Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Is patriotism Christian?

Is patriotism Christian?
Getty Images

Swearengin is an author, emotional & spiritual well-being coach, podcaster and content creator through his social media presence as Unconventional Pastor Paul. He talks religion and politics at times joined by his wife Ashley, a former elected official and community leader. Find him at Pastor-Paul.com.

American Christian churches celebrate each July with patriotic songs and pledges of allegiance - not allegiance to Almighty God - but to our country's flag and its symbolism of "freedom" secured through military might. Since Christians like to ask WWJD (What Would Jesus Do?), I do wonder if an incarnate Jesus in America today would celebrate the 4th of July weekend as do so many of our patriotic churches?


“Those who live by the sword, die by it,” Jesus is quoted in the Christian Bible. He didn't seem to be in alignment with the Zealots who were stirring chaos in attempt to force the despotic Roman government out of Palestine, nor with the "overturn-the-government" focus of those in his religious community who felt the major goal of their god was to... well... make their country great again.

In my past role as leader of a brick-and-mortar American Evangelical church, I refused even to display an American flag in our church building, much to the chagrin of some of our parishioners. Do I hate our country? Of course not. I do believe, however, in the teachings of Jesus that spirituality and faith should be rooted in a “kingdom” (or people group) that is above national boundaries, divisive echo chambers and petty squabbles.

“There is neither slave nor free, Jew nor Greek,” the Christian Bible says. This was a RADICAL statement for the first century Jewish Christian. They all had been taught that inclusion in their community gave them identity and met their basic human needs of safety, value and purpose. Now they were being told to forgo those exclusive benefits in order to bring their message of abundant life to foreigners and people of other religions - people with whom they'd been forbidden to share a meal in the past?

The Hebrew story of Jonah tells of his belief that hatred of foreign people was a God-given right. The story shows Jonah scolding God and stating he'd rather be dead than live in a world where that God would have mercy on "those people." Is not calling America a “city on a hill,” or declaring God's blessing on our military conquests any different than Jonah's attitude towards the Ninevites? Maybe God would say to us, as he did to Jonah, "Do you do well to feel this way" when we celebrate a belief that our country has special favor over others?

The first century religious leaders, who Jesus called “hypocrites” and “white washed tombs,” believed their job was to use political skill and religious piety to restore godly order and hierarchy in the world.

“If people follow Jesus, we will lose our temple (i.e. religious practice) and our country,” they said. Likewise, today's American Christians act as if heaven's top priority is for the U.S. to dominate the world economically and militarily, and that the Christian's job is to make that happen through the installation of Christian law into civil systems and even our legal code.

The story of Jesus demonstrates that we gain influence with people through service and a willingness to die for those around us - or at least die to self for the benefit of others. He preached of loving one's neighbor and then defined "neighbor" as that person of another race, religion or creed that a religious community feels is worthy of divine love and mercy. Nothing I see in the gospel story would give the slightest hint that Jesus would approve of militaristic and patriotic songs in a church when he once turned over temple tables and demanded it be restored as a "a house of prayer."

Therefore, does it not seem a disconnect to celebrate our ability, past and present, to preserve ourselves through violent acts and to declare "America First" as a useful motto for a follower of Jesus' teaching?

What if Christians celebrated the times we didn't go to war as vociferously as we celebrate military victory? Could there be a space where our sense of safety was more rooted in our spiritual faith, than in our faith in America's military power? And, if so, could we use even a small portion of the annual $557 billion military budget (larger than the budget of the world's next ten largest militaries combined) to follow the 2,000 commands of the Bible to seek justice for the poor, foreigner, marginalized and economically disadvantaged of our country and the world?

It seems Jesus believed this mindset shift could lessen our need for bombs, guns, jets and drones. And wouldn't that idea truly be something worth pledging allegiance to in our Sunday morning gatherings?

Read More

news app
New platforms help overcome biased news reporting
Tero Vesalainen/Getty Images

The Selective Sanctity of Death: When Empathy Depends on Skin Color

Rampant calls to avoid sharing the video of Charlie Kirk’s death have been swift and emphatic across social media. “We need to keep our souls clean,” journalists plead. “Where are social media’s content moderators?” “How did we get so desensitized?” The moral outrage is palpable; the demands for human dignity urgent and clear.

But as a Black woman who has been forced to witness the constant virality of Black death, I must ask: where was this widespread anger for George Floyd? For Philando Castile? For Daunte Wright? For Tyre Nichols?

Keep ReadingShow less
Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making
Mount Rushmore
Photo by John Bakator on Unsplash

Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

No one can denounce the New York Yankee fan for boasting that her favorite ballclub has won more World Series championships than any other. At 27 titles, the Bronx Bombers claim more than twice their closest competitor.

No one can question admirers of the late, great Chick Corea, or the equally astonishing Alison Krauss, for their virtually unrivaled Grammy victories. At 27 gold statues, only Beyoncé and Quincy Jones have more in the popular categories.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Trump’s mass deportations promise security but deliver economic pain, family separation, and chaos. Here’s why this policy is failing America.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

The Cruel Arithmetic of Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

As summer 2025 winds down, the Trump administration’s deportation machine is operating at full throttle—removing over one million people in six months and fulfilling a campaign promise to launch the “largest deportation operation in American history.” For supporters, this is a victory lap for law and order. For the rest of the lot, it’s a costly illusion—one that trades complexity for spectacle and security for chaos.

