Using religious studies to understand modern wars

 

I remember my old professor getting exasperated at me for arguing that it wasn’t enough for the US military to approach warfare on the basis of its perception of the enemy; the US also had to try and understand what the enemy itself believed, even in regard to religion. My prof was an officer in the US navy.

 

Cultural catch-all

It’s not that I didn’t understand her position. I did- very well. She was a military historian. Military history, even history in general, indeed, modern academia as a whole, view religious studies as somewhat irrelevant, and when they are to be understood, it is through the lens of ‘culture’. As to history, this last point is evident in academia in both sides of the Atlantic. John Keegan, the great British historian, sought to redefine war studies. Previously, Clausewitz taught that warfare was a kind of extension of ongoing politics. To Keegan, this was far too narrow a definition. He noted the general moral features of going to war. And along with a host of other elements, he subsumed all of them under ‘culture’. Then came along Victor Davis Hanson. He took up Keegan’s culture baton. Fantastic writers. Brilliant men. But missing the point when it came to religion. How so?

 

Western projection

Each author was writing from his Western perspective, one dominated by culture as a catch-all concept. I can tell you right now, that the jihadists of Afghanistan don’t give a monkey’s butt about ‘culture’. They are not trying to understand war through its lens! War, for them, is purely about theology. Nothing more, nothing less. They are taught in the Quran and the Hadith (Islamic tradition) to go to war to spread and defend Islam. So they do. It is that simple. A man who understands this very well is Robert Spencer,[1] without a doubt the foremost Western scholar in Islamic jihadism. At one time, he lectured to the FBI and other intelligence services about Islamic jihadists. That all changed when the mood of government and society in general switched to thinking of Islam as a political and cultural entity, not as primarily a religious one. Spencer was no longer hired.

 

Wars influenced by religion

Many wars, not all by any means, are stimulated by, or because of, religion. Think of the US’s current incursion into Iran. For a huge chunk of Americans, this is partly due to a belief that Israel are still God’s people. A religious, theological, belief. Yet, one that is, theologically, profoundly wrong. Israel are no longer God’s covenant people; the Christian assembly (‘church’) is. This is to say nothing of Iran’s Shia Muslim convictions that propel them to hate Jews and the American infidels. When jihadists exclaim, ‘Allahu Akbar’, after the deaths of infidels, they are not making a cultural statement. And then there are the religious conviction of many ‘Zionists’.

 

The Russia-Ukraine War has religion at its heart. The Russian Orthodox Church has declared the Ukraine conflict a holy war.[2] In the West, Putin’s union with Orthodoxy is considered a political move alone. However, this merely demonstrates, once again, the Western mindset that is predisposed to peripheralizing religion. Putin sees himself as a Peter the Great figure, lifting the sword in one hand and the Russian Orthodox Cross in the other.[3] And although he is manipulating religion, he nevertheless sees himself as a crusader for the cause.

 

I will never forget my research of the Spanish-English War of 1585-1604. I read the historians, and was underwhelmed by their accounts. Religion was considered a contributory factor. Yet, when you read the primary sources, you find in them that both sides were driven by the religious mindset of their day, not just by national and political factors.

 

Religions and war

As to religion specifically, let’s look at Shintoism. It is quickly sidelined that the Japanese emperor was ‘god’, according to the Shinto religion. Indeed, during WW2, there was ‘state Shintoism’ and the worship of the emperor. Typically, we read that this was hijacked by Shinto nationalists and abused. That is why one historian wrote the book, hailed as a touchstone in its subject, Japan’s Holy War: the Ideology of Radical Shinto Ultranationalism. No doubt it was highjacked by nationalists! Then again, Shintoism itself provided the structure for this: it had in it the seeds of the nation’s folly. How so? Because Shinto is a religion that has no dogma, nor restraints, no morality. It is by the nature of the case open to being ‘shaped’ according to the day. This interrelationship of the prevailing Japanese mindset of Shintoism and its cultural appropriation are recognized even in our day, “Shinto is both the wellspring of Japanese culture, and an eternally renewed expression of that same culture.”[4] They feed off of one another. Now, project that mindset back to WW2, how the lack of dogma, the prevailing nationalist spirit, Shintoism in general, and emperor worship, all combined to produce ‘holy warriors’ in the name of the emperor.

