Black History Month - How to Properly Observe It

 I am writing this because I was reminded that this month is Black History Month.  There is nothing at all wrong with that, as Blacks are a significant part of the American population and they have made contributions to our history and society that deserve recognition.   Think of that peanut butter sandwich you may be having for lunch, for instance - a Black scientist, George Washington Carver, invented that delicious spread from ground peanuts, and I think most of us would agree that a Reese's Cup is one of the best candy bars ever.  However, instead of focusing on positive contributions many Black Americans have made, you have troublemakers in society that want to politicize this idea, and when they do it is often to the exclusion to others, and can degenerate into anti-American radicalism.  Instead of treating Black American history as a separate side dish on the menu, why don't we see it instead as part of the rich recipe that makes up the American legacy?  That would be my contention. 

Also, let's face it - many of us who have this designation of American are a mixed genetic bag - many Blacks have White ancestors, and likewise many Whites (myself included) have Black ancestors too.  This means that racist agitators on both sides might want to rethink their attitudes a little bit, because many of us are not as "pure" as some around us want to think.  This too has a spiritual dimension too - think of America as a picture of Romans 12:4-5.  While those verses talk about the Church, it also does to a degree apply to us as a nation as well. Think of a human body, which is the allegory this Scripture passage uses - would you prefer an ear over an eye, or a foot over a hand?  It would not be a practical decision would it?  Your eye has a function, your ear has a function, and both the hand and the foot have different functions too.  One cannot do what the other does, which makes them all equally important. That is how we should be as a nation - a lot of different people, of different backgrounds and ethnicities, built this nation, and all should be celebrated.  The Church is the same way - the very word Catholic means "universal," which means it is made up of all nations.  So, to be either Catholic or American means that we are in a unique place - we come from things that have a lot of ingredients in the recipe, and each ingredient contributes to the overall flavor.  And, that is where I want to go now, a cooking lesson with a theological application. 

On my culinary blog page, I have posted a number of my recipes over the years, but perhaps the most ambitious recipe I have is my chicken soup.  The way I make that soup is by finely processing a lot of diverse vegetables - I use celery, bok choy, napa cabbage, green onions, small carrots, cherry tomatoes, wild garlic and/or ramps, fresh herbs such as parsley, rosemary, basil, oregano, thyme, etc., parsnips, and in recent years I have decided to add things like Filipino moringa.  When I am preparing this soup, I finely chop all that with some seasonings until it resembles a paste, and then I add them to a huge stock pot with chicken stock, spring water, white verjuice, lemon, and olive oil.  Then, I add finely diced, lightly sauteed chicken breast,  and I simmer that for about two hours before adding bowtie (farfalle) pasta to finish it.  Add some grated Romano cheese before serving, and it is a rich delicious meal.  You don't see the individual ingredients in the soup, but you taste how they each contribute to it, and that is what makes this soup very appetizing and satisfying as a meal in itself.  And, as I discover new ingredients to add to it, the soup has a deeper, richer taste.   Look at my soup as being like our nation and the Church too - the different ingredients are not able to be readily seen in the soup itself, but you can see how they taste together and how they compliment each other.   That is the perfect metaphor of America too - what makes us unique is what brings us together.  In this age of polarized politics, especially from the ideological Left, we forget that, and what we have is a bunch of mangled raw vegetables which are not prepared and they don't taste well together because one flavor is trying to dominate the others and you will choke if you try to eat them all like that at once.  The society we live in today is becoming more like that instead of like a rich, hearty soup that is prepared with care and time.  And, that is where I want to give final thoughts.

It is perfectly fine to celebrate Black History Month, but if we do, we need to celebrate it in a way that it doesn't isolate Black Americans, but rather celebrates how they contributed their various gifts and talents to what it means to be American.  If we were to actually do that, we would have the most peaceful, cohesive society on earth.  Yet, we would also be like a rich soup - full of flavor and working together to enhance the whole.  It is time we do this, and with that I give my thoughts on Black History Month today.  Thank you for letting me share, and may you have a good week for the remainder of it.  

Turks in Conservative Clothing

 I wasn't going to write again today, but something really got me upset when I saw it today.  A politician, Dr. Mehmet Oz, just did something very vile and stupid, and unfortunately this may be something that could undo a lot of the good things President Trump has done.  Oz is also the reason why I don't vote Republican, because I have come to understand that Republicans are not necessarily representative of cultural or political conservatism - they have a larger proportion of them for sure, but let's not equate "Republican" with "conservative."  Dr. Oz is a glaring example of this.

A licensed medical doctor in Pennsylvania, Oz also holds dual Turkish and American citizenship.  He also unsuccessfully ran against John Fetterman a few years back and lost - and given Fetterman has been displaying some very common-sense positions recently, I think Pennsylvania made the wise choice.  As a Turk, Oz is already problematic - there has been a powerful Turkish lobby in the US for decades, and it largely includes leftist Democrats like Steve Cohen on their payroll, but Oz is not only on the payroll, because he is actually one of those.  Let me set the precedent with the backstory, and then we will move on from that.

The issue came a few days ago when Oz was in California on behalf of CMS, which he now has a position in leadership.  Taking legitimate ammunition about the Somali corruption issue in Minnesota, Oz deliberately went to Los Angeles and targeted Armenian businesses there, saying they were connected to some entity called "the Russian Armenian Mafia."  Comparing Armenians - many of whom have been fully integrated into American society for over a century - to illegal Somali Muslim immigrants was not a good move on Oz's part - his Turkish identity is already problematic, and much like his leftist counterpart Cenk Uygur, Oz is not even a full American citizen - many of the Armenians he was targeting have been here for generations, but has he?  The whole thing was just not a good look, and I have a couple of thoughts on that one now.

