Politics

Politics has always involved disagreement. A healthy country should be able to argue vigorously about taxes, foreign policy, abortion, immigration, health care, education, and the proper role of government without treating political opponents as enemies who deserve suffering or death.

That distinction matters because political rhetoric does not remain confined to television studios, campaign rallies, or social media.

A recent survey discussed on The Daniel Cohen Show asked Democratic respondents how they would react to a hypothetical headline announcing President Donald Trump had been assassinated at a rally. The transcript cites the results as evidence of a disturbing willingness among some Americans to respond positively to political violence.

A survey cannot establish that respondents would personally commit violence, and attitudes expressed in a poll should not be treated as evidence that an entire political party supports assassination. But even hypothetical approval of political murder should trouble Americans regardless of who the target is.

That principle has to work in every direction.

Political violence against Donald Trump is wrong. Violence against Democratic officials is wrong. Celebrating the murder of a conservative activist is wrong. Celebrating an attack on a progressive activist would be wrong.

A political culture becomes dangerous when disagreement is no longer enough and opponents have to be humiliated, harmed, or eliminated.

Political Violence Should Not Have a Party

The attempted assassination of Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, demonstrated how quickly political hostility can become something much more serious. The transcript also points to the killing of Charlie Kirk and the continuing controversy surrounding responses to political violence.

The deeper question is what kind of culture develops when suffering itself becomes partisan.

The 2017 attack on Senator Rand Paul offers a smaller but revealing example. MSNBC anchor Kasie Hunt introduced coverage of Paul's injuries by calling the incident one of her “favorite stories,” before immediately clarifying her concern for the senator. Paul suffered six broken ribs in the attack. The comment generated criticism at the time, and Hunt apologized, saying she had chosen her words poorly.

That distinction matters. An irresponsible comment should not automatically be interpreted as proof that someone celebrates political violence. Corrections and apologies matter too.

But so does the underlying standard.

Nobody's broken ribs should become funny because of the letter beside his name. Nobody's assassination should become acceptable because of political hatred. And nobody's murder should become easier to dismiss because the victim belonged to the wrong ideological camp.

Christians should be particularly careful here. Human dignity does not disappear when someone votes differently.

The command to love one's enemies is most revealing when there actually are enemies to love.

Foreign Policy Exposes the Difference Between Slogans and Consequences

That same need for moral clarity appears in foreign policy.

At a University of Michigan event, Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed was questioned by a student who described relatives suffering under Iran's government and asked about El-Sayed's previous comments concerning Iran and its leadership. El-Sayed responded that the United States should not pursue regime change and said he supports “freedom and democracy for the people of Iran,” while arguing that democratic change should come from Iranians themselves.

There is a legitimate policy debate underneath that exchange.

Opposing American-led regime change is not the same thing as supporting the Iranian government. American policymakers have debated intervention, sanctions, military force, diplomacy, and regime change for decades. But candidates asking voters for significant national authority should expect difficult questions about how their principles translate into policy when authoritarian governments repress their own citizens.

The same is true of Israel.

Missile defense can sound like an abstraction until a siren gives a family seconds to reach a shelter. Iron Dome is designed to intercept rockets and other airborne threats headed toward populated areas. Arguments over American support for the system therefore involve more than budget lines; they involve competing judgments about U.S. foreign policy, Israeli security, regional stability, and civilian protection.

Political language becomes much easier when the human consequences remain theoretical.

That reality became painfully tangible this week for Israeli Ambassador to the United States Yechiel Leiter. His son Neria, an IDF reservist, was seriously wounded in a car-ramming attack at a checkpoint in the West Bank. Another son, Moshe Yedidya Leiter, was killed in Gaza in November 2023.

Arguments over Israel, Iran, terrorism, and American foreign policy deserve serious debate. They also involve families for whom those debates are not academic.

Truth Still Matters When It Complicates the Argument

Political rhetoric becomes especially dangerous when facts are treated as raw material rather than constraints.

French President Emmanuel Macron provided a striking example at the United Nations this week when he said Hamas had “never operated” in the West Bank. A French official subsequently said Macron meant that Hamas had never governed the West Bank. Those are materially different claims. Hamas has operated in the West Bank even though it has not governed the territory.

Corrections matter because words matter, particularly when they come from heads of state discussing one of the world's most contentious conflicts.

The same principle applies closer to home.