 

Similarly, what is not at all grasped by Western commentators is that the tensions within India itself between Hindus and Muslims (not the India-Pakistan War) have religion at their core. It is not mere politics and culture. Nor is it merely the typical Muslim jihadist argument. And, as to the Hindus it is not simply ‘nationalism’. Western pundits are hopelessly chained to their political and cultural narrative, blinding them to the fact that for millennia, Hinduism has considered itself a religion of the ‘holy land’ of India itself. That is why in its religious caste system, key figures are the Kshatryia (warriors, soldiers), who are second only to the priests in the order of Hindu society.[5] It is remarkable that scholars can, without thought, refer to Israel as the ‘holy land’ but not so India. It is jam-packed full of ‘holy’ mountains, cities, rivers, animals, people, and practices. The Western, anachronistic view imposes the modern notion of nationalism. Whilst there is no doubt at all that the Hindus in the conflict are nationalists, and even look to some of the features of modern nationalism, they consider India a ‘holy land’ that is protected by its warrior caste.[6]

 

Buddhism is considered a religion of peace. The Buddha related how in a supposed previous life he was a warrior. This type of thing is to be expected, for the whole theme of Buddhism is over millions of lifetimes to evolve eventually into an ‘enlightened one’ (a buddha). So, even though the ultimate goal is non-violence, this takes a million of lifetimes to achieve (quite literally). That was why Buddha was not too harsh on the rulers of India in his time, men of war, and encouraged them to be, in principle, men of non-violence.

 

Having said that, Buddhism gave to the world Zen Buddhism, a religion that allows the Buddhist to kill and slaughter. Most of the world is unaware that Buddhism has two tracks: Theravada (the original, what the Buddha practiced) and Mahayana (the development). It is from Mahayana that Japanese Buddhism came with its sub-branch of Zen Buddhism. Mahayana is more accommodating than Theravada, so that Zen allows the practitioner to take up weapons. How can it do this? Because the principle of non-violence is said to apply through the spirit-body divide. The body is a mere vessel that one must detach oneself from in one’s spirit. The spirit is non-violent, detached, allowing the body to execute violence on another body. This puts the fighting Buddhist monks and the samurai in a wholly different light! Did you know that the Dalai Lama, that great ‘advocate of peace’, carried a gun to mimic a soldier in order to escape? Did you know that he was rescued by warriors who defended him with weapons? ^[7] And did you know that, not too long ago, the Chinese blamed the Dalai Lama for the violence that had broken out in Tibet? ^[8] Is it just a coincidence that the Dalai Lama belongs to a different sub-branch of Mahayana Buddhism?

 

What’s the advantage?

One major advantage is, as Robert Spencer understood, that you no longer live in a giant bubble of naivety about religious groups. Where do you think the zeal and murderous spirit came from with the Japanese and jihadists? This sprung from their convictions about religion and life, not just about nation, and they certainly did not issue from the vague Western catch-all of ‘culture’. When Muslims rape white women and children, this is not just a cultural mishap. It is sheer evil, not only in a natural sense, but because Islam itself has a tradition of teaching about rape. What is the old saying, to be forewarned is to be forearmed? Isn’t warfare and international diplomacy based on information and knowledge? You might wipe out, militarily, the enemy. But his ideology has to be countered and extirpated, too. Religious leaders, religious buildings and organizations, are often the base for zealots. In countering them, one can appeal to those of the same religion who are peace-minded, one can grow relations with them, ‘promote’ that group (not their religion). There is an additional benefit: avoiding going to war based on religious convictions. I do not support American’s war against Iran because Israel is supposedly God’s people. For they are not. I supported the Trump admin because of the real and immanent threat Iran were (not so much now!).

 

What say ye?

---

[1] See Spencer’s website, Jihad Watch, https://jihadwatch.org/.

[2] Jacob Lassin, “Putin’s war with the Church”, Engelsberg Ideas, March 4, 2022, https://engelsbergideas.com/notebook/putins-war-with-the-church/; Riley Bailey, “The Russian Orthodox Church Declares “Holy War” against Ukraine and Articulates Tenets of Russia’s Emerging Official Nationalist Ideology”, ISW, March 30, 2024,  https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-orthodox-church-declares-%E2%80%9Choly-war%E2%80%9D-against-ukraine-and-articulates-tenets;  Katarzyna Chawryło, “A holy war. The Russian Orthodox Church blesses the war against the West”, OSW, April 12, 2024, https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/osw-commentary/2024-04-12/a-holy-war-russian-orthodox-church-blesses-war-against-west.