Let’s dispense with the fantasy first. The administration insists that mass deportations will save billions, reduce crime, and protect American jobs. But like most political magic tricks, the numbers vanish under scrutiny. The Economic Policy Institute warns that this policy could destroy millions of jobs—not just for immigrants but for U.S.-born workers in sectors like construction, elder care, and child care. That’s not just a fiscal cliff—it is fewer teachers, fewer caregivers, and fewer homes built. It is inflation with a human face. In fact, child care alone could shrink by over 15%, leaving working parents stranded and employers scrambling.

Meanwhile, the Peterson Institute projects a drop in GDP and employment, while the Penn Wharton School’s Budget Model estimates that deporting unauthorized workers over a decade would slash Social Security revenue and inflate deficits by nearly $900 billion. That’s not a typo. It’s a fiscal cliff dressed up as border security.

And then there’s food. Deporting farmworkers doesn’t just leave fields fallow—it drives up prices. Analysts predict a 10% spike in food costs, compounding inflation and squeezing families already living paycheck to paycheck. In California, where immigrant renters are disproportionately affected, eviction rates are climbing. The Urban Institute warns that deportations are deepening the housing crisis by gutting the construction workforce. So much for protecting American livelihoods.

But the real cost isn’t measured in dollars. It’s measured in broken families, empty classrooms, and quiet despair. The administration has deployed 10,000 armed service members to the border and ramped up “self-deportation” tactics—policies so harsh they force people to leave voluntarily. The result: Children skipping meals because their parents fear applying for food assistance; Cancer patients deported mid-treatment; and LGBTQ+ youth losing access to mental health care. The Human Rights Watch calls it a “crueler world for immigrants.” That’s putting it mildly.

This isn’t targeted enforcement. It’s a dragnet. Green card holders, long-term residents, and asylum seekers are swept up alongside undocumented workers. Viral videos show ICE raids at schools, hospitals, and churches. Lawsuits are piling up. And the chilling effect is real: immigrant communities are retreating from public life, afraid to report crimes or seek help. That’s not safety. That’s silence. Legal scholars warn that the administration’s tactics—raids at schools, churches, and hospitals—may violate Fourth Amendment protections and due process norms.

Even the administration’s security claims are shaky. Yes, border crossings are down—by about 60%, thanks to policies like “Remain in Mexico.” But deportation numbers haven’t met the promised scale. The Migration Policy Institute notes that monthly averages hover around 14,500, far below the millions touted. And the root causes of undocumented immigration—like visa overstays, which account for 60% of cases—remain untouched.

Crime reduction? Also murky. FBI data shows declines in some areas, but experts attribute this more to economic trends than immigration enforcement. In fact, fear in immigrant communities may be making things worse. When people won’t talk to the police, crimes go unreported. That’s not justice. That’s dysfunction.

Public opinion is catching up. In February, 59% of Americans supported mass deportations. By July, that number had cratered. Gallup reports a 25-point drop in favor of immigration cuts. The Pew Research Center finds that 75% of Democrats—and a growing number of independents—think the policy goes too far. Even Trump-friendly voices like Joe Rogan are balking, calling raids on “construction workers and gardeners” a betrayal of common sense.

On social media, the backlash is swift. Users on X (formerly Twitter) call the policy “ineffective,” “manipulative,” and “theater.” And they’re not wrong. This isn’t about solving immigration. It’s about staging a show—one where fear plays the villain and facts are the understudy.

The White House insists this is what voters wanted. But a narrow electoral win isn’t a blank check for policies that harm the economy and fray the social fabric. Alternatives exist: Targeted enforcement focused on violent offenders; visa reform to address overstays; and legal pathways to fill labor gaps. These aren’t radical ideas—they’re pragmatic ones. And they don’t require tearing families apart to work.

Trump’s deportation blitz is a mirage. It promises safety but delivers instability. It claims to protect jobs but undermines the very sectors that keep the country running. It speaks the language of law and order but acts with the recklessness of a demolition crew. Alternatives exist—and they work. Cities that focus on community policing and legal pathways report higher public safety and stronger economies. Reform doesn’t require cruelty. It requires courage.

Keep ReadingShow less
Multi-colored speech bubbles overlapping.

Stanford’s Strengthening Democracy Challenge shows a key way to reduce political violence: reveal that most Americans reject it.

Getty Images, MirageC

In the Aftermath of Assassinations, Let’s Show That Americans Overwhelmingly Disapprove of Political Violence

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination—and the assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman only three months ago—questions inevitably arise about how to reduce the likelihood of similar heinous actions.

Results from arguably the most important study focused on the U.S. context, the Strengthening Democracy Challenge run by Stanford University, point to one straightforward answer: show people that very few in the other party support political violence. This approach has been shown to reduce support for political violence.

Keep ReadingShow less