Turkish national and Genocide denier Dr. Mehmet Oz

The first thing I wanted to mention is that it is highly possible that Oz is not as Republican as he claims to be - he could be a plant, as the Turkish lobby is powerful and if they feel Trump is a threat, they are going to use something like this to discredit him.  And, that seems to be what is happening in LA right now, as I would not be surprised if any Armenian-American will ever vote Republican again - they were not fans of George W. Bush either for similar reasons.  So, Oz's placement in the role he is in could be a subversive political maneuver to discredit Trump.  I say that myself as an independent Conservative Monarchist with no interest in being Republican, but overall I have been very happy with President Trump.  If I were the President at this point, I would do two things.  First, fire Oz - he is a liability.  Second, do some damage control with the Armenians - they are an important voting block not only in California, but also in many other cities in the US too.  I think Trump upheld Genocide Recognition, and if he did, I would advise him to do something public to commemorate it on April 24th, 

A second thing I wanted to point out is that Oz is problematic as a dual-citizen.  Erdogan has been becoming more belligerent in the region over there, and the Turks are not friends to Iran, Israel, the Saudis, or anyone else there, and they are still financing the killing of Christian minorities in the Middle East.  Oz served in the Turkish military too, and that means that he may be a conflict-of-interest risk if he continues to ally with the Turkish leadership, especially if the Shah reclaims his throne in Iran and changes the balance of power.  After all, with the Ayatollahs ousted, there will be no other huge dictatorship in the Middle East, and Erdogan is just evil and ambitious enough to be a new threat in the region.  This makes Mehmet Oz highly suspect, and perhaps he is not the person who should be in our government here.  Trump also needs to understand that not everyone who calls themselves "Republican" is necessarily an asset - take a look at the pro-Islamist bent Tucker Carlson has been on recently.  I would not be shocked if Tucker pulls an Andrew Tate and becomes a Muslim himself soon.  Oz to me is about as dangerous to American security as Ilhan Omar - neither of them should be holding any leadership in our government.  

I plan on following this more to see what is going to happen, but sufficive to say, Oz has to go, and soon.  Thanks for allowing me to share, and will see you next time.

Snowed In - Some Thoughts Today

 Last weekend, we were slammed with what is probably the biggest snowstorm of the year - about 12 inches were dumped on us outside, and as a result we have been out of work all week.  The snow was welcomed though in all honesty because I needed a mental health break from my job.  So, I used the time constructively to work on something I have been wanting to do for some time.

I have been wanting to publish a written testimony of my faith, and over the course of a week I managed to do so.  At 132 pages, it is small, but it is all about me.  As I was writing the chapters for it, I was beginning to think about a lot - what has happened to me over the past few years??  I felt honestly a bit like a fish out of water, especially being stuck in the foreign environment of downtown Baltimore, and I have been thinking how I could salvage some of that old fire I once had.  One thing that helped was watching my good friend Stephen Missick's videos - he is honestly doing what I should be doing, and he is doing it in the face of a lot of adversity too.  One has to admire that.  Stephen is a good guy, and frankly he deserves a break of some nature too from the junk he is up against.  I won't go into what he is dealing with, as he talks about that himself on his YouTube videos, but he is definitely in my prayers and hopefully those reading this will remember to say a prayer for him too. 

If you have ever written a book or any extensive piece before, the one thing you will understand is that you don't do this overnight.  It takes time, and then there are the edits and mechanics of designing covers and other stuff with the publisher.  That is actually more challenging to me than the actual writing is, and let me go into two reasons why.

First, if you do a spelling/grammar review on a Word document, it is a royal pain in the butt.  The AI-generated tool flags proper names, foreign language words, and other things, and it is really stupid.  I cussed out Bill Gates more than once for this, because this is ultimately his stupid program, and then when I did a Google search on spelling/grammar checks on Word, the complaints were myriad.  A part of me wanted to string Bill Gates up by his 'nads and then launch him into space in all honesty.  However, the other applications I utilize are not much better.

In order to submit a manuscript on my publishing page, I have to convert the file to PDF, and this is where it gets to be a royal pain in the keister.  It never fails - your format gets messed up if you attempt to convert a Word document to PDF, and then you have to do more work just to make it look right.  It frankly drives me crazy.  But, thankfully I got everything done, and the book has been published now.  I will talk more of that later. 

Aside from that, the winter storm has sort of paralyzed things over the past week, so there is not a lot happening.  So, perhaps when I come back next week I will have more inspirational thoughts.  Have a good rest of your week and stay warm in this chilly weather. 

Revisiting Lost Passion

 Today is Friday, the 23rd of January.  I was originally supposed to go to the March for Life in DC, but climate and other factors precluded that happening, so I am home basically catching up on some rest.  One of the things I have been doing is a bit of personal reassessment this past couple of weeks.  I have mentioned before that I am experiencing a bit of discontentment that has been a constant companion since about mid-2020, and with all that has occurred over the past two years, it has grown somewhat.  I am frankly living in a place I feel out-of-place in, and I also am working at a job that has been disappointing in its expectations.  As a defense mechanism, I have begun turning inward, and it seems that around this time of year that seems to happen.  I think often of the person I was, who I am now, and wonder if I can recapture some of my former self and restore a little.  One of those areas is my music collection.  I wanted to briefly talk about that now.

You will notice that last year I didn't do a music collection update because a lot of my world was shaken up the previous year, and although I still have a decent collection, the dynamics of it have changed.  I am now amassing a lot of digital recordings I am saving on flash drives, and with those I have maybe 60% of my old collection recovered and will be adding some more later in the year if things permit.  I still have a decent-sized record collection, as I did manage to salvage my boxed sets, and that is approximately 400 vinyl albums.  My CD collection is much smaller, at around maybe 200 or so at this point, and I am not planning on buying as many of those now given that it is so much easier and manageable to have a music collection in a more compact form, which includes practically thousands of vintage recordings on small flash drives, the total which I can hold in the palm of my hand.  There are companies now that specialize almost exclusively in digital downloads, and one of the major ones I have come across is a British music dealer called Presto Music.  I have bought from them before at great success, and they actually do have almost everything I used to have available as digital downloads now, and in time I will get those from them.  I have sincere doubts that I will find everything I used to have, as my old collection was pretty impressive, but I have made some good headway in the past year.  I have a few CDs, for instance, on the radar that I will eventually purchase, and there are a few vinyl items that have never been released either as digital downloads or as CD reissues that I can find either through Ebay or in the local thrift stores.  At any rate, I am looking to have the collection of my dreams still, but in a format that I can carry with me anywhere and will not require a separate moving van to transport.  This is the second time I have lost a complete physical collection of music, and I am at the age that I cannot stand if that happens again.  I also am slowly recovering my library of books too, as those are essentially the tools of my trade.  Sitting behind me is a shelf on which I have several dozen volumes I have recovered (when we moved from Hagerstown last year, I only had seven or eight books), and the fortunate thing about books is that they are relatively affordable to get on most platforms such as Amazon.  While I am in this particular place I live now however, I am not planning on a huge library yet because again that would require the logistics of moving it, and that could prove challenging.  I do however have a core remnant of my old life with me, the most important parts, and that has helped tremendously.  And, having a decent salary as an educator helps too.  I will still recall October 1st as the anniversary of my music collection (44 years now - wow!) but I also feel like I am evolving somewhat.  And, that leads me to some other personal reflexive observations.