[3] Guardian News, “Putin compares himself to Peter the Great in Russian territorial push”, YouTube, June 9, 2022, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2sfJjl7_Zk&ab_channel=GuardianNews. I am aware the Peter the Great ‘reformed’ (purged!) Russian Orthodoxy and shaped it in his own image. Russia’s Orthodox Church is similarly firmly under Putin’s ‘headship’. Harley D. Balzer, “Putin Endangers Russia’s Future, Just as His Hero Peter the Great Did

”, Wilson Center, February 14, 2023, https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/putin-endangers-russias-future-just-his-hero-peter-great-did.

[4] “What is Shinto?”, Jinja Honcho, https://www.jinjahoncho.or.jp/en/shinto/.

[5] Ed Katz, “When elites eschew defense: The case of India”, Surya’s Tapestry, accessed June 29, 2025, https://www.hinduwisdom.info/Glimpses_XXI.htm.

[6] David Frawley, “Part 4 David Frawley : India as a sacred and Spiritual Land,” Resume of Hindu Thought, July 1, 2005, http://hinduthinktank.blogspot.com/2005/07/part-4-david-frawley-india-as-sacred.html.

[7] Rani Singh, “How the Dalai Lama staged a dramatic escape from Tibet to India in 1959”, Scroll.in, February 5^th, 2020, https://scroll.in/article/952141/how-the-dalai-lama-staged-a-dramatic-escape-from-tibet-to-india-in-1959

[8] Renee Montagne, “Dalai Lama Decries Violence, Threatens to Resign”, NPR, March 18, 2008, https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88460855.

Filipino Guerilla Warfare

 

Many years ago, as a student of history, I was assigned study of the Philippines in the American colonial days. It was then I read about the fierce Filippino warriors who took to brutal guerilla tactics. No quarter was given. Sheer brutality on both sides. Long, long before the US even got involved in the Philippines, Filipino rebels had already been at war with their other colonial overlords, the Spanish. Three hundred years of sporadic, brutal guerilla warfare! It strikes me now that this happened way before the rising up of communist Cuba’s guerilla tactics, before Moa’s Chinese guerillas, and before Vietnam and its history of guerilla warfare.

 

Of course, the Philippines is the scene for one of the most evil acts in military history- the Bataan death march. Allied soldiers were, in tropical heat no less, forced to march around 70 miles in the most inhumane conditions imaginable - no food, water, or proper rest; no medical aid; not a shred of humanity from the Japanese, only violence upon violence. Approx. 11,000 brave Americans and 60,000 heroic Filipinos were cattle driven in the valley of the shadow of death. The weak were culled. No mercy was shown by the demonic Japanese. We don’t know the exact numbers that died, but some think it was around 12,000 Filipinos and 600 Americans. It’s hard to digest that number- 12,600. They surrendered according to the rules of war, but were slaughtered by the lawlessness of beasts!

 

Even before the battle of Bataan and the subsequent death march, some Filipino and American soldiers were organizing into guerilla bands.[1] It was in great measure due to Filipino guerillas, who punched above their weight- like the mighty Manny Pacquiao- that MacArthur was able to retake the Philippines.

 

In reading about Bataan-province guerillas, they were organized by Corporal John Boone. He married a Filipino. What struck me of the account was the “five (5) regiments, mostly unarmed and living at home to gather for training or raids whenever the opportunity presented itself.”[2] I had romanticized that guerillas, like those in the Spanish Civil War, were fugitives in the hills and caves of the land. Not so! These were ordinary folks- male and female- living at home. Just plain Filipinos. Only a few of military ability. Yet, a bit like part-time firefighters, they trained up and were ready to bring war to the Japanese. Now, imagine this: these dedicated souls were “mostly unarmed”! They didn’t care. They were all in, ready to bring destruction to the enemy, prepared to die for their homes and country. Even as I write I am shaking my head wondering how such humble people could be fearsome warriors.

---

[1] N.A., “Research,” Bataan Diary, http://www.bataandiary.com/Research.htm#Guerrilla_Units.

[2] Fernando R. Reyes, Leonardo Q. Naval, The Luzon Central Plan, Zambales, Bataan and Corregidor (Manila: Veterans Federation of the Philippines, 1996), 265.

Bring back just war and declaration of war!!

 You might have seen the debate between Carlson and Cruz over America’s intervention in Iran and the US’s support of Israel.[1] It was not so much a debate as two gigantic egos thumping their chests. One major factor I did take from it was how firmly US foreign policy, like so many others, lacks a proper moral foundation, especially as it comes to war. Let me explain this.