CNN, MS NOW, and Politico recently sued the Trump administration after their reporters were barred from White House grounds. The administration defended the action by accusing the organizations of dishonest reporting; the outlets argued that exclusion based on their coverage violated constitutional protections. A federal judge has since temporarily ordered their access restored, finding that the outlets were likely to succeed on their claim that the credentials were revoked without constitutionally adequate due process.

That dispute raises legitimate questions about both government power and media responsibility. News organizations can and should be criticized when reporting is inaccurate. Government officials can and should face scrutiny when they use official authority against news organizations they dislike.

Neither principle requires abandoning the other.

Truth cannot become a partisan possession, defended when useful and discarded when inconvenient.

That standard also belongs inside the church.

The transcript raises theological questions about churches and political candidates who identify themselves as Christian while challenging historic Christian doctrines.  Those disagreements should ultimately be evaluated by Scripture rather than by whether a candidate has the preferred political affiliation.

Christianity is not infinitely adjustable. The virgin birth, bodily resurrection, identity of Christ, authority of Scripture, sin, repentance, and salvation are not campaign language to be reshaped around contemporary politics.

At the same time, theological disagreement should be represented accurately. Criticism is strongest when it addresses what someone actually teaches rather than exaggerating the position for political effect.

That principle connects every issue here.

Political violence. Media coverage. Iran. Israel. Churches. Presidential power. International diplomacy.

Different subjects, same responsibility.

Tell the truth about opponents. Refuse to celebrate their suffering. Examine claims before repeating them. Apply standards consistently. Remember the human beings living with the consequences of political decisions.

For Christians, political engagement should never require surrendering those obligations. Scripture does not permit hatred simply because the stakes feel high. It does not permit dishonesty because the other side is dishonest. And it does not allow political allegiance to determine who deserves dignity.

Politics reveals plenty about candidates and parties.

How people speak about their opponents can reveal even more.

‍

Real Life Network provides biblically grounded programming examining faith, culture, and current events. Watch The Daniel Cohen Show for more conversations about the stories shaping American and international life.

A nation cannot function without trust.

Citizens have to trust that leaders are thinking beyond the next news cycle. Governments have to anticipate threats before those threats become emergencies. Journalists have to report facts accurately enough that the public can distinguish information from advocacy. And when institutions make mistakes, accountability matters.

That standard becomes especially important when the stakes involve national security.

The United States, Denmark, and Greenland have reached a new Arctic security agreement intended to strengthen Greenland's defenses and restrict adversarial powers from establishing military bases or making sensitive strategic investments on the island. President Donald Trump has described the arrangement as giving the United States permanent security rights there, although Denmark and Greenland have emphasized that Greenland remains under its existing sovereignty and the precise terms are still emerging.

Months ago, much of the public conversation surrounding Greenland sounded almost absurd. Late-night comedy made Trump's interest in the island a punchline, while critics questioned why the United States should care so much about a vast Arctic territory.

Now the strategic argument is much harder to dismiss.

Greenland sits in an increasingly important Arctic region where Russia and China have strategic interests. The new arrangement reportedly expands America's ability to operate militarily there while preventing non-NATO countries from establishing sensitive footholds.

The lesson is larger than Greenland.

Prudence sometimes means preparing for a danger before everyone else agrees that the danger is real.

Proverbs 22:3 says, “A prudent man foresees evil and hides himself, but the simple pass on and are punished.”

That principle does not require accepting every government claim or supporting every proposed national-security measure. It requires taking threats seriously enough to examine them before a crisis removes the luxury of preparation.

September 11 remains the clearest American example of what happens when seemingly distant threats become immediate realities. Nearly 3,000 people were killed that morning. The lesson should not be that every warning proves correct. It should be that responsible leadership has to consider possibilities the public would rather never imagine.

A Free Press Still Has to Be a Trustworthy Press

The question of institutional trust becomes more complicated when applied to the media.

The Trump administration recently barred CNN, MS NOW, and Politico journalists from White House grounds and confiscated their credentials. Trump accused the organizations of publishing “fake news.” The three outlets have now sued the administration, arguing that their exclusion violates the First Amendment and that access was revoked in retaliation for unfavorable coverage.

Those facts create two questions that should not be collapsed into one.

The first is whether news organizations deserve criticism when their reporting is inaccurate, incomplete, or driven by political assumptions. Of course they do. Journalism possesses enormous power to shape what millions of Americans believe happened. Errors should be corrected, important context should not be deliberately omitted, and political figures should face comparable scrutiny regardless of party.