32 years ago at this time was a wonderful time for me - it was 1994, and I was still in my early 20s and was really passionate about working with Armenians and Assyrians.  That was also the year I decided to leave Pentecostalism for something more structured, and I want to recap that story a bit now.  I was only two years into my marriage then, and I was also in my sophomore year at Southeastern University in Lakeland, and it was a time fraught with both excitement and challenges.  The excitement was Armenians and Assyrians for me, as well as beginning my involvement with what was called the Convergence Movement then.  To recap what this was, Convergence was a movement that had begun around the mid-1980s with a number of Evangelicals and Pentecostals who started to understand that something was missing in their own religious traditions, so they began to dig into early Church documents.  This led to some interesting journeys for many of us who were involved - some, such as the former Campus Crusade for Christ ministers who pioneered this movement, would in time become Eastern Orthodox.  Others, such as Robert Webber, who was perhaps one of the main architects of the movement, would take an Anglican road.  Still others, such as Randall Adler and Wayne Boosadha, would go onto organize with other like-minded individuals new communions such as the Charismatic Episcopal Church and the Evangelical Episcopal Communion.  As a participant in all this myself, I sort of fell into the middle of all this, as at around the same time Convergence was becoming a thing, there were also some very high-profile converts to the Catholic Church such as Dr. Scott Hahn, and I read their stories.  The journey itself began for me sometime around 1993, and it would culminate on Easter 2000 when I was received into the Catholic Church myself.  That 7 years saw me gaining my Bachelor's degree, as well as doing a slow transition from a Pentecostal to a fairly traditionalist-leaning Catholic, and although I have told snippets of that story before, I want to take a pause here and talk about what the Convergence movement was, as some people may not be as familiar with it. 

The term "Convergence" is one that describes the evolution of individual Christians from free-church Evangelicals to fully sacramental Christians with a deeper respect for Tradition and ritual, and I need to explain how the idea works.  Many of us - myself included - knew we were Christians, but there was always this nagging thing that many of us felt in which something was missing in the way that our particular brands of Christianity "did church."  There were things about our former Christian traditions we valued and liked, but to use my own experience, it seemed like there was a place where it just stopped and you wondered what in hell happened?  This is true especially in Pentecostal and Charismatic circles, where a high spiritual energy is anticipated and you want that full experience, yet something just was not right, and it even got to the place where you just felt like you were "going through the motions" like a Pavlovian response when you were in a church service.  There was that occasional special and memorable church service, but to describe it think of it as being a typical Sunday morning.  The service that day was really good - maybe a dynamic guest speaker, or the church was having a revival meeting or something.  But, then, on Sunday night you go and it is just "blah."  As I would later find out, the problem was not with one's faith necessarily, but rather one's emotional state - you are conditioned in many Pentecostal churches to always be excited, jumping up and down, and for gifts like tongues and prophecies to flow like beer at a Milwaukee Octoberfest, but it wasn't necessarily like that, and the expectations led to almost a depressing experience in an average church service.  At the Foursquare church I attended in Alabama, it went to abusive extremes as the pastor was always trying to re-create some revival they had had 20 years earlier, and then he would get angry if not everyone was "feeling" it - that led to harangues about being possessed with demons, being an "enemy of the church," etc.  It got to a point where I just was over it all, and then I began looking at groups of people I had been working with - Armenians, Assyrians, Maronites, etc.  I began to watch and listen to recordings of their liturgies, and it started to resonate some with me.  While the liturgies themselves were very beautiful, there was something more - at its core there was a drawing, as if something was saying "come home" to me, and I began listening to that more too.  In a short time, I finally ditched the Pentecostals I was part of and began at a point attending an Episcopal parish in Lakeland that at the time was also Charismatic, and it did help.  But it would prove to be just a step toward where God wanted me.  Let me explain what that was about. 

At the time all of this was culminating in mid-1994, Barbara and I were involved with a small Foursquare church in the nearby town of Auburndale, FL, that met in the pastor's living room. The church was new, it was struggling, and later I would find out that underneath the surface that pastor was having some family issues that affected his ministry.  He was into the whole "seeker-friendly" stuff while at the same time trying to be a regular Pentecostal pastor, and as a result the church was a mess - it was unorganized, chaotic, and the last straw for me came on Palm Sunday of that year.  Instead of a traditional Palm Sunday service that many other churches had, this pastor decided to have barbecue and volleyball in "celebration," and it frankly upset me.  I refused to go to church there that day, instead opting to attend a local Methodist church located close to Southeastern's campus.  Although rudimentary by liturgical standards as I would see it now, the Methodist church at least celebrated the day with reverence and a decent low-church liturgy that frankly was spiritually edifying.  I decided then and there that I needed to make a change, and by the end of the year I was a regular parishioner at that Episcopal parish I mentioned earlier.  That would begin my journey from a Foursquare Pentecostal to a fully on-board Catholic.  The rest of that story you know by now, and today here I am. 

Now back to what Convergence is about.  The leading impetus that drove the Convergence movement was what is called the "Three Streams," and here is what they were:

1. Evangelical message

2. Liturgical worship

3. Pentecostal spirituality

This was an experiment that was tried before with a good level of success, as the old "Irvingite" movement of the mid-1800s was trying to accomplish a similar thing.  As a matter of fact, a lot of ideas from the old CAC of Edward Irving's day informed my own understanding of this, and starting even from my earliest days as a Christian, I was somewhat more liturgically-inclined personally.  The idea of this newer movement though was to essentially identify the best of all three "streams," and then let them "converge" into a fresh Christian experience which would be more reflexive of the early Church in Acts.  I personally loved the idea, and flirted with it a little myself when I was doing student ministry and preaching in my younger years.  I began to wear a clerical collar when I would preach at a church, and I would do other things such as anointing with oil in the sign of the Cross, and also I began to take a more serious approach to Communion.  I had a lot of influences then too - I looked to Mother Basilea Schlink's Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary, as well as to Fr. Eusebius Stephanou, an early Greek Orthodox voice of charismatic renewal in his church - Fr. Eusebius in turn introduced me to the writings of people like Apostolos Makrakis, and this began to enhance my own faith as well.  In early 1996, I began attending a small "Continuing" Anglican parish that had started in Lakeland and was meeting in the auditorium of a Seventh-Day Adventist church, and many of the parishioners were themselves converts as well - they introduced me to another Convergence writer named David Bercot, and I began reading his material as well.  After being received into that particular Anglican group in June 1996, I began to identify as more of a Catholic in my faith, and began to explore some other things.  In time, approximately 2 years later, I would start regularly attending a Roman Catholic Mass, and it would lead to my ultimate conversion into the Church on Easter Vigil 2000.  Since then - 26 years ago - I have been a Catholic, and I have grown in my faith, which leads to some concluding observations on the Convergence Movement.