 

To Carlson and Cruz- to both men- ‘America first’ was the driving metric for all things, both nationally and internationally. Cruz modified his position in regard to Israel with the addition of his Christian belief that Israel were God’s chosen people.

 

On one level I have no issue with coming at things from the point of view of America first. But, that cannot be our moral framework. There has to be in place a moral framework to properly use the principle of America first. Let me explain the difference.

 

If we rest our policy on national interests alone, then we provide justification for the likes of Hitler’s Third Reich. A nation can claim, as Russia did, that it had a ‘right’ to land that was ‘always’ theirs. The emphasis here is on ‘right’, the ‘right’ to do this or that in the national interest. Or, as Antifa, we can riot and then claim we are justified because our ‘cause’ was good, our interest.

 

Back in the day, there were three ‘moral’ facets to war: 1) moral justification for war; 2) moral behavior in war; 3) moral behavior in the aftermath of war. It wasn’t just about the bare concept of ‘national interests’. Certainly, when the US was attacked at Pearl Harbor, it was in the national interests to fight back. But there was a greater point: the Japs were evil! We can use that same measurement to measure Antifa: sheer evil! We’re responding to them not merely because they destroy public property. Good and bad are our metrics; morality is our measuring tape. That’s why we can say Antifa- very bad; police and troops- very good.

 

And whilst I understand that there are legal aspects to justifying war, they, too, are not the foundation. It is fascinating that back in the day, Lincoln’s declaration of war focused on states breaking away from the union, and attacking federal property. He is super-super cautious in his wording, trying to make his statement as non-inflammatory as possible. Fast-forward to the Emancipation Proclamation and suddenly we’re into what comes closer to a moral argument. The ‘good guy/bad guy’ narrative is never too old!

 

Yet, we live, in the West, in an environment that rejects good old-fashioned right and wrong. Is it any wonder that Antifa and Islam fundamentalists are given the green light, or that illegal immigrants have more rights that the natural citizens? In US schools, there is no class on morality! Nor will teaching ‘ethics’ do. ‘Ethics’ has become ‘to each his own’. There is medical ethics, sports ethics, legal ethics, sexual ethics, political ethics, etc., etc.. But there is no real overarching, controlling MORALITY!

 

So, I say, let us bring back the declaration of war, or something that approximates to it. Yes, I get the reasons for not having it. Yet, there are solid reasons for it. For a declaration of war was meant to bring self-reflection and analysis. Do we have just cause? How should we execute the war? What will we do after the war? And if you are convinced that a declaration of war brings too many negatives, then I encourage you to think about an alternative that brings national and governmental ‘moral’ reflection on war.

 

What do you think?

---

[1] Tucker Carlson, “Tucker Confronts Ted Cruz on His Support for Regime Change in Iran”, YouTube, June 18, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smemFVe0l5E&ab_channel=TuckerCarlson.

Trump, Churchill, and military math

Churchill had to use a form of military math back in his time.

 

On July 3rd, 1940, Churchill ordered the attack on the French Vichy navy in the naval base of Mers El Kebir, in northern Algeria (Algeria was a French dependency). Originally, the French were allies of the Brits in the war against Germany, but then France capitulated to the Germans. The Germans divided France in two: the top half was governed by the Germans; the bottom half by the French in their new base in the town of Vichy. Thus, ‘Vichy France’. The Vichy government had the Nazis as their overseers. The Vichy were allowed to have their own military, as long as they did not provoke the Nazis. The biggest, strongest part of that military was the Vichy (former French) navy. It was very powerful, so much so that it could possibly have held of any German naval threat. By contrast, not all the French had capitulated. There was the Free French led by General De Gaul, who was based at that time in the UK and was the de facto leader of the French Resistance.

 

What was Churchill to do? Here was this giant, powerful navy that could be taken over by the Nazis. Hitler was not a man of his word!  Britain appealed to Vichy France to let their navy join them in the war. They did not. Due to this, Churchill gave them simple choices: sail off to the French Caribbean, or sink your fleet, or we will sink it for you. The French did not concede. So, the Brits sank the French fleet of Mers El Kebir.

 

The math was straightforward for Churchill:

 

                        Very powerful French navy

                                              +

      Lying Hitler and compromised Vichy government

             = great threat to British naval security

 

Trump, too, used similar math recently.