The second question is whether a president can revoke journalists' White House access because the administration believes their reporting is dishonest or unfair. That is now a constitutional dispute before the courts. The affected organizations argue that government cannot condition press access on favorable coverage, while the administration defends its ability to determine who receives access to White House facilities.

Both questions matter.

Freedom of the press and accountability for the press are not competing principles. A free press should be vigorously protected precisely because its responsibility to tell the truth is so consequential.

That responsibility includes resisting selective standards.

Donald Trump's 2017 comments following the Charlottesville violence remain a useful example of how context can become part of a political dispute. Trump did say there were “very fine people on both sides” while discussing people involved in the controversy surrounding Confederate monuments. In the same remarks, he explicitly said he was not referring to neo-Nazis and white nationalists and said they should be “condemned totally.”

That fuller context does not resolve every legitimate criticism of Trump's response to Charlottesville. Critics have argued that his broader remarks still minimized the nature of the Unite the Right rally and created an inappropriate equivalence. But accurately evaluating the controversy requires presenting what was actually said rather than removing inconvenient portions of the statement.

The same standard should apply to every president.

Journalists should scrutinize Republican administrations. They should scrutinize Democratic administrations. They should investigate political claims rather than protect preferred narratives. And audiences should be willing to correct themselves when evidence contradicts what they wanted to believe.

Trust disappears when people conclude that facts are being filtered according to who benefits from them.

When the Victim Disappears From the Story

That problem extends beyond Washington.

Media framing determines more than how people understand politicians. It can determine whose suffering remains at the center of a tragedy.

The transcript points to the killing of 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska on Charlotte's light rail and subsequent coverage involving the accused killer's family.  The broader concern is worth considering carefully: compassion for mental illness should never require forgetting the victim of a violent crime.

Mental illness is real. Families trying to help severely mentally ill relatives can endure extraordinary hardship. Criminal courts also have established procedures for determining whether mental illness affects legal responsibility.

But compassion and accountability are not mutually exclusive.

A victim has a name. A family has suffered a loss. A community has been wounded. Those facts should not disappear simply because another part of the story raises difficult questions about mental health, criminal justice, or failures in the systems surrounding an accused offender.

A compassionate society should be capable of caring about mental illness without allowing the person who suffered the violence to vanish from the story.

That principle reaches well beyond crime reporting.

Every institution tells stories. Governments tell citizens which dangers deserve attention. Political parties tell voters which problems matter. Media organizations decide which facts lead a broadcast and which appear near the bottom of an article.

Christians should therefore develop habits that go deeper than simply choosing which institution to trust.

Ask what happened. Examine the complete statement rather than the viral clip. Distinguish established facts from allegations. Look for missing context. Pay attention to the people most directly affected. Apply the same standard when the facts help a preferred political side and when they hurt it.

Most importantly, remember that truth does not become more or less true depending on who benefits from it.

National security requires foresight. Journalism requires accuracy. Justice requires accountability. Compassion requires remembering the human beings affected by our political and cultural arguments.

None of those responsibilities belongs exclusively to the left or the right.

A biblical worldview should make truth more important than either.

That is why Real Life Network and The Daniel Cohen Show continue examining the stories shaping American life through questions of truth, faith, culture, and responsibility.

“An innocent, defenseless human life, in a caring and humane society, deserves better than to be flushed down a toilet or burned in an incinerator.” Such are the words of Henry Hyde, the former U.S. congressman from Illinois who tirelessly championed life and introduced the Hyde Amendment in 1976. Almost 50 years later, the legislative rider faces the opportunity to be renewed again.

For a half-century, the Hyde Amendment has stopped taxpayer dollars from funding abortion.

On Wednesday evening, Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, hosted a Special Order on the House floor to acknowledge the upcoming 50th anniversary of the Hyde Amendment on September 30. “The promise of America is that life is not just for the privileged, the planned, or the perfect,” Smith said, quoting Hyde. “This may sound odd, even ironic; you are here in the flush of victory. And yet it is precisely now that I ask you to contemplate the possibility of defeat, perhaps even the necessity of defeat. If you don’t know the principle or the policy for which you are willing to lose your office, then you are going to do damage here.”

