Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

We can’t let Christianity be used to ‘lynch’ anyone

Man speaking on stage

A Maricopa County GOP leader told an audience that if local election official Stephen Richer (above) were in the room with them, she would '"lynch him."

Sexton is executive director of the Arizona Faith Network and an ordained pastor in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). Campbell is lead pastor at Desert Springs Bible Church and author of “ Disarming Leviathan: Loving Your Christian Nationalist Neighbor.”

As pastors in Arizona, we are concerned about the toxic polarization that has taken hold in our state and the weight it is adding to the souls of our neighbors. A video recently surfaced that showed violent rhetoric toward an Arizona public servant. It deserves the rebuke of Christians in our state — and all people of goodwill.

Maricopa County Republican Party official Shelby Busch told an audience that if Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer, a Republican, were in the room with them, she would “lynch him.” This was not only a call to violence. It is a term that carries a particularly disturbing connotation in the history of our country.


The troubling mention of 'Christian disagreements'

Violent rhetoric of this kind has no place in Maricopa County or anywhere in Arizona. With hate crimes on the rise and violent threats against public officials — especially election officials — at a dangerous high, this type of language is reprehensible and contrary to the teachings of Jesus.

Furthermore, Busch stated that there was a difference between Richer, who is Jewish, and other public officials because other officials can have “Christian disagreements.” To be clear: No matter what types of disagreements Arizonans have, our religious tradition calls us to resolve them peacefully. Disagreements should never be resolved through violence, regardless of their extent.

Beyond the danger of this call to violence, the rhetoric of “Christian disagreements” implies that Christians can treat non-Christians with less respect or dignity. This is contrary to the teaching of Jesus, who calls us to love our neighbor as ourselves.

We can't manipulate religion to divide people

Busch’s comments can also give the impression that non-Christians should not serve in public office. This could not be further from the truth.

While we believe in strongly expressing our Christian beliefs in the public square and advocating for policies that reflect our values, religious tests for officeholders are a violation of the First Amendment.

What’s more, we would embrace any politician who serves the public with integrity, honesty and fairness, regardless of their faith tradition.

To demand that public officials adhere to a single interpretation of a single religion is a betrayal of foundational American values.

Faith's tenets are love and compassion

The combative environment in Arizona politics stems largely from the lies about the 2020 election — and the demands that Arizona officials overturn the will of the people.

When individuals are willing to throw aside the results of a free and fair election — and silence the voices of the majority of their neighbors — these elements cultivate a dangerous environment for our democracy.

We are tired of this divisive violent rhetoric that manipulates our religious values, distorting the core tenets of compassion and understanding that define our faith.

As local church pastors, we invite our community to reject the path of violence and follow the way of Jesus, a path of peace, grace, love and truth. As the Apostle Paul wrote to Christians living under the Roman Empire (Romans 12:17-18), “Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.”


Read More

Democratic Presidential candidate U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) holds his first presidential campaign rally at Brooklyn College on March 02, 2019 in Brooklyn, New York.

A lobbyist who worked for both Bernie Sanders and Fortune 500 clients explains what democratic socialist wins mean for business, and how to prepare.

VIEW press/Getty Images

I Campaigned for Bernie Sanders Then Lobbied for Amazon

In 2016, my political outreach company, Firehouse Phones, worked on the presidential campaign of a democratic socialist. It was one of many campaigns my firm touched, but that one stays on my resume for a reason: it taught me more about how persuasion actually works than any client engagement before or since.

Today I run Ohio River South, a government affairs firm focused on the nation's fastest growing region — the American South. Over the past decade we've advocated for nearly two dozen Fortune 500 companies — Amazon in my earlier lobbying years, and later growing a client roster that included Alphabet, Microsoft, General Motors, United Healthcare, and Capital One. So when democratic socialists started winning and companies started calling to ask what it meant for them, I found myself in a useful position: I'm the advisor who has been on the other team.

Keep ReadingShow less
The White House
The white house with green lawn and trees
Photo by Josh on Unsplash

The Politics of Gratitude: Why Washington Punishes the Loyalty It Cannot Price

On a Sunday night in August, Senator Jon Ossoff told a campaign rally in Atlanta that President Trump would rather build his ballroom and “travel with Natalie” than do his job. He never used her last name. He did not need to. Natalie Harp, the White House aide known to colleagues as Trump’s “human printer” for trailing him with a portable printer and transcribing his social-media dictation, had become a punchline before most Americans knew who she was.

The backlash arrived within hours. White House officials accused Ossoff of insinuating an affair; Republican Rep. Brandon Gill noted that Harp survived bone cancer only because the Right to Try Act, which Trump signed in 2018, let her seek an experimental treatment outside the normal approval process, and dismissed any other reading of the moment as unfair. Weeks earlier, Harp had been at the center of a far more consequential story: in July, she was one of a handful of aides, alongside the defense secretary and two senior staffers, chosen to accompany Trump on a covert switch of aircraft as he left a security summit in Turkey after officials detected a credible Iranian threat, while most of the traveling delegation stayed behind on a decoy plane. That is the real proximity Ossoff's line was needling. Then came a detail that complicated the story further: Trump had personally given Harp and several other aides cash gifts of $45,000 apiece, which a former federal ethics official called troublesome, since money on that scale can leave a recipient feeling indebted to whoever signs the check.

Keep ReadingShow less
A map labeling Lake Ontario as "Lake America" is displayed behind U.S. President Donald Trump.

A map labeling Lake Ontario as "Lake America" is displayed as U.S. President Donald Trump signs an executive order during an event in the Oval Office of the White House on August 27, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Cartography of Convenience: Why Rushed Renaming Erodes Public Trust

In tough economic times, governments often reach for the easiest kind of progress: a new name on an old sign. Wage stagnation, inflation, crumbling roads, and rising rents are hard problems that take years and real money to fix. Renaming a street, a lake, or a strait is not. It costs a fraction as much and lets officials point to something they “did.” A new name never fixes a pothole or lowers a grocery bill. This year offered an unusually rich catalogue of the habit, reaching from a city council in Texas to a wartime waterway in the Persian Gulf.

A Concept Borrowed From the Cremation Ground

Indian philosophy has an old idea called shmashana vairagya, describing the sudden clarity a person feels standing at a cremation ground, when ordinary ambitions look small. The feeling fades once the mourner goes home. Public policy has its own version of this cycle. In the raw hours after a tragedy, a scandal, or a surge of national feeling, officials decide, sometimes within a single social media post, what belongs on a map or a sign forever. The emotion passes in hours. The bill, when there is one, stays for years.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump

U.S. President Donald Trump on February 6, 2026.

(Photo by Samuel Corum/Getty Images)

A Demagogue in the White House: Will the Guardrails Hold?

A demagogue does not seize all power at once. He takes it piece by piece.

In Trump’s second administration, those pieces accumulated in plain sight. The president generated so much disruption and noise that Americans struggled to keep pace. Each new controversy displaced the last, obscuring a more consequential story: the steady accumulation of presidential power.

Keep ReadingShow less