 

He ordered the bombing of the nuclear plants of Iran. Why? Because there was clear evidence that they were in the process of making nuclear bombs. It was the speed that the Iranians were going about their business that was scaring both the Israelis and the Trump administration. The Iranians were in the position to, in theory at least, produce 9 nuclear weapons within two to three days. There was also the fact that Iran had supported Hamas in its attack on Israel, and had made many threats over the years against the ‘Great Satan’, the United States.

 

Let’s look at Trump’s math:

 

Iran at warp speed enrichening uranium to nuclear bomb levels   

                                             +

                      Iran’s hatred of Israel and US

                   = giant threat of immanent attack

 

It is easy for critics to pick apart both Trump and Churchill for striking an ‘enemy’ that had not actually done the evil others were projecting onto them. But that’s why we call such attacks ‘preemptive strikes’, so that they do stop an evil from happening. The Free French leader De Gaulle, although bewailing the tragedy of Mers El Kebir, concluded about the ships, “I therefore have no hesitation in saying that they are better destroyed" (“Je le dis sans ambages, il vaut mieux qu’ils aient été détruits.”) In 1956, De Gaulle reopened the prestigious national award of the Order of the Liberation, having closed it down in 1946. The recipient? Winston Churchill. The French nation rejoiced!

Churchill was no warmonger, Cooper and Carlson!

 

Winston Churchill is, today, hung, drawn, and quartered as a warmonger and “the chief villain of the Second World War”.[1]  Darryl Cooper in coming to that view does say, however, that he might be, could be, possibly is, speaking a bit hyperbolically of Churchill. Given the full content of his comments on Churchill, we should not hesitate to say that Cooper is indeed promoting the notion that Churchill was a villainous leader. Cooper needs to be honest enough to own his own rhetoric.

 

I’m not going into Cooper’s arguments here, for they are, for the most part, farcical. I want to draw our attention to a different side to Churchill than that normally described when it comes to war: his strong resolve for peace. The following comments are based on Churchill’s various speeches to the English Parliament on Thursday, March 23, 1933, not long after Hitler came into power in Germany (January 30, 1933).

 

Churchill unequivocally states:

 

“Our first supreme object is not to go to war. To that end we must do our best to prevent others from going to war. But we must be very careful that, in so doing, we do not increase the risk to ourselves of being involved in a war if, unfortunately, our well-meant efforts fail to prevent a quarrel between other Powers.”[2]

 

Churchill strenuously wished to evade war, calling it the “first supreme object”. He doubles-down on this determination by saying, “we must do our best to prevent others from going to war.” So, not only did Churchill say we must strive to avoid war, he added we must labor in helping others to avoid it, too.

 

It is after this he stated that in pursuing the two supreme goals mentioned above, that Britain must not run the risk of actually encouraging war. On the face of it, this statement by Churchill seems almost like a piece of philosophical mumbo-jumbo. It was not, however. The British Prime Minister, Ramsay MacDonald, had called for quotas in armaments, so that that the balance-of-arms, so to speak, would be somewhat even across the board amongst the powerful nations of Europe. Although Churchill had been for long enough a fervent advocate of arms reduction, MacDonald's particular proposal was not only dangerously naive but it was very much ill-timed.

-Churchill: always for arms reduction and quotas, but this process should have started immediately after WW1 (1918);

-MacDonald: formerly against the big powers sitting down to reduce arms, but now (1933) sold on it, and proposing a model that tried to equalize the powers. 

-Churchill argued that MacDonald's conversion to the big-powers arms reduction was too late, and it was also too late to impose further reductions. France had been diminished and was extremely worried; and Germany was growing in strength and confidence. 

 

The background of Churchill’s position is, of course, WW1 and the agreements between the Allied states, including Britain and France, over against Germany. In the aftermath of WW1, Germany was allowed an army of only 100,000 men, could not use conscription, was banned from making submarines, and there was no German air force. Hitler immediately began to undermine all these restrictions in 1933. Talk after talk after talk ensued in order to ‘keep the peace’ and to subdue any notion of war. At that time, Britain (MacDonald) was not too concerned, but both Churchill, and more so, France, were, however.

 

Churchill explains the exact dilemma as to quotas:

 

“It seems to me that, at a moment like this, to ask France to halve her army while Germany doubles hers—that is the scale of figures—to ask France to halve her air force while the German air force remains whatever it is—I am aware that there is no military air force permitted to remain —such a proposal, it seems to me, is likely to be considered by the French Government at present, at any rate, as somewhat unseasonable.”