Quena González, senior director of Government Affairs at Family Research Council, explained to The Washington Stand that Smith and Hyde have a history. “Representative Chris Smith served with Representative Henry Hyde for 26 years; he’s been a tireless defender of the unborn in Congress for 45 years and comes as close as anyone to carrying Hyde’s inimitable mantle.”

After the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, the U.S. government paid for an estimated 300,000 abortions each year via Medicaid. According to the Charlotte Lozier Institute, since the Hyde Amendment’s first enactment in 1976, approximately 2.7 million lives have been saved.

During Wednesday’s event, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) asserted that society has a duty to protect the unborn. “Life matters. Who are we as a people if we cannot stand up in defense of the most innocent form of life there is — a child in the womb of its mother? That should be our calling. And we should be able to unite as human beings in defense of the defenseless.”

Legislative Assistant for FRC’s Government Affairs Chantel Hoyt praised what House members shared during the Special Order. “I appreciated seeing Representative Chip Roy connect this important anniversary to the toll that chemical abortion is taking,” she told TWS. “It’s encouraging to see members like Representative Chris Smith carrying on Henry Hyde’s legacy and seeking to not only retain but build on the protections of the Hyde Amendment.”

Rep. Tracey Mann (R-Kan.) observed during the House event that he believes that abortion is not consistent with the Constitution. “Hyde should not be viewed as the finish line for the pro-life movement. It’s the floor. It’s a bare minimum compromise,” he shared. “America is founded on the self-evident truth that every person is created equal and endowed with our creator with an inherent right to life. That right is the foundation of every other right that we enjoy. As a father, I believe that every child is fearfully and wonderfully made by God. Every life has value, every child has purpose, and no child is a mistake.”

The Special Order and Hyde Amendment anniversary come at a time when chemical abortion has become a hot button issue on Capitol Hill. Pro-life politicians, lobbyists, and organizations continue to work tirelessly to ban the abortion drug mifepristone. “It’s always great to see members of Congress speak on the floor in defense of life, but especially now as we are urging the Trump administration to take action on chemical abortion to protect mothers and their babies,” Hoyt concluded.

This article was originally written by Quinn Delamater and published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.

A healthy society depends on institutions that understand both their responsibilities and their limits. Elections require rules voters can trust. Immigration requires laws that can be enforced while treating people with dignity. Schools and child-welfare agencies exercise enormous power, but parents retain profound responsibilities toward their children.

These debates may look unrelated. They are not.

Running through each is the same fundamental question: Who has authority, where does that authority come from, and what happens when institutions move beyond their proper boundaries?

For Christians, authority is neither meaningless nor absolute. Government has a legitimate role. Parents have a legitimate role. Laws matter. Compassion matters. And none of those principles should be rewritten simply because the political circumstances have changed.

That framework is increasingly important in an America where arguments over election administration, immigration, parental rights, and political power are testing public trust from several directions.

Trust Requires Rules That Apply Consistently

The Supreme Court recently blocked the Trump administration from implementing new Postal Service requirements for mail ballots before the 2026 midterms. The proposed system would have required states to provide lists of eligible voters and use USPS-approved, barcoded ballot envelopes. The Court divided 7-2, with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissenting. Justice Brett Kavanaugh indicated there was a reasonable argument that the Postal Service possesses authority to impose some requirements, but concluded that changing procedures this close to voting risked significant disruption.

There are legitimate disagreements over the proposal. The administration presented additional verification as an election-integrity measure. Opponents argued that the Postal Service was assuming authority traditionally exercised by states and that last-minute changes could prevent legitimate ballots from being counted.

Those arguments deserve more than slogans.

Election integrity and voter access do not have to be enemies. Americans should be able to expect systems that verify lawful votes while also ensuring lawful voters can participate. Confidence deteriorates when either concern is dismissed simply because it is associated with the other political party.

Trust cannot survive indefinitely when rules are treated as essential under one set of political circumstances and disposable under another.

The same principle applies to immigration.

The Trump administration has expanded the federal government's consideration of public benefits when determining whether certain immigrants qualify for permanent residency. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is leading a coalition of local governments challenging the new public-charge rule, while New York Attorney General Letitia James is leading a separate state lawsuit. The plaintiffs argue that the rule exceeds federal authority and could discourage immigrant families from using health care and nutrition programs for which they are legally eligible. The administration argues that the policy promotes self-sufficiency and reduces dependence on public assistance.

The legal dispute will work its way through the courts. The broader question is worth considering now: What obligations accompany legal immigration, and what obligations does a nation have toward those it admits?