While there are still Convergence groups around today, in all reality I believe the Convergence Movement was meant to be temporary - it was a way for Evangelicals to gain some growth and cohesion, and many of us who were involved with that movement have now integrated into either Catholic, Orthodox, or more conservative Anglican communions.  At some point, I really need to publish a more detailed and focused testimony of my complete journey, as I can say I have come a long way.  A question I am often faced with though is this - did any of my pre-Catholic Christian experience matter?  I want to say without hesitation yes!  I still believe in the supremacy of God's Word, perhaps even more so now as a Catholic, and I also am fully supportive of spiritual renewal - I have never really given up believing in things such as the gift of tongues or supernatural healing, but one thing that has happened is that I now understand those things in a more comprehensive way that reflects the Magisterial teaching of the Church as a whole.  As such, I have learned that things which don't contradict Catholic teaching can be adopted, things that do must be discarded, and if unclear, study up on it until a sound conclusion can be reached.  It is perfectly acceptable to have a charismatic spirituality, as well as an orthodox grounding in Scripture, while being fully and unapologetically Catholic.  Granted, it hasn't come without growth pains though - I have struggled with things such as Christian Zionism, eschatology, and origins, but thankfully diligent research has led me to the resources I need to understand those areas better.  I have also come to terms with things such as Papal authority, certain Marian doctrines, and other hot-button issues that many converts from Evangelical traditions face.  This has made me more grounded in my faith.  I am by no means perfect, and I struggle with things for sure, but what being a Catholic Christian has taught me is that it's OK - it's part of the growth process that requires a daily dependence and nourishing of supernatural grace.  These are things I am absolutely confident and sure of. 

But, there are times I do miss things - my good friend Stephen Missick has recently reminded me of that passion I used to have for the Assyrian people, and I want that back.  I also do miss active ministry - there was a certain joy I derived when I used to preach in churches and teach the riches of the faith, and even though I teach Theology at a Catholic high school, it's not the same.  I struggle with this a lot in all honesty, and want that fire back, but how?  I am searching that now, and maybe God's mercy will show me the way.  This is what I need the prayers of others for, especially from you if you are reading this. 

Thanks again for allowing me to share these thoughts, and I am anticipating my next visit soon.  

The Foundation of Faith

 If you have noticed my posts lately, there have been challenges.  One of the biggest is working in a professed Catholic school where some leadership cannot even define the place of faith in the school.  All of this got me thinking - how important is our faith to what we do??  It is no big mystery that the past few years have been a huge adjustment for me in many areas, and I am still coming to terms with a lot of it now as I am even writing this.  Thankfully, for whatever it's worth I am realizing I am not the only one, as a good friend of mine has been facing issues of his own recently.

Dr. Stephen Missick is a pastor and writer in Texas, and we have been good friends for probably the better of 30 years.  Although he is a few years younger than I am, one thing our stories share is a love and passion for Middle Eastern Christians, in particular the Assyrians.  We both started that journey in our high school years, and largely were introduced to the same people within the Assyrian community, so we have many mutual friends.  Both of us are now in our 50s, and we are now able to both carry the title "Doctor" in front of our names due to completing our doctorates, and in many ways it is a huge accomplishment for both of us.  There are some differences however, in that Stephen also is a veteran of the military, having served tours in Iraq during Desert Storm, and he is also still Protestant whereas I converted to the Roman Catholic Church 26 years ago.  Additionally, he has had a more consistent involvement with Assyrians in recent years than I have, given my own path in the past several years has evolved somewhat and I have been focused on pursuing other interests as well.  However, I still have many dear Assyrian friends, and I firmly believe they are the people they say they are, and on this Stephen and I are definitely on the same page.  In recent years, Stephen has been a busy guy too, having written several books dealing with Aramaic Christianity (I have three of those myself).  He is the second of two non-Assyrians (the other being Ron Susek, who has done amazing work himself in his book The Assyrian Prophecy) who have devoted effort to advocating for the Assyrian nation - I also am a non-Assyrian who has done so for almost 40 years myself now, but I have a distinguishing difference in my DNA that makes my perspective a bit different - I have Armenian heritage.   Stephen's many books are available on Amazon for purchase, and I would encourage you to check them out because he has done some excellent work.  

I mention Stephen because he also is in need of prayer - he has faced a family issue that has turned somewhat ugly,  and he has also gotten a bit of resistance from some in the Assyrian-American community for a proposal for an alteration to the Assyrian flag (I will delve more into that shortly).  Additionally, some evil person attempted to kill his dog, and the dog suffered a gunshot wound which thankfully was not fatal.  I mention this because it seems like so many of us trying to live out our vocations are facing some attacks on different fronts, and as I would probably encourage Stephen in his trials, being under that much fire means you are doing something right and the opposition is not only inevitable, but is to be expected.  I have been there myself, as you have seen in the saga of my own challenges especially over the past year.   The point of these trials is to draw us closer to God, and in doing so, we find our peace.  That is not as easy to see when you are experiencing the trial as it is in retrospect, and that whole area deserves a study of its own - why is it that we often only see the "bigger picture" in retrospect?  Definitely worth some digestion for sure. 

I wanted to revisit Stephen's issues with some Assyrian-Americans regarding the Assyrian flag, and his objection is the overt paganism he sees the flag having in the Asshur disc in the top center.  It's a valid concern, and given that the Assyrians are an overwhelmingly Christian people, it could be an important focal point of discussion.  Stephen found himself headlong into a maelstrom over this, and a mutual friend of ours seems to be giving him some real flak over it.  I have known Assyrian writer Fred Aprim for many years, and for the most part we are good friends.   Fred is knowledgeable about his people, and he has written a couple of very excellent history books that are definitely worth reading.  However, like us all, Fred is not perfect, and one small issue I find with Fred a lot is that he is almost ambivalent to Christianity, and there have been some hostile things said in his writings about the Church, the Bible, and other things.  I cannot judge Fred's heart by any measure, as I am not the Holy Spirit, but a conclusion that I can draw from his reactions is that this guy was hurt at some point, and he is doing what many of us do in that situation - he is projecting his hurt and resentment upon things that probably had little to do with it.  I have known about Fred's harsh words about Christianity for some time, and for the most part I just take what he says with a grain of salt and leave it alone.   As I have said, Fred is a good friend too, and I do value his friendship as well as some positive things he has done for his people.  But, I also pray for Fred, especially that God would heal him of whatever is causing that pain that causes him to lash out against Christianity in particular.   His issue with Stephen was the fact that Stephen actually proposed a more Christian-influenced flag of the Assyrian nation, replacing the image of the Asshur disc with a picture of the Mandylion, which is a similar icon to the Shroud of Turin which was believed to be given by Jesus himself to King Abgar of Edessa.  The flag design is nice actually, and it still looks distinctly Assyrian, and Stephen notes that many Assyrians think it looks good too.  That being said, let me weigh in on my perspective on internal issues among the Assyrian community.