 

The overall point Churchill is making is that, by all these talks about disarmament, and reductions in arms, France was getting more and more sensitive to its diminishing power to wage war, and Germany was growing in its awareness of its potential for war.

 

Lest it be thought that Churchill was actually against disarmament, and was secretly seeking to encourage rearmament in the light of the German threat, we should hear out Churchill again:

 

“I have always hoped and believed that a continuance of a long peace and the pressure of taxation would lead to a gradual, progressive neglect of armaments in all countries….”

 

Yet, MacDonald had, according to Churchill, never personally weighed up the effects of the quotas that he was proposing for disarmament. He merely assigned the task to others. Churchill accused MacDonald of passing on a hugely serious task to underlings. MacDonald ought to have directed the entire report, said Churchill, and then he would have seen for himself what his quotas were really going to do.

 

Even now, MacDonald was guilty with many others of speaking so highly in public of quotas and changes for the sake of continued peace, only to allow, behind the scenes, committees to vote down these proposals. All of this dithering and rhetoric merely stirred up passions and fears, says Churchill.

 

Churchill was also afraid that Britain, being honorable, would be, as a result of France’s diminution, burdened with an unbearable task. Due to Britain’s commitment to helping France, according to the Locarno Treaty of 1925, if France were forced to reduce is military, and war broke out, the Brits would have to pick up the tab, as it were, and help make up the military deficit of France. This would necessarily press Britain into war, and, also make them an immediate target for Germany.

 

To Churchill, MacDonald was too late to the party. Churchill was always for discussions between the great powers to reduce armaments, but MacDonald had only recently turned to that position (and subsequently commissioned a report on arms reduction). To Churchill there was at one point the opportunity to reverse, or reduce, some of the harsh measures on the German nation by the Treaty of Versailles (June, 1919). But now it was too late.

 

In his speech, far from baying for the blood of the enemy, Churchill used searing rhetoric and reasoned arguments to tear MacDonald to shreds, but was always respectful to the Prime Minister, never nasty.

 

Churchill did not want war. He even pushed for other nations to not go to war. He believed that the Germans had been harshly treated in some ways at Versailles and something ought to be done about it. He did believe, strongly, in peace talks, maintaining the peace, and reasonable compromises. He was fully committed in principle to disarmament and arms quotas. However, these things should have been done in the proper season, at the right time. Most unfortunately, the MacDonald government was late to the party, for it had been extremely naïve for too long, allowing Britain’s power to be diminished and that of France, too. For all MacDonald’s well-meaning efforts he had achieved the opposite goal to that which he had set out to establish.

 

---

[1] Tucker Carlson, “Darryl Cooper: The True History of the Jonestown Cult, WWII, and How Winston Churchill Ruined Europe,” YouTube, September 2, 2024, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOTgPEGYS2o&ab_channel=TuckerCarlson.

[2] “Orders of the Day. Volume 276: debated on Thursday 23 March 1933,” UK Parliament, https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/1933-03-23/debates/ab5cfd96-0c7f-4c20-b66a-f58f955645bc/OrdersOfTheDay.

England votes in favor of euthanasia

I’m not a prophet, but…

 

We talked recently (June 19th) about England descending down the slippery moral slide concerning abortion. I ended my comments by asking what would happen in England concerning euthanasia. Apparently, England loves going on the slide, for ONE DAY later (June 20th), it voted to legalize euthanasia (I refuse to call it ‘assisted dying’). Talk about the moral breakdown of a society!

 

The Church of England, ever the voice of moral cowardice and spiritual darkness and ignorance, could muster only disagreement with the bill, considering it, “An unsafe and unworkable bill”. [1] This is but the parroting of Anglicanism’s concerns over the years over potential abuses of a euthanasia bill- it might lead to the vulnerable wanting to commit suicide.

 

What’s next for England? It has same-sex marriage, abortion on tap, and euthanasia. It won’t be, for the time being, the transgender cause. It has been temporarily derailed. It would seem that, for the moment, the UK government will continue to impose its Orwellian laws on free speech and on those who can’t stand illegal immigration. This is already swallowing up Christians.[2]

---

[1] N.A., “ “An unsafe and unworkable bill” – Bishop Sarah urges MPs to say no to assisted suicide”, June 19, 2025, https://www.churchofengland.org/media/press-releases/unsafe-and-unworkable-bill-bishop-sarah-urges-mps-say-no-assisted-suicide.