Scripture commands God's people to treat the stranger with justice and compassion. It also recognizes governments, nations, boundaries, and civil authority. Biblical compassion cannot be reduced to a slogan for one immigration policy any more than biblical order can be used to excuse mistreatment of immigrants.

Hospitality and order are not inherently contradictory.

When Government Authority Enters the Home

Nowhere does the question of authority become more personal than when the government intervenes between parents and children.

Joseph and Arlene Kutzko, a Catholic couple in Massachusetts, are fighting a legal battle involving their teenage daughter, Sophie. The parents say Algonquin Regional High School supported their daughter's male gender identity without their knowledge and that their religious objections later became intertwined with a child-welfare dispute. Sophie was removed from their custody in 2024, and the parents say they have since been prevented from maintaining contact with her.

The case includes important details that should not be ignored. An allegation of physical abuse against the father was reportedly found unsupported, according to recent reporting and the family's legal advocates. The family is now seeking to prevent testosterone treatment while pursuing its custody claims; treatment has reportedly been paused while litigation continues.

The family's account has become part of a much larger national disagreement over parental rights, gender identity, medical treatment for minors, religious liberty, and the circumstances under which child-welfare authorities should intervene.

Those are serious questions precisely because the state sometimes must intervene. Children can genuinely suffer abuse and neglect, and government has a legitimate responsibility to protect them.

But that extraordinary power also requires extraordinary care.

Parents should not automatically lose their authority simply because their religious or moral convictions conflict with prevailing cultural beliefs. At the same time, disagreements over a child's care cannot by themselves establish every fact in a contested custody case.

The power to protect children must never quietly become the power to require ideological conformity from their parents.

For Christians, parenthood is not merely a legal status granted by government. Scripture repeatedly places responsibility for the instruction and formation of children upon families. Government can protect children from genuine harm, but it should approach replacing parental judgment as an exceptional intervention, not an ordinary solution to ideological disagreement.

That distinction matters far beyond Massachusetts.

Political Power Is Not the Highest Authority

The question of authority also appears inside political parties themselves.

The Democratic National Committee has officially changed its early presidential-primary calendar for 2028. South Carolina will vote first, followed by Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Michigan, and Virginia. The DNC says the calendar gives a more representative mix of voters an early role and better tests candidates across diverse constituencies and battleground states.

The change will inevitably affect campaign strategy. South Carolina's large Black Democratic electorate and Nevada and New Mexico's Latino populations will matter earlier than under the old Iowa-and-New Hampshire-centered system. But it is too early to know which prospective candidate, if any, will ultimately benefit most.

That uncertainty is important. Politics tempts people to treat every institutional decision as evidence of a predetermined outcome. Christians should resist that impulse just as strongly as they resist political naivete.

Political parties pursue power. Candidates pursue office. Governments exercise authority. Courts interpret law. None deserves the kind of unquestioning allegiance that belongs to God.

That should produce Christians who can think clearly rather than react predictably.

A Republican administration should not receive automatic approval merely because it invokes election integrity, immigration enforcement, or parental rights. A Democratic official should not receive automatic approval merely because a policy is presented in the language of compassion, democracy, or inclusion. Every claim still has to be examined.

Proverbs 14:34 provides a standard much older than any American political coalition: “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.”

That standard does not change with election results.

Christian political discernment begins when truth matters more than protecting a party, an institution, or a preferred political narrative.

Government matters. Elections matter. Borders matter. Parents matter. Protecting children matters. So do due process, compassion, religious liberty, and the rule of law.

The difficult work is refusing to sacrifice one principle whenever another becomes politically convenient.

That is why Christians need more than political instincts. They need a biblical framework capable of asking not merely, Which side is doing this? but Is this true? Is it just? Is authority being exercised within its proper limits? And does the standard remain the same when political power changes hands?

Those are the questions worth continuing to ask through Real Life Network and The Daniel Cohen Show, where the headlines are examined alongside the deeper questions of faith, culture, government, and truth.

There are moments that should transcend politics.

A memorial honoring nearly 3,000 Americans murdered on September 11 should be one of them. It should be a place for grief, remembrance, gratitude, and reverence. Families who have carried that loss for 25 years deserve something increasingly rare in American public life: a moment in which their pain is not reduced to another political opportunity.