If you are part of a community, you have the perspective of that community to a degree, and that does merit some involvement in discussing issues that affect said community.  I am not Assyrian myself (although I would have loved that if I was) so I have learned over the years to respectfully stay out of certain debates that are internal to them.  One of those is the debate over the term "Assyrian" itself - many embrace it, but there are others who prefer to be called something else such as Chaldean, Aramean, Syriac, etc.  At the end of the day, they are all still one people, but it is up to them to self-identify by the name they feel embraces their ethnicity.  When a non-Assyrian inserts themselves into that debate, it could be a potential hornet's nest, and perhaps not something you want to jump feet-first into unless you have a feeling of the situation that would merit your input.  I think to a degree this is what happened with Stephen and the flag too, and although I see what he is trying to do and there is nothing wrong with it, I am also not an Assyrian myself either.  Therefore, I feel the least qualified personally to weigh in on that issue, as I view it as something the Assyrian people need to sort out themselves.  This is true of any other ethnicity as well - in my case, I work in a Catholic school that is over 50% Black, and I would not dare try to insert myself into a discussion about their community because they would probably rip me to pieces if I did.  I observe things for sure, and believe me, there is some feedback the Black community in Baltimore could benefit from, but the person who addresses it will be more effective if they are part of that community themselves.  This is not in any way disagreeing with Stephen, or Fred, or anyone else - it is just my personal take on it, and maybe God was using Stephen to address a concern, who knows?  Ultimately though, it is the Assyrians themselves who have to initiate any change to their flag, and I don't feel in a position to insert my feelings into it personally.  My advice to Stephen as a friend would be this - pray to raise up that person among the Assyrians who can address the issue and possibly bring about a desired change.   Stephen may be a catalyst for that happening, but I would say now that the issue is on the table, let them sort that out.  And who knows - they may come up with something even better based on perhaps some inspiration Stephen gave them.  So, Stephen, if you are reading this, hopefully it will help - you didn't do anything wrong by expressing your ideas, and maybe it was a time to do so as it may click in an Assyrian visionary's mind that maybe this is something to talk about.  Again, this is just my own take on it, and in no way is it to be taken as gospel, as maybe I may not have a complete perspective on it either. 

Bottom line, my friend Stephen reminded me of my own foundation - I recall being happiest when I was more actively involved with activism on behalf of the Assyrian community, and I often look in the mirror wondering what in hell happened to that young visionary 30 years ago??  And, can I reignite it?  Perhaps I need to give this whole thing a new look and see if it sparks anything, as it could be something I am missing too.  It also shaped my whole Christian walk to a degree too, and there are days I feel I have lost my fire.  Watching Stephen's videos and reading his books challenged me in all honesty, and despite different approaches, I see Stephen as being active and cannot help but be a bit envious.  However, at the same time, I want to celebrate his success too, as he has done great work.  Any rate, those are my thoughts today, so will see you next week. 

The Cost of Progress

 I am writing this today on Martin Luther King Day, and therefore I am home because it is an observed government holiday for us as teachers.  A few observations have arisen that are kind of related to this, and I wanted to just focus in on some thoughts I wanted to share with you today. 

At the private Jesuit school where I teach, the frequency of prayer services/chapels is about once a month.  In general, the slated spiritual event is either a prayer service or a Mass, and due to the fact the demographic of students we have tends to be somewhat disruptive, the school administration happened upon an idea to alleviate issues - two grades each month would attend the service in the church next door, while the other two grades would meet in their Advisories (home rooms) and would do some activity, and then this would alternate the following month.  It is not an idea I am in complete agreement with in all honesty, but I do understand the logic - the leaders of our school are trying to address an issue, and this was perhaps the most feasible solution they could come up with to curb adverse behavior from some sectors of the student body that tend to be disruptive and disrespectful in church.   So far, the results have proven good, but I have other questions about the approach I won't address here.  Any rate, let's get onto the current situation.

The focus of this prayer service this month for the underclassmen was a prayer service that promotes racial justice, in lieu of Martin Luther King's legacy that is celebrated today.  The idea itself is noble, and the whole concept of being catholic is in the very word itself - Catholic means "universal" from its Greek root, and the Church is indeed for all people regardless of background.  So, in that regard, it's a noble idea.  While the underclassmen attended an 80-minute prayer service in the church, the juniors and seniors had an activity that entailed watching a video called A Place at the Table, which documents the lives of six American Black Catholics who are slated (and rightly so) to receive canonization as saints.  These six individuals in the video are all people who had a strong Catholic faith and who also served the Church in varying capacities during their lives, and one of them (Mother Mary Lange) was from Baltimore - St. Francis Academy at the other end of town is a product of the religious order she founded, and it still exists today over a hundred years after its founding.  The lives of these future saints were definitely worth exploring, as all of them do provide a stellar example of living out the faith in ways that exemplify holiness.  However, as is often the case with these types of videos, the producers of the documentary totally went off-course and were attempting to turn their cause for canonization into a political statement, and hence the problem.  I will go into that more next.

