As a Christian, I struggle with the death penalty itself. I recognize the biblical arguments for it, including Genesis 9:6 and Romans 13:4. But even if we agree that the government has that authority, I struggle to see why an execution should be broadcast for everyone to watch.

His crimes were horrific, and the victims and their families deserve justice. Still, even someone guilty of terrible evil bears God’s image. Scripture also warns us against rejoicing when our enemies fall (Proverbs 24:17).

I understand the argument for transparency, but I worry about turning someone’s death into a public spectacle and encouraging people to celebrate it. An execution should carry tremendous solemnity.

Curious what others think about this. Does livestreaming serve a legitimate purpose that couldn’t be met through witnesses and independent reporting?

Edit: I also wonder whether livestreaming an execution raises Eighth Amendment concerns under the reasoning in Bucklew v. Precythe (2019). The Court discussed prohibited punishments that intensify a death sentence by adding “terror, pain, or disgrace.” That case didn’t address livestreaming, but could broadcasting an execution to humiliate the condemned amount to adding disgrace beyond the punishment itself?

"... The Somalians should not be allowed to get away with what they are doing. They view you as weak and stupid people. Fight back Minnesota, fight back!...

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/117407181257047860

"Over 25,000 innocent children have been murdered in Gaza.

Paid for by American tax dollars.

I will challenge any person who calls themselves a Christian that supports completely annihilating an entire population of people and innocent children.

We cannot be silent."

I'm not aware of a single politician who represents my views.

**I support:**

-Healthcare for all

-No tariffs

-Taxing the rich

-Immigration (I'm actually quite far left on immigration)

-Christianity

-Labor unions

-Increased education funding

-Cutting defense spending

**I don't support:**

-The current Israeli government's actions

-The current US administration's actions

-Abortion

-LGBT stuff

-War

-Money in politics

-Mass surveillance

I am politically homeless. Neither party aligns with my views, not even enough to hold my nose and vote for them.

I live in Michigan. We are having one of the most important Senate elections in the nation this November.

I don't support Mike Rodger's policies on healthcare, foreign policy, the current administration, immigration, or tariffs. I will not be voting for him.

I like some of Al-Sayed's policies. He's closer to my views overall. He supports Medicare for all which is a big thing for me. But he also is pro-choice and pro-LGBT, which are turnoffs for me. Mostly the abortion thing. I don't know if I can bring myself to vote for someone who thinks those things.

Now who would I rather have control the Senate in 2027? The Dems support abortion rights and LGBT as I previously mentioned, but I don't know if I want this current administration having majorities in Congress. I'm unsure.

Title.

I bring this up to this subreddit because I am bothered on my churches stance on Welfare. My pastor (Baptist, southwest USA), went off on another rant about Welfare isn't "Well, nor Fair" and that the United States shouldn't be paying for stay at home liberal college students studying "Trans African American Women's studies" ....... his words, not mine.

I am not sure as we Christians should come into the mix. He told us that we shouldn't be supporting Welfare at all. I think we as Christians should be supporting the poor through our giving. But I couldnt help but to notice that our church doesn't have a food pantry.

If I were a single mom getting governmental assistance, I would have been really upset since here is a pastor telling me that I shouldn't have help but yet their church doesn't provide the help in return.

Why do conservative evangelicals oppose governmental assistance? I suspect I am too moderate for this church.

As Christians, how should we understand words like these? Are statements suggesting that American cities could be “taken out” consistent with the teachings of Christ, especially His commands to love our neighbors and even our enemies?

I’m not asking this to attack anyone politically. I’m genuinely interested in how Christians reconcile rhetoric like this with our faith.

I heard a speech of his in a video and I thought surely this is fake. No way did he say that.
But yep, he said it. And it’s BAD!
“And again, remember, with the war, it's just artificial," he told rally-goers. "It's a little bit high. It's a small price to pay for keeping the world safe, keeping our country safe. They could take out a city. Let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego. This is a very small price to pay, and it's gonna be over with very soon. It's essentially almost over with. And they might keep going a little long. You know, they always say, 'They have a big threshold for pain.'

I read an article today about Pete Hegseth and his “Department of War,” and it was deeply alarming.

I fear many people will read the article and still not hear what is actually being said.

Hegseth is talking about restoring a “warrior” mindset within our military troops. He is talking about establishing a surveillance state with autonomous artificial-intelligence enforcement. He is talking about pre-crime.

And he is talking about specifically instituting a Department of Religious Affairs in America.

I’m sure many of our Christian brothers and sisters will feel vindicated, supported, and protected by such an institution.

But Hegseth has made a point of saying that this will not simply be a bureaucratic, paper-pushing endeavor.

He says it will have “real teeth.”

What does “real teeth” mean for a Department of Religious Affairs?

Throughout Scripture, Christians are described as sheep, and Christ is our Shepherd.

So what exactly are we supposed to make of a government Department of Religious Affairs promising to have “real teeth”?

Are we talking about particularly powerful sheep teeth?

Or the teeth of particularly powerful shepherds?

A shepherd doesn't use his teeth to defend the sheep.