That is why images of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani smiling and laughing together during the 25th anniversary commemoration drew criticism. A photograph cannot reveal the context of every conversation or establish what prompted a smile. But juxtaposed with grieving families at Ground Zero, the moment raised a larger question worth asking: Does American culture still recognize that some things should be treated as sacred?

These are exactly the kinds of cultural questions worth examining on Real Life Network and The Daniel Cohen Show, where the headlines are considered alongside the biblical truths that should shape how Christians understand them.

Leadership Requires More Than the Right Policies

Public leadership is not merely about legislation, budgets, speeches, or elections. Leadership also requires understanding the human consequences behind public events.

That principle extends far beyond a single 9/11 ceremony.

When thirteen American service members were killed during the 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan, controversy followed images of President Joe Biden appearing to check his watch during the dignified transfer ceremony at Dover Air Force Base. Biden later disputed some characterizations of the moment, but Gold Star families publicly described feeling disrespected.

Politics can make people remarkably selective about empathy. When someone on the other side suffers, compassion becomes conditional. When an uncomfortable tragedy threatens a preferred narrative, attention shifts somewhere else.

Christians cannot adopt that standard.

Human dignity does not change according to political usefulness. A child killed in an act of violence matters. A soldier returned home in a flag-draped casket matters. A family still grieving someone murdered on September 11 matters. An immigrant victim matters. An American citizen victim matters. Political affiliation does not determine the value of a human life.

A healthy society should be capable of looking at suffering and seeing a human being before seeing a political opportunity.

Jesus warned that a time would come when “the love of many will grow cold” (Matthew 24:12). That description should make Christians examine more than the behavior of politicians. It should make believers examine their own hearts.

Have politics made compassion selective? Has outrage become entertainment? Have human tragedies become useful primarily when they help defeat the other side?

If so, something far more important than an election is being lost.

Biblical Language Cannot Become Political Branding

The same problem appears when Christianity itself becomes a political instrument.

Texas politician James Talarico has increasingly incorporated Christian language into his political message. In one recent appearance, he invoked Matthew 25 while arguing that Jesus would condemn senators over food assistance, Medicaid, and deportations.

Christians should welcome politicians talking seriously about Scripture. But biblical vocabulary does not automatically make an argument biblical.

Matthew 25 unquestionably demonstrates Christ's concern for the vulnerable. Christians should care about hungry people, strangers, the sick, prisoners, and those suffering around them. But translating those commands directly into support for a particular government program requires an additional political argument. Christians can share the same biblical concern while disagreeing about which policies best address it.

The same principle applies to immigration.

Scripture repeatedly commands God's people to care for foreigners and strangers. Scripture also recognizes nations, governing authorities, boundaries, and civil order. Romans 13 gives government genuine authority, while Acts 17:26 speaks of God determining nations and their dwelling places.

Neither side gets to erase the passages that complicate its politics.

Scripture should judge political convictions. Political convictions should never be allowed to rewrite Scripture.

That requires biblical literacy.

A politician who can quote a verse fluently may still misuse it. A conservative can misuse Scripture just as easily as a progressive. Christians who know only fragments of the Bible become vulnerable to anyone capable of wrapping a political agenda in Christian vocabulary.

Read the Word. Know the context. Test the argument.

Courage Means Refusing to Follow the Crowd

There is another quality disappearing from American life: the courage to stand alone.

The Lindsay Clancy case offers a difficult example. Clancy admitted killing her three young children but mounted an insanity defense. Her 2026 trial ended in a mistrial after eleven jurors favored acquittal and one juror held out.

According to another juror who later discussed the deliberations publicly, the lone holdout was a Black man.

Whatever conclusions people reach about the complicated legal questions surrounding mental illness and criminal responsibility, there is something worth recognizing in anyone willing to maintain a sincerely held conviction while an entire room pressures him to surrender it.

Standing with the crowd is easy. Standing alone costs something.

That lesson reaches far beyond a courtroom.

Christians will increasingly encounter moments when biblical convictions are unpopular, unfashionable, or professionally inconvenient. There will be pressure to remain silent because speaking could cost friendships, opportunities, influence, or reputation.

Conviction means deciding beforehand that truth matters more.

That does not grant permission to be reckless or cruel. Courage without humility quickly becomes arrogance. But humility without courage can become cowardice disguised as kindness.

Christian conviction requires both: the humility to recognize when we are wrong and the courage to stand when God's truth is clear.