[2] “‘Two-tier policing’: Pastor arrested and held in police cell for 13 hours after commenting on Islam and affirming sex is binary while street preaching”, ADF UK, October 10, 2024, https://adfinternational.org/en-gb/news/pastor-arrested-after-commenting-on-islam-while-street-preaching.

Israel’s anti-Zionist group

 Most Israelis are supporters of Zionism, a sovereign state for Jews: aka, the land of Israel.[1] To many of these Zionists, the land of Israel is the land of promise of the Old Testament. Other Zionists are not inclined to the religious aspect, and are simply looking for a safe home to live as Jews. These folks are, of course, cultural Jews.

Yet, not all Israelis are happy to defend the ‘Zionist deception’, as they think of it. The ultra-orthodox of Israel- the religious equivalent of the Pharisees of Jesus’ day- are called the Haredim. For as long as the state of Israel has existed (since 1948), the Haredim have opposed Zionist ideology.[2] To the Haredim, Zionism is a pipe-dream, one concocted by secularized, spiritually weak, Jews who are not fully dedicated to God. Some Haredim prefer to think of themselves as living in a broader Palestine, similar to pre-1948, before the creation of the modern nation of Israel. Other Haredim have made an uneasy peace with the idea of Israel as a nation, but now that the state of Israel does exist, it must bow itself spiritually before God. Others again are more ready to work with the Israeli state, as it is within that state that they live and are protected. All of these shades of the Haredim have in common that they believe that Zionism is to be opposed, and that to focus on Israel itself, the state, the land itself, without the fundamentals of true spirituality and the presence of the messiah, is very displeasing to God, and must be rigorously opposed.

 

What is little known by the outside world is that there is a branch of the Haredim called the Neturei Karta, an ultra-ultra-orthodox group. It is a tiny branch, but makes a lot of noise. This group despises entirely the Zionist state as depraved and godless. To the Neturei Karta, the holocaust of Jews was provoked by Zionist Jews hungry for the creation of a Zionist state.[3] The Neturei Karta even attended a holocaust-denial conference in Tehran itself. Yes, this is no lie![4]

 

The modern conflicts in Israel have stirred up passions in the Haredim. The Haredim as a whole are reluctant to serve in the Israeli military, under its Zionist regime. The Neturei Karta rejects Israel’s presence in Palestine,[5] and opposes the Zionist war against Iran.[6] In a world of political coalitions, the Haredim has brought great political pressure to bear, for no less than the former prime minister, Naftali Bennet, excoriated Netanyahu recently for softening the requirements for the Haredim to be called up as reservists.[7] Even so, some Haredim responded positively- from the younger generation- and what was formed, as the result of the Hamas attack, was the first Haredim brigade called the Hasmonean Brigade.[8] The Brigade is the result of political pressure, but also of Haredim’ attitudes changing a tiny bit. For, these Haredim saw with their own eyes the devastation brought by Hamas, and some of them could no longer stay out of the fight whilst fellow Israelis died.

 

The Haredim’s political wing was silent for the longest time in regard to the hostages in Gaza, such was their hostility to the ‘Zionist deception’. According to an article, Netanyahu had called all political parties to unite to showcase cross-party agreement for the hostages. The Haredim complied, yet were also looking for Netanyahu to return the favor by establishing the draft-exemption law for the Haredim.[9]  Compassion is not on tap in the Haredim. But they have boatloads of zeal for their cause. It is this same group that has for decades persecuted ‘Christians’.[10] But we’ve seen this before, right? For the Haredim are the ‘sons of the Pharisees’ who lived in Jesus’ day and hated him and his followers, religious zealots who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.

---

[1] Lahav Harkov, “90% of Israeli Jews call themselves Zionists, Herzl Day poll finds,” The Jerusalem Times, May 19, 2016, https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/90-percent-of-israeli-jews-call-themselves-zionists-herzl-day-poll-finds-454347.

[2] RonPaulOrDie, “Judaism-Yes, Zionism-No ~ Ultra Orthodox Jews march against Israel,” YouTube, June 11, 2011, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOVwgui8YLI&ab_channel=RonPaulOrDie; fatla00, “Haredi Jews Against Israel,” YouTube, December 5, 2007, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oeB3QhX2RI&ab_channel=fatla00.

[3] Hillary Zaken, “‘Hitler, thank you for the Holocaust’ is spray-painted on Yad Vashem,” The Times of Israel, June 11, 2012, https://www.timesofisrael.com/anti-semitic-graffiti-sprayed-at-yad-vashem/.