The people who were interviewed in the documentary were a variety of priests, religious, and lay leaders, and many of them were themselves Black.  No one has an issue with clergy of different ethnicities or races - the Church encourages it, and if someone feels a calling on their lives they should definitely pursue that.  However, a couple of these priests - both Black - concerned me, as it seemed that their whole rhetoric was on how "racist" everything is - the United States, the Church, etc.  It was frankly stupid, uncalled for, and had absolutely nothing to do with the lives of the holy people who were supposed to be the topic of the documentary.  My response to these two "priests" is simple - if you think the Church is so racist, then why are you here??  Get the hell out and go to some Afrocentric cult somewhere that preaches this garbage (I hear Louis Farrakhan is looking for recruits).  While there is a place for some political and historical context in the story itself, I feel that sometimes it gets so contorted that it detracts from the original topic, and at that point it ceases being education and becomes political incitement.  Thankfully, this video was being shown to six teenagers who had other interests on their mind and they didn't pay attention to the content as much, and that is for the best in this case.  Although they had a reflection assignment they needed to do, many of them thankfully focused on how the lives of the actual people (they did get to that eventually after all the political propaganda was cleared) and that was encouraging.   The video though was just one instance of this I dealt with this week, as there was an even more personal one that still has me reeling even now.

The president of our school is generally a nice man, but unfortunately as far as his position goes, he also tends to politicize things a bit much.   Last year for instance, he was spreading a conspiracy rumor that ICE vans were circling the blocks around the school threatening to snatch up any person who spoke with an accent, and frankly that was very irresponsible.  At that time, I was taking the city bus to work every day, and I traveled every street within a ten-block radius of the school and never once saw an ICE van.  To this day I still don't see them, and that leads to an observation I wanted to share which dates back to my security officer training over 30 years ago.  It is a normal reaction for people to get a little nervous when they are driving on a highway and a cop is behind them or next to them in the other lane.  They get the idea that the cop is just randomly running their license plate ID in a scanner and will nab them if they even look in the rear-view mirror.  When I took my Class-D security training in Florida back in 1995, the class was taught by two county sheriff's deputies, and part of the class was learning to direct traffic, as security on occasion does this.  Both deputies also explained something to me that was revolutionary, and it also changed the way I looked at police authority.  What they said was this - most of the time, the cops are not worried about the cars in front of them on a street unless a car does something that merits their attention.  They are not running tags or taking pictures of the back of your car, as they too need to focus on driving their vehicles.  So, for the most part, that police car that just happens to be in your rear-view mirror is not going to be worried about you unless you give him a reason.  As ICE is also a division of law enforcement on the Federal level, the same thing is true.  ICE is not looking to randomly scoop up every person who "looks Latino" in a city, and indeed, very few in Baltimore in particular have even been detained.  The only way one can grab ICE's attention is if you are doing something that catches an ICE agent's attention.  The majority of foreign nationals here - both legal and illegal - don't necessarily fall into the category of "suspicious person" for most ICE agents.  Many of them just go about their daily business and do what all of us do, and ICE legally cannot detain anyone without probable cause.  So, if your Latino friend is walking down the street, they can do so safely, and as long as they are not criminally assaulting someone or vandalizing property, they generally have nothing to worry about.  These crazy rumors about ICE have gotten out of control, especially with what happened in Minnesota when a deranged lesbian troublemaker tried to flatten an ICE agent with her car and he defended himself with lethal force.  Generally, trying to mow over a cop of any jurisdiction with your car is not going to end well for you, because it may get you shot or if you survive it will win you a very long prison sentence for attempted assault and/or vehicular manslaughter.  It is also a reason why the president of our school should have known better than to spread baseless conspiracies, as it is unbecoming of a man of his stature.  Leadership has to set an example, and spreading baseless conspiracies does not do that.  However, that is not the only incident with our school president that raised concerns, as recently a couple of other things in casual conversation came up that concerned me. 

As today is Martin Luther King Day, which is an observed Federal holiday, our school president sent out a weekly communication commemorating Dr. King, and of course that was appropriate and nothing wrong in itself with that.  And the email itself was pretty safe - nothing controversial or anything.  In this case, it was a response to the email that was concerning.  This year, I am doing a "bucket list" objective and will be going to the March for Life in Washington this coming Friday (the 23rd).  Over the years, one of the most active participants in the pro-life movement has been Dr. King's niece Alveda, and she has been a very strong voice for the sanctity of life for many decades.  I believe she has been in attendance with every March for Life since almost the beginning, and as I understand it, she is also a devout Catholic convert herself.  I mentioned this to the school president, noting that I may get the opportunity to meet her, and his response is what raised some flags.  In his response - which was cordial - he said something to the effect that Alveda King always loved to associate with what her uncle called "adversaries," as if somehow the pro-life movement was Dr. King's enemy or something.  Dr. King was killed about 4 years before Roe v. Wade even existed, and according to what Alveda has said, her uncle would have actually been very enthusiastic about protecting all human life.  Also, if the president of a Catholic school thinks that the pro-life cause is "adversarial," then he may need to re-evaluate his career choices, especially when the March for Life Mass is going to be celebrated by Archbishop Lori of Baltimore this year.  I have more to say about all this in a short bit, but I also wanted to note another time when the president of the school really deflected any Catholic identity the school had.  I had an informal meeting with him a few months back, and it went well - it was a friendly meeting, and to be honest the president is actually a cordial and personable guy.  However, when I mentioned that a Catholic school should strive to be passionately Catholic and academically excellent, he deflected that almost immediately by using the word "inclusive" instead.  Now, of course education does have a level of inclusivity, as no one should be denied opportunities.  No one argues that.  However, that was not what this definition of "inclusion" was.  Rather, it was the politically-charged DEI understanding of "inclusion," which ultimately if seen for what it really is would be more exclusionary.  The DEI nonsense has been largely discredited in the past couple of years as essentially irrational and unattainable, and why people still cling to it amazes me.  Every attempt to implement it has resulted in disaster, and in doing so it has caused more harm than good.  People fail to recognize that you cannot legislate something called "inclusivity" in the way they wish, because ultimately someone will be excluded somewhere because no one can decide on what DEI should entail.  That is because it cannot be enforced - if you try to force those agendas on people, at some point they come back to bite the ones who implement them in the butt.  Political "inclusion" is ultimately very exclusive in other words.  If people want the real concept, it starts at the grassroots and doesn't require a policy or manifesto to implement - the only rule for it is four simple words: "don't be a jerk."   Fighting a jerk by being a jerk is not going to solve anything - to be proactive, let's just respect people as fellow human beings and not highlight race, ethnicity, or anything else as a defining trait of who an individual is.  If we do that the results will be amazing.  Perhaps our president of the school needs to understand that better. 