America does not merely need better political messaging. It needs adults capable of recognizing sacred things, leaders who understand the human cost of their decisions, Christians who know Scripture well enough to recognize when it is being manipulated, and ordinary people willing to stand for truth when standing becomes uncomfortable.

Politics will continue changing. Candidates will come and go. Headlines that seem enormous today will eventually disappear.

The deeper question is what kind of people Americans are becoming in the process.

When nothing is sacred, everything becomes political. Christians should resist that transformation by recovering reverence, compassion, biblical discernment, and courage.

Continue examining the cultural and political stories shaping America through a biblical worldview on The Daniel Cohen Show, streaming free on Real Life Network.

Twenty-five years after September 11, 2001, two words remain inseparable from that day: Never forget. As a new generation inherits the story of 9/11, Real Life Network and The Daniel Cohen Show are committed to examining the history, ideas, and cultural questions that Americans cannot afford to forget.

But remembering September 11 requires more than remembering its pain.

An entire generation of Americans has now grown up without any personal memory of the attacks. Roughly 100 million Americans have been born since 9/11. They did not watch the second plane strike the South Tower. They did not see smoke pouring across Manhattan or experience the uncertainty that gripped the country. For them, September 11 is history.

That raises an increasingly important question: What exactly are Americans promising never to forget?

Remembering the Victims Means Remembering the Truth

Calling September 11 a tragedy is true, but incomplete.

September 11 was an intentional terrorist attack carried out by 19 al-Qaeda hijackers. Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were not secretive about their worldview, grievances, or objectives. Their own statements repeatedly framed their conflict with America in explicitly religious as well as political terms.

America must be capable of acknowledging that history.

That does not mean treating every Muslim as a terrorist or holding peaceful Muslim neighbors responsible for crimes they did not commit. Americans should defend religious liberty, reject harassment, and protect the freedom of peaceful people to worship according to their beliefs.

But religious liberty cannot require historical amnesia.

There is a profound difference between refusing to hate Muslims and refusing to acknowledge Islamist extremism. America must be capable of doing the first without falling into the second.

For too long, political leaders, academics, and media figures have sometimes preferred vague descriptions of terrorism because specificity can be uncomfortable. Yet future generations cannot understand September 11 if the ideology of its perpetrators is removed from the history they inherit.

“Never forget” cannot mean remembering only the victims while becoming increasingly reluctant to explain why they became victims.

The Next Generation Will Remember What We Teach

This matters because the people who remember September 11 firsthand will not always be here to tell the story.

Already, debates over the meaning of 9/11 reveal dramatically different interpretations of what happened. Some emphasize American foreign policy, imperialism, economics, or Western actions as the primary explanation for terrorism. Others have gone considerably further, portraying America itself as deserving the violence directed against it.

Those ideas should not be allowed to replace historical clarity.

The terrorists who attacked America were responsible for their actions. The men aboard those airplanes chose innocent civilians as their targets. No disagreement with American foreign policy makes hijacking commercial airplanes and deliberately murdering civilians morally defensible.

The responsibility to preserve that truth belongs especially to parents.

Children should know about the people who boarded airplanes expecting to arrive home later that day. They should hear about the firefighters carrying equipment up stairwells as thousands rushed downward. They should know about Flight 93 and the passengers who fought back. They should understand what happened at the Pentagon and what unfolded at Ground Zero.

And they should know who carried out the attacks and what motivated them.

If parents do not teach their children what happened on September 11, someone else will eventually tell them what September 11 is supposed to mean.

History never remains an empty space. When one explanation disappears, another takes its place.

That is why remembrance is about more than nostalgia. It is a responsibility to those who died and to those who were not yet born.

Remembering Without Living in Fear

There is another part of September 11 worth remembering: what America looked like afterward.

For a brief period, the country rediscovered a sense of national unity that now seems almost unimaginable. Political labels became less important. American flags appeared on homes and businesses. Tens of thousands stood together at Yankee Stadium and sang “God Bless the USA.” President George W. Bush stood among firefighters and rescue workers at Ground Zero and promised that America would respond.

That unity did not last.

But the courage behind it should not disappear.

Charlie Kirk understood the importance of courage in the public square. He repeatedly warned younger Americans about ideological movements he believed threatened faith, family, and the American way of life. His words were often pointed because he believed dangerous ideas had to be identified rather than accommodated. His Christian convictions also became increasingly central to the way he