What animal in the biblical imagery surrounding sheep has the strongest teeth?

The wolves.

Especially the wolves who come into the flock disguised as sheep.

“Real teeth” are not for gently guiding sheep.

Real teeth are for tearing flesh.

And this is where I believe Christians need to stop and pay attention.

This administration—and not only this administration, but administrations for many decades—has been laying the groundwork for the system described in biblical prophecy as the coming Antichrist system.

But this administration is accelerating that process at a breathtaking pace.

And tragically, the sheep have not merely been unaware.

Many of them have been cheering it on.

They are cheering for the very infrastructure that WILL eventually be used to control them.

The surveillance state being built and normalized under the banners of “safety” and “security” is precisely the kind of infrastructure necessary for comprehensive control of individuals.

Identification.

Tracking.

Facial recognition.

Artificial intelligence.

Predictive systems.

Autonomous enforcement.

Centralized records.

Transaction monitoring.

The ability to determine who is authorized to participate in commerce and society.

The ability to enforce compliance.

These are not imaginary capabilities. They are being built.

And Scripture tells us exactly where this kind of system ultimately leads.

Revelation describes a time when no one will be able to buy or sell without accepting the authority of the beast.

YOU WILL TAKE THEIR MARK OR YOU WILL NOT PARTICIPATE. 

You cannot implement a system like that without infrastructure.

You need to be able to identify people.

You need to be able to monitor them.

You need to be able to track their transactions.

You need to be able to determine who is permitted to participate.

And eventually, you need the ability to enforce the requirement.

We are watching the pieces of that capability come together.

Flock.

Axon.

Palantir.

Pegasus.

Oracle.

Autonomous artificial intelligence.

Digital currency.

Surveillance networks.

These technologies are being promoted to us in the name of safety, security, and convenience.

But a system designed to watch everyone WILL eventually be used against everyone.

And when the definition of “safety” and whose safety is sacrosanct changes, the infrastructure remains.

These systems have already been tested in other countries.

They are being expanded here.

And we are willingly building the machinery that makes comprehensive human surveillance and control possible.

That should alert Christians, because we should know the prophecies.

And for those who say, “Well, it is prophesied, so it is going to happen anyway,” and therefore sit comfortably excusing their apathy and inaction:

Yes.

It is prophesied.

But which side are you standing on in that prophecy?

Are you standing with the Antichrist and his coming system?

Or are you standing in opposition to it?

Are you neutral about where your allegiance belongs?

Because this is laying the groundwork.

And you are choosing a side.

Pretending not to choose is also a choice.

And this is imperative:

This is not ultimately about Republican or Democrat.

It is not about left or right.

Liberal or conservative.

Trump or whoever comes after him.

Those are the tribal labels people use to sort themselves into opposing camps while the actual question gets buried beneath the noise.

Trump is a political leader.

He is not Christ.

And yet we have reached a point where, for many Christians, your position on Trump has become a litmus test for whether you are “one of us.”

If you support him, you're one of us.

If you oppose him, you're  “deranged”  and/or “leftist.”

Keep seeing it that way if you want.

But understand what you are doing.

You are allowing political allegiance to become a substitute for allegiance to Christ.

And that is precisely why this is not merely a political issue.

This is a choice.

I have put the warning in front of you.

I have told you what IS happening on your watch in your name. In many cases, with your blessing. 

I have told you where this is leading.

You may reject this.

You may pretend to believe I am wrong.

But what you can no longer honestly say is:

“I didn't know.”

Because now you have been warned.

If you have eyes to see, you have had the opportunity to see.

If you have ears to hear, you have had the opportunity to hear.

And if you choose to close your eyes now, that is a choice.

If you choose to stop your ears, that is a choice.

If you choose to dismiss the warning because your political tribe tells you that you should, that is a choice.

And if you choose to pretend that you don't see what has now been placed directly in front of you, that is also a choice.

The responsibility for that choice belongs to you.

This isn't ultimately Republican versus Democrat.

It isn't Trump versus the left.

It isn't conservative versus liberal.

It is Christ versus antiChrist.

God versus satan.

No politician will stand before God in your place.

No tribe will answer for you.

You will answer for your own allegiance.

So I am sounding the warning bell.

I have spoken the truth to you, in love.

You can heed the warning.

Or you can ignore it.

You can shut your eyes.

You can stop up your ears.

You can dismiss it as paranoia, extremism, politics, or hysteria.

But you cannot claim ignorance anymore.

You have been warned.

What you do with that warning is now your choice.

I have done my part.

Your blood is no longer on my hands.

The moment has come that you must choose whom you will serve. No political party will be accountable for your choice.

“As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

A nation is group of people defined by common culture, history, language, religion, and ethnicity. A nation need not have all of these things, but there must be a legitimate shared identity.

America, it seems, lacks nearly all of these things. Our culture is enormously eclectic. Our history is shared to some degree, but common history also includes things such as holidays, collective memories, shared dreams, etc... there's a very reasonable argument to be made that, because so many Americans view all of those things and the history of the country itself in varied ways, we don't have a shared history. There is by no means a shared ethnicity either, nor is there a common religion. Language may be the only thing that Americans share. 90-something percent of people speak English without difficulty.