Getting back to the pro-life issue, many people who identify with legalizing abortion as a "right" identify as "progressives," but what they fail to understand is that abortion is a manual-labor outgrowth of a sinister pseudo-science called eugenics.  When you hear top Democrat politicians like Hillary Clinton tout Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion corporation in the US, they almost make the woman look like a saint.  However what they fail to mention is how racist Sanger really was, and that she specifically targeted populations she called "human weeds" to implement eugenics programs, including abortion clinics.   Sanger was inspirational to people like Adolf Hitler, and she also was a sought-after speaker for Ku Klux Klan rallies.   What few "progressives" fail to understand is that the whole idea of race-based eugenics which birthed the abortion industry was the ultimate manifestation of Darwinian evolutionary theory.  Darwin, like other elites of his time, did not see things in terms of diversity of human ethnicity - instead, he proposed a polygenic origin of humanity in which he saw different races as different "species," and thus some were in this rationale "better" or "more evolved" than others.  Some of this garbage also found its way into early Fundamentalism as well, in that there were preachers who actually preached that interracial marriage was an "abomination" because it was essentially a form of bestiality to them - it was the very bad misreading of passages in Scripture such as Genesis 6:1-4, which talked about the sons of God cohabitating with the daughters of men, and despite the traditional reading of that text not being race-based, some Fundamentalists applied Darwinian biology to it and came up with perhaps one of the most racist ideas that could be spouted from a pulpit.  You see this as well in German volkisch occultist writings such as Lanz von Liebenfels' notorious work Theozoology, and it is at its core Darwinian "science" as defined by his cousin Galton's codification of eugenics.  Today, some Black supremacist groups do the same thing with White people, and you see that particularly in the writings of sects such as the Nation of Islam and various Black Hebrew Israelite groups.  It even finds its way into so-called "liberation theologies" such as the junk that was taught by late theologian James Cone.  This is why we have to be oh so careful with how we view heretical ideas such as Sola Scriptura, because this is the ultimate conclusion of such ideas. 

The reality here is that there is only one race, the human race.  We all come from the same origins, the same two parents (Adam and Eve) and a Black person is just as human in their DNA as a White person is.  As a matter of fact, a professor I had as an undergrad said many years ago that we have a misconception about the term "race," as in reality what we call "race" is actually ethnicity.  Therefore, Blacks are an ethnicity, not a separate race, and that is true of every nation on the planet.  And, at the end of the day, we are all one thing - human beings.  You cannot be more "inclusive" than that, right?  This is why interracial marriage is not a sin or an abomination - it is nature, and it is also perfectly acceptable because the term itself is irrelevant - the couple is not from separate races, but separate ethnicities, and as long as it's a man and a woman and they truly love each other, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.  Perhaps maybe it is time we get back to a common-sense approach like that, don't you think? 

As I reflect on this, I am also at this time starting to rethink my career choices, as the self-identified "Catholic" school I currently am at seems to be having some problems reconciling its convictions.  I don't blame the principal, or even the Jesuit order that administers it, as it seems they are grappling with this question as well.  The issue is more complicated than can be explained here, but at some point in the future I will address this more in detail, as it does impact the way Catholic education should look. My main issue today though was seeing the inconsistency with how "progress" is often viewed, and some things we call "progressive" may actually be dangerous to a civilized society.  And racial identity politics of any form is one of those dangerous ideas that needs to thrown onto the garbage heap of history and burned until it is no longer recognizable.  And, it really has no place in a Catholic school or any other religious institution, and it is time to surgically remove it. 

Thank you for allowing me to share, and next week I will have a special report on my participation in the March for Life, as it is an important event.  Have a good week, and will see you next time. 

Territorial Spirits?

 In recent decades, especially in Pentecostal/Charismatic circles, there has been a rise in interest in what are known as "territorial spirits."  The concept takes its premise from the Bible, especially passages such as Ephesians 6 as well as Daniel 10, the latter being a reference to a spiritual power over Persia that St. Michael did battle with.  The concept received wider attention in the late 1980s with the publication of Frank Peretti's two books, This Present Darkness and Piercing the Darkness.  Since then, there have been many published books - primarily by Pentecostal or Charismatic writers - which have emphasized this phenomenon.  So, how relevant is this idea, and is there any merit to it?  That is what I want to explore today here. 

Having come from a Pentecostal/Charismatic background myself, I am quite familiar with this idea of "territorial spirits," and in all honesty, I personally find validity to it to a degree.  There is Scriptural support for the existence of such entities, and common sense tells us that certain areas of geography have things that characterize them specifically, for better or worse.  For instance, let's take San Francisco - the LGBT presence there is perhaps more pronounced than it is elsewhere in the country, and there are some writers I have read that suggest a territorial spirit over that area which is defined by the prominence of that sin.  Likewise, Chicago has a reputation for being a city marked by political corruption, so it is easy to conclude that a spiritual force could be enabling that.  Then there is Baltimore where I currently live - in all honesty, there is something about this city that just makes me feel out of place, and when you then see the attitudes of some people here, as well as the urban blight, it makes me theorize that maybe there are oppressive forces at work here too.  That being said, I then would say that I believe in the existence of entities which may exert some influence over certain geographical areas, and whether one calls them territorial spirits or what, something is there.  However, I also see the potential for abuse of this teaching, and want to talk about that a bit too.

The common phrase "the devil made me do it" is a way to justify a form of antinomian behavior one sees too often in Christian circles.  It incorrectly absolves our own concupiscent nature, and it also can have the unwarranted effect of making Satan and his minions have more power than they actually do.  Not every adverse behavior or sin is the result of a "spirit" - some of it is just our own stupidity in many cases, and to illustrate that, let me revisit the Star Wars saga.

A couple of weeks ago, I talked about how the actual villain of the Star Wars universe was not necessarily Darth Sidious, Darth Vader, or the "dark side of the Force."  Looking at Sidious in particular, what you notice is that he doesn't directly do anything to coerce the dark side, but rather seeks out the vulnerabilities of others - that is what he did with Anakin Skywalker you recall.  To simplify the process, let me break down the evolution of a sin:

1. An action - this can be perpetrated on someone else in a way that seems good to the perpetrator.

2. A reaction - the person who is the target of the said action responds to it

So far, we have Newtonian theory at work - an action creates an equal and/or opposite reaction.  But, there is a third component to this too, a catalyst if you will.  Looking at Genesis 3 for instance, take a look at the exchange that led to the Fall in the Garden.  The serpent (a universal symbol for Satan) didn't twist Eve's arm to partake of the forbidden fruit, now did he?  Of course not.  Instead, he saw her vulnerabilities and preyed upon those, and after so much of that conditioning, Eve herself sinned.  So, then the third element:

