ordered the military to wipe out peoples. Romans 13 of the Christian Bible can be interpreted to say government authority to create defensive militaries is ordained and endorsed by the Christian God.
No one is evil who thinks Pearl Harbor demanded an American response or that it was necessary to fight aggression in Europe. Those are respectable opinions. Can we, however, face more nuanced questions as to how hundreds of years of Western colonialism played into the actions of World War II’s “bad actors”? Or can we be honest as to how unfair Allied treatment of post-World War I Germany fed into the actions that led to World War II? Can we honestly consider how Western European racism and colonial goals prevented us from intervening for Ethiopia against its Italian invaders? That failure to live up to the promises of the League of Nations encouraged Mussolini to continue militarization of his country and partnership with Hitler.
Far too often, we, like the writers of ancient Hebrew texts, claim godly permission for violent acts. In his second inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln noted that both the North and South invoked God’s name for their military cause. Could it be our belief in God’s value for our military might provide cover from considering if we, like Jonah, prefer personal justice over the saving of lives of those we consider “others”?
Perhaps we consider our wealth and sizable military to be a sign of a divine preference for us over other nations and peoples. Jonah believed the shade from a miraculous plant endorsed his feelings of moral superiority. Yet, when the plant dies, just as miraculously as it came to be, Jonah cries out with a sense of injustice. Again, the divine interaction in the story challenges Jonah’s perception of his enemies.
"You think it unfair that the plant died," the voice from Heaven scolds, "a plant you had nothing to do with creating. Yet you root for the destruction of 120,000 human beings and their livelihoods." Does our mindset towards our military and financial advantages give us permission to fight for our self-interests at the cost of others?
Jesus was surrounded by people calling for resistance and revolt against a tyrannical Roman government, yet he refused to engage this cause. Instead, he challenged his own people’s sense of injustice while treating Samaritans, women, lepers and tax collectors unjustly. He made the outrageous statement that a true display of resistance against the establishment was, when commanded by a Roman soldier to “go a mile” in carrying their war implements, to “go two.” Jesus proclaimed loving and serving our enemies is the solution to the world's issues and said those who love only people like themselves aren't doing anything better than those they perceive to be the worst of a society. True connection to heavenly truth, according to Jesus, was an ability to “love our enemies.”
"Do you do well to feel this way?” Heaven asked Jonah. How about us? Should we be challenged with the same question as we settle in perceptions of people as enemies, terrorists or thugs; unworthy of basic human treatment?
In a recent presidential primary debate, the candidates uniformly called for cruel and violent vengeance in the Middle East, using language like “finish the job” and "wipe them out," sentiments that can be understood in the context of the horror seen on Oct. 7. But can we seek justice without losing our ability to consider if we’re missing a heavenly “do you do well?” opportunity for introspection and thoughtfulness that can help facilitate solutions?
I don't want Israel or the Palestinians to be wiped out. I want generational violence to cease and the human beings in the area to all be able to enjoy life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
I recognize the complexities of the situation are many. Former President Jimmy Carter, who worked his entire life for peace said this:
“War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other's children. To be true to ourselves, we must be true to others.”
Perhaps more of us could realize that war is never good and hear the challenge posed to Jonah: "Do you do well?" Then maybe hearts will change and solutions will follow.



















Eric Trump, the newly appointed ALT5 board director of World Liberty Financial, walks outside of the NASDAQ in Times Square as they mark the $1.5- billion partnership between World Liberty Financial and ALT5 Sigma with the ringing of the NASDAQ opening bell, on Aug. 13, 2025, in New York City.
Why does the Trump family always get a pass?
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche joined ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday to defend or explain a lot of controversies for the Trump administration: the Epstein files release, the events in Minneapolis, etc. He was also asked about possible conflicts of interest between President Trump’s family business and his job. Specifically, Blanche was asked about a very sketchy deal Trump’s son Eric signed with the UAE’s national security adviser, Sheikh Tahnoon.
Shortly before Trump was inaugurated in early 2025, Tahnoon invested $500 million in the Trump-owned World Liberty, a then newly launched cryptocurrency outfit. A few months later, UAE was granted permission to purchase sensitive American AI chips. According to the Wall Street Journal, which broke the story, “the deal marks something unprecedented in American politics: a foreign government official taking a major ownership stake in an incoming U.S. president’s company.”
“How do you respond to those who say this is a serious conflict of interest?” ABC host George Stephanopoulos asked.
“I love it when these papers talk about something being unprecedented or never happening before,” Blanche replied, “as if the Biden family and the Biden administration didn’t do exactly the same thing, and they were just in office.”
Blanche went on to boast about how the president is utterly transparent regarding his questionable business practices: “I don’t have a comment on it beyond Trump has been completely transparent when his family travels for business reasons. They don’t do so in secret. We don’t learn about it when we find a laptop a few years later. We learn about it when it’s happening.”
Sadly, Stephanopoulos didn’t offer the obvious response, which may have gone something like this: “OK, but the president and countless leading Republicans insisted that President Biden was the head of what they dubbed ‘the Biden Crime family’ and insisted his business dealings were corrupt, and indeed that his corruption merited impeachment. So how is being ‘transparent’ about similar corruption a defense?”
Now, I should be clear that I do think the Biden family’s business dealings were corrupt, whether or not laws were broken. Others disagree. I also think Trump’s business dealings appear to be worse in many ways than even what Biden was alleged to have done. But none of that is relevant. The standard set by Trump and Republicans is the relevant political standard, and by the deputy attorney general’s own account, the Trump administration is doing “exactly the same thing,” just more openly.
Since when is being more transparent about wrongdoing a defense? Try telling a cop or judge, “Yes, I robbed that bank. I’ve been completely transparent about that. So, what’s the big deal?”
This is just a small example of the broader dysfunction in the way we talk about politics.
Americans have a special hatred for hypocrisy. I think it goes back to the founding era. As Alexis de Tocqueville observed in “Democracy In America,” the old world had a different way of dealing with the moral shortcomings of leaders. Rank had its privileges. Nobles, never mind kings, were entitled to behave in ways that were forbidden to the little people.
In America, titles of nobility were banned in the Constitution and in our democratic culture. In a society built on notions of equality (the obvious exceptions of Black people, women, Native Americans notwithstanding) no one has access to special carve-outs or exemptions as to what is right and wrong. Claiming them, particularly in secret, feels like a betrayal against the whole idea of equality.
The problem in the modern era is that elites — of all ideological stripes — have violated that bargain. The result isn’t that we’ve abandoned any notion of right and wrong. Instead, by elevating hypocrisy to the greatest of sins, we end up weaponizing the principles, using them as a cudgel against the other side but not against our own.
Pick an issue: violent rhetoric by politicians, sexual misconduct, corruption and so on. With every revelation, almost immediately the debate becomes a riot of whataboutism. Team A says that Team B has no right to criticize because they did the same thing. Team B points out that Team A has switched positions. Everyone has a point. And everyone is missing the point.
Sure, hypocrisy is a moral failing, and partisan inconsistency is an intellectual one. But neither changes the objective facts. This is something you’re supposed to learn as a child: It doesn’t matter what everyone else is doing or saying, wrong is wrong. It’s also something lawyers like Mr. Blanche are supposed to know. Telling a judge that the hypocrisy of the prosecutor — or your client’s transparency — means your client did nothing wrong would earn you nothing but a laugh.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.