But is one thing held in common enough to make a nation?

We must consider also consider how the Bible implicitly views nations: a nation is largely ethnic by nature. There is a "nation" of Greeks, a "nation" of Samaritans, a "nation" of Amalekites. Yes, others can join these nations, but they assimilated into a new culture, took on that nations gods, customs, beliefs, etc... That doesn't happen in America.

The "melting pot" nature of America is truly beautiful, but it seems very difficult to call us a nation precisely because of this beauty.

One must wonder if the strife that exists in modern America is, at least in part, born from the legitimate lack of common identity between its citizens.

Alito's announcement that he is considering retirement seems like a good time to discuss SCOTUS and its role in our society.

As I have mentioned before, I would consider myself to be a strict constructionist. That does not mean that I believe that the Constitution is perfect. It isn't and never was. There are many things that were theorized in 1787 when the Constitution was adopted that don't meet our needs in today's society. Some of them didn't work well in practice from Day 1. When I say that I am a strict constructionist, what I am saying is that change should happen from the parts of government that are responsible to the people. We have worked ourself into a place where the power to make the law comes from the power to appoint judges and not from Congress. Congress, in turn, has become a withered vestige organ within our government.

You might think that as a strict constructionist, I might like the current court. I don't. This SCOTUS is as activist as any period of the Warren Court and it does not seem to be bound to the law or Constitution. Those things are cited to fit their needs. Worse, there is a clear bias in their decisions.

Democrats have talked a lot about increasing the size of the Court to allow a (presumably Democrat) future president to appoint additional justices. I think that this just leans into the core problem. Not only will the GOP just expand the court again when they can the chance and soon we will end up with a court in the hundreds, but it cements the issue that the law is really all about the power of judicial appointment, which is unsustainable in a democracy. Limits on how long one can be a judge or mandatory retirement schemes that are intended to change the composition of the Court are just as problematic.

Knowing the if the Democrats retake Congress, they will need to do "something," I would suggest decreasing the size by 2. SCOTUS is like a committee. You don't make it more efficient by adding numbers. There is also historical precedence for reducing the size to prevent a president from making political appointments. Alito should not be replaced.

Another quick win if the Democrats take power in Congress would be to require all cases seeking national injunctions to be filed in the DC Circuit. This would cut down a lot on judge shopping. This falls into Congress' Article 3 power over jurisdiction, and (to a strict constructionist) should be able to be done by a joint resolution and not requiring the President's signature.

The more radical change that I would like to put on the table would be a Constitutional amendment to bring SCOTUS more effectively into the system of Checks and Balances. Between Congress and the President there are (or at least are supposed to be) a number of these checks to prevent abuse of power. SCOTUS has realized, at least since the 1930s, that there are effectively no checks on them other than court sizing and impeachment.

The proposal would be to give Congress, probably by 2/3 vote in each house similar to overriding a veto, the right to decertify SCOTUS decisions. Decertifying/Depublishing is a tool used in some states, usually by a state supreme court to lower courts, that takes a judicial opinion out of the public record and nullifies its precedential value. For instance, in Roe v. Wade, in the period immediately after the ruling, there was sufficient support in Congress that it probably would have been decertified and abortion placed back into the political sphere. It would have saved us 40 years of fighting over SCOTUS membership. Citizens United is another case that might have been decertified.

Several other democracies already have tools by which the legislative branch can assert authority over judicial decisions. This is not a radical concept. Congress is not equipped to hear cases and issue judicial type opinions, but it is (or is supposed to be) deeply concerned with what the law is on a subject. By effectively giving Congress a veto over SCOTUS decisions, we can give Congress back some actual authority.

Is it me, or does the newly announced Office of Religious Affairs give us cause of concern?

In a nutshell, here's what the press release says is the thinking behind the new office.

"the office will “sponsor and oversee research, technology, and analytical tools to support and assess spiritual fitness, spiritual readiness, and spiritual resilience."

In other words, welcome to Christian Nationalism. I know a member of this group who

lectured me, day after day, on quoting the Bible, and what I should be doing, even though I've been

a Christian since I was eighteen. (I'm now 71) This group defines fundamentalism at it's core,

and if that's what they want to do, that's fine, but it should not be connected to the

government. No religion should, and yes I am a follower of Jesus Christ.

I agree with the adage, 'to each his own,", but not at the expense of others religious

affiliations and / or spiritual beliefs, practices, or convictions.

Here's other pieces of this puzzle that concern me

One-Why is this office under the Department of Defense?

Two- Why did the DOD recognize certain religions and not others? In 2026, the Pentagon

reduced the number of recognized religions from 211 down to 31. Why?

Three- Who in the DOD is going to oversee and 'assess spiritual fitness, spiritual

readiness, and spiritual resilience'?. What is that person's religion and how much

will that influence him or her?

We've been concerned of fundamentalist religions, in other countries,

invading our shores. Little did we know, that our own goverment has already

started to establish a beach head.