3. A catalyst - something prompts (indirectly in many cases) the victim to act upon his or her reaction. 

Now, back to how this worked in Star Wars, Anakin was the victim of actions performed by others which adversely affected him, and the reaction in this case was an inner struggle - the actions of others began to sow in Anakin doubt about the Jedi order and also fueled a resentment.  The action's perpetrator was not Palpatine (Sidious), but was a supposed "good guy," a fellow Jedi, and the person was Mace Wendu.  Mace Wendu, as I noted earlier, is someone you just begin to hate as you watch the movies in particular because he is arrogant, self-righteous, and just a royal pain in the jaxie.  From the outset, Mace was adversarial towards Anakin, despite the fact that Qui Gon Jinn, Anakin's original mentor, saw the potential in Anakin and wanted to help him develop it.  You see this attitude fester as Anakin becomes older and Wendu still treats him like he's below contempt.  Wendu therefore initiates the action, Anakin reacts with growing resentment, and then comes the catalyst, Palpatine (or Lord Sidious, the Dark Lord of the Sith).  Palpatine sees what is going on, and uses it to his advantage and begins to feed Anakin things to solidify the feelings he has.  Satan does that with us too - he exploits a weakness in our armor, often inflicted by those calling themselves our "brothers," and uses it to coerce us into sin.  You see this even in history too - think of an individual like Timothy McVay, who sees so-called "American" politicians abuse their power, and it drives him to action.  In his case, the evil catalyst consisted of the influence of individuals such as William Pierce (notorious neo-Nazi author of The Turner Diaries under the pseudonym "Andrew McDonald") who fueled a growing dissatisfaction within McVay, and in time this pushed McVay into action.  I still maintain to this day that the source of the action for all this was Bill Clinton and Janet Reno, and the same thing happened in Kosovo in 1999 on an international scale.   Kosovo was a mess as well, as Clinton provoked terrorists (the KLA) who were also trafficking opiates, to attack innocent Serbian, Macedonian, and Roma Christian populations, and the money that those terrorists generated thanks to Clinton's enabling led to the 9/11 attacks here two years later.  So, Clinton was the action that led to terrorists reacting, and thousands of lives were lost as a result.  A lot of nasty things that happen - both on a personal and sociological scale - could be alleviated if perhaps the root, or the initiator of the action which creates violent people, were dealt with properly.  There would be fewer school shootings if perhaps the ones who commit those violent acts were not harassed by the bullies that pushed them over the edge in the first place.  Bullies get a free pass way too much, and another example of this is David Hogg.  David Hogg was the bully, and I would like to put forward a very controversial theory about the Parkland shooting that makes him the true problem.  Nikolas Cruz, by all accounts, was not a popular kid - he had a rough childhood, and while Wikipedia said he suffered from behavioral issues since preschool, I also know middle-school and high-school culture well.  If a student is struggling, the "popular kids" will often use him as a butt of jokes and abuse, and they will bully kids who have issues like this.  David Hogg was one of those popular kids, and his attitude alone suggests that he was condescending and nasty to others, and one day I believe the story will come out that Hogg bullied Cruz in school, or that his friends did, and this is going to change the narrative.  What Cruz did was still evil and tragic, and he is rightly facing the consequences of his actions, but he may not be the true villain of the story - a character like David Hogg is.   The way Hogg ran his mouth about guns and such afterwards, and exploited tragedy to enrich himself, would indicate that Hogg had other motives that were less than charitable.  That story needs to be exposed.  Of course, in recent years thankfully Hogg's star has dimmed, and I often joke that he will end up shacking up with Greta Thunberg in a roach-infested flat in New Jersey somewhere one day, as they would make the perfect pair - two rabble-rousing idiots with big mouths.  Hogg's disastrous leadership of the Democratic Party, for instance, has not won him many friends - the Democrat Establishment (no angels themselves) despise him.  David Hogg is not a Luke Skywalker, but rather is a Mace Wendu, a bad guy who wants to look good.  Any rate, we lost focus from the original discussion so let's tie it together.

The perpetrators of bad behavior, in short, have something that pushed them into it, and how is this tied to the idea of a territorial spirit?  Basically, a bad behavior is the result of either a product of the established order or a reaction against it - the result is still evil, but where it generates from forces us to look more closely at the components of it.  If a city is noted for a certain crime, and let's say a vigilante rises up and reacts against the crime in the wrong way, then the territorial spirit of that city has succeeded in its mission, as the possibility of a demonic principality means that the prince controls the whole game board.  We see that in Star Wars too, where one power is manipulating both sides, and driving bullies to create terrorists, and the result is the Emperor wins and destroys both to reshape things into his image, in this case an evil Galactic Empire.  The catalyst cares little about the outcome as long has they maintain control, and they will masterfully play both sides until all is destroyed and then the catalytic element can step in and claim to save the day.  I see this playing out in the future with the biblical Antichrist, and we see it at work now.  There are two evils that society faces - one is a growing progressive secularism, and the other is Islamic extremism.  Oddly, in the US these two forces often join together, and a moderate Muslim cleric who turned his back on terrorism and now advocates for peace explained why - the Islamic extremist views the typical American and European leftists as stupid, because the political Left has no morals or scruples and can be easily manipulated.  This is why I believe Islamic extremists used corrupt American Presidents like Clinton, Obama, and Biden to advance their agendas, and it worked particularly in Minnesota and to a lesser degree in Michigan too.  If by some chance (God forbid!) the radical Islamists gained control of the US or Europe, the first people they would execute would not be MAGA Trump supporters, but rather the evil leftists who promote the LGBT agenda and other stuff that radical Islam considers to be evil.  They would be chucking gay activists and radical feminists off the roofs of the highest buildings in every city, and there would not be a second thought to doing so either.  Of course, Christians and MAGA supporters would not be spared either, because these radicals hate us with a passion as well, but they would encounter more resistance with us than they would with the so-called "inclusive" Left.  That is why a territorial spirit is evident, because many people seem to be blind to the reality of this whole thing, and it may be a costly mistake later. 

I rambled through all that to conclude with this - I believe territorial spirits exist, and there is no conflict with my Catholic faith to believe these things exist.  However, unlike some Pentecostal/Charismatic preachers who give more attention to them than they warrant, I think the key to defeating a territorial spirit is to be the "beacon of truth" in areas where such principalities prevail, and I was admonished to do this myself by a very godly and wise priest who is my former pastor.  For evil to prevail, it must have attention to feed it - starve the attention, and it starts to weaken.  Don't give place to it then in other words, and it will eventually implode on itself.  That is what I wanted to share again today, and thank you for listening.