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.




















U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally at Pinnacle Bank Expo Center on the Nebraska State Fairgrounds on October 05, 2026 in Grand Island, Nebraska.
The President Invited Iran to Bomb My Home
I was driving home to San Diego from Los Angeles on Monday night when I heard that the President of the United States had offered both cities up to Iran as bomb targets. At a rally in Nebraska, defending his war, Trump told the crowd, “let [Iran] take out Los Angeles, let ‘em take out San Diego.” It was, he said, “a very small price to pay.”
I was coming from a Bernie Sanders rally for Proposition 40, the one-time tax on California billionaires that would send 90% of its revenue to healthcare. We desperately need it to pass because, in order to give tax breaks to billionaires, Trump signed a law that will strip health coverage from 10 million Americans; this tax will make sure we can still cover Californians. Call me crazy, but I think taxing billionaires one time so we can make sure kids in California get to see a doctor is a very small price to pay. I also think that even if Trump were joking, it is indefensible to make jokes about the potential destruction of so many lives. Human life is never a small price to pay. Human life is priceless.
Plus, the reality is: here in San Diego, we’re already paying the price for Trump’s actions, and it’s not small at all. He has gutted FEMA, tried to kill climate resiliency programs, and destroyed public health standards, while his signature law is set to cut off health insurance and food support for hundreds of thousands of San Diegans. Like plenty of American cities, San Diego is already busy finding local solutions to respond to the problems this president has recklessly created.
Not to mention, at least 19 American service members have been killed in this war already. Human rights monitors have documented more than 3,600 dead in Iran by April alone. Here at home, gas is sitting just pennies below its all-time record. Taxpayers have already spent more than $45 billion on the war, while Trump’s oil and gas portfolio has grown by roughly $15.5 million this year alone. Of course anything is a “small price” to someone paying free.99 for this war, and profiting from it. Meanwhile, We the People are paying twice: first for the war, and then for the consequences of that war. But now he wants San Diego to pay a third time, flippantly offering us up to Iran.
It is worth noticing which cities he thought to name. Were San Diego and Los Angeles strategically chosen to signify something to his audience, or were they simply the first cities that came to mind as expendable places? Either way, the effect is to normalize—-and to gauge a crowd’s reaction to–the idea of massive violence in major California cities, suitable targets because of their perceived liberal lean. So what if Iran needs to bomb a little bit of America before the war can be over? Who cares, says Trump, if they target Los Angeles and San Diego?
By the way, why didn’t he offer up San Francisco, the free-love hippie-town MAGA loves to hate (and also my birthplace)? Could it be because that’s where the tech titans live? The same ones who joined Trump for Xi Jinping’s state dinner, a guest list worth a combined $2.4 trillion?
San Diego may have fewer billionaires, but it is home to more than 115,000 active-duty service members and 230,000 veterans. One in six active-duty sailors–in the entire Navy–is stationed here. So is one in four Marines. You cannot throw a rock in this county without hitting a military family: brats and spouses and veterans are among us. I got out of the Navy last year after ten years, and eight of those were here in San Diego. When Trump says “let ‘em take out San Diego,” he’s talking about the backbone of the United States military. He’s also talking about the people fighting his war.
San Diego has not been watching this war from the sidelines. Today, the USS Abraham Lincoln returns to North Island after an almost yearlong deployment to the Middle East that featured food shortages, broken toilets, and mold in the showers after 286 days at sea without a single port call. Eight sailors in the Lincoln’s strike group attempted suicide, but in August, when a reporter asked whether the deployment had gone on too long, Trump said “not nearly long enough.” Now he has told a crowd in Nebraska that we should let Iran take out the city those sailors call home. These are sociopathic sentiments.
Last week at Quantico, Pete Hegseth closed his address to the force by telling them, “President Trump has your back and so do I.” To the contrary, President Trump has put one of the biggest military towns in the country forward as a target for our adversaries. With friends like these, the “domestic” in “against all enemies, foreign and domestic” starts to sound a lot less hypothetical.
San Diego is home to Naval Air Station North Island, Naval Base San Diego, Naval Amphibious Base Coronado, the Point Loma submarine base, Camp Pendleton, and Miramar (and I have been permanently stationed at or trained at all of them). If Iran bombed San Diego and Los Angeles, aside from the devastating loss of life, it would cripple an immense share of our national security readiness.
And for what, exactly? Trump says the war is “essentially almost over with.” This is the same man who claimed in June 2025 that Iran’s nuclear program had been “obliterated,” then launched a war over it anyway on February 28. More than seven months later, he wants us to believe two things at once: that we’ve basically won, and that we might need to sacrifice an American city or two to finish winning. If the war is almost over, why does anybody need to take out San Diego?
I wonder if Trump’s endorsed candidate for California’s 48th District here in San Diego County will respond to these remarks. He recently said “no pain, no gain,” when referring to the gas prices San Diegans are paying. Jim Desmond, would you apply that same mindset if we were bombed? Or do you have the moral courage to stand up for the people you’re running to represent?
Last November, six Democratic members of Congress, all veterans, including Senator Mark Kelly, recorded a video reminding troops of their duty to disobey unlawful orders, restating the law that says so. Trump called it “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH,” and then his Justice Department went looking for an indictment, which a grand jury refused. The president treated reading the law out loud to the troops as a capital offense, but then he himself invited a foreign enemy to destroy two American cities, possibly as a punchline. Is anyone calling the latter sedition? Who is demanding accountability?
Calling our lives a small price to pay affirms a moral bankruptcy, as well as an obvious dereliction of duty to the office he holds. While we can’t impeach him or invoke the 25th Amendment ourselves, we must stop being so quiet about what we’re paying already. We can make our voices heard by calling our representatives, writing op-eds, knocking doors, phone banking, and voting in defiance of the man who threatens the safety of our city. Ballots are already arriving in mailboxes. Vote, and vote yes on 40 (and no on 41 and 42).
Trump has been harming our cities for a while, but now he is inviting our military adversaries to join him in the harm. If we have any self-respect as Americans, we must not tolerate our leaders disregarding the dignity of lives in this way. We must fight for our home.
Julie Roland was a Naval Officer for ten years, deploying to both the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf as a helicopter pilot before separating in June 2025 as a Lieutenant Commander. She has a law degree from the University of San Diego, a Master of Laws from Columbia University, and is a member of the Truman National Security Project.