[4]Neta Sela, “Neturei Karta: Iranians making logical claim,” Ynet, December 12, 2006,  https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3338873,00.html#; AP, “Ahmadinejad meets anti-Zionist Jews,” YouTube, December 14, 2006, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXHdg2fNmJs&ab_channel=APArchive.

[5] “Mission Statement”, Neturei Karta International, accessed June 6, 2025, https://nkusa.org/about-us/mission-statement/.

[6] N.A., “Hundreds Gather in Washington D.C. to Denounce Zionist Aggression Against Iran,” Neturei Karta International, June 18, 2025, https://nkusa.org/hundreds-gather-in-d-c-to-denounce-zionist-aggression-against-iran/.

[7] Sam Sokol, “Ex-PM Bennett says government dealing ‘crushing blow to reservists’ with Haredi draft bill,” lThe Times of Israel, June 12,. 2025,  https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-june-12-2025/.

[8] Emanuel Fabian, “First 50 ultra-Orthodox soldiers drafted to IDF’s new Haredi brigade,” The Times of Jerusalem, January 5, 2025, https://www.timesofisrael.com/first-50-ultra-orthodox-soldiers-drafted-to-idfs-new-haredi-brigade/;

[9] Shalom Yerushalmi, “The Haredim are now advocating for the hostages – too little, too late, too selfish,” the Times of Jerusalem, January 25, 2025, https://www.timesofisrael.com/the-haredim-are-now-advocating-for-the-hostages-too-little-too-late-too-selfish/

[10]Rosella Tercatin, “Report shows rise in attacks on Christians in Israel, but a willingness to tackle issue,” The Times of Israel,  March 27, 2025, https://www.timesofisrael.com/report-shows-rise-in-attacks-on-christians-in-israel-but-a-willingness-to-tackle-issue/

The re-do: Iran, the IAEA, and....wait for it...Dave Smith

So, just the other day, I listened to the beginning of a debate between David Smith and Robert Spencer. Smith is a comedian and political pundit, who strongly opposes the United States going into war, and thinks that Israel in Gaza are bullies. He vehemently started his defense by immediately dismissing as nonsense Robert Spencer's claim that the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) said that Iran was close to making nuclear weapons. To Smith, the IAEA had said nothing of the sort and Spencer was lying and misrepresenting.[1] 

 

Except the IAEA did. I brought this out in a previous blog.[2] Smith was, in a different debate, hauled over the coals by Douglas Murray for his lack of ‘on the ground’ facts about Gaza.[3] Whether Murray or Smith were correct on Gaza, it was apparent to me, then, that Smith did not do his homework, not fully anyway. In this newest debate, he was up against a titan of an Islamic scholar, Robert Spencer. There is arguably no one on earth who is more knowledgeable about international Islamic terrorism than Spencer. Smith, very unwisely, opened with disdain for Spencer’s account of the IAEA. That was enough for me, so I closed down the debate.

 

Smith will do well to reassess his approach. Just today, this article went out, “Iran accuses nuclear watchdog chief of bias in formal complaint to UN”.[4] Iran complained about the egregious bias in the IAEA’s report on Iran’s potential for nuclear weapons.

Even if- for argument’s sake- Iran is correct in its assessment of the IAEA, Smith was definitely wrong in his view of the IAEA. This is a great concern, or ought to be, for those who are isolationists or anti-war. For their position is not being advanced or capably defended and promoted when its main popular advocates cannot even get basic information correct! In fact, in listening to Carlson and Smith in their view of the IAEA, what stands out is generalizations, emotion, and vehement denials. I get enough of that from Antifa and the blue/pink-rinse mob!

 

 

 

 

---

[1] Former Congressman Matt Gaetz, “The Anchormen Show with Matt Gaetz | U.S. Supporting Israel Debate: Robert Spencer & Dave Smith”, YouTube, June 19, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp9l8fNr6lA&ab_channel=FormerCongressmanMattGaetz..

[2] “Netanyahu, Carlson, the IAEA, and Iran,” June 18, 2025, https://ridderbostimes.blogspot.com/2025/06/netanyahu-carlson-iaea-and-iran.html.

[3] PowerfulJRE, “Joe Rogan Experience #2303 - Dave Smith & Douglas Murray,” YouTube, April 10, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ah6kirkSwTg&ab_channel=PowerfulJRE.

[4] Roya News, June 21, 2025, https://en.royanews.tv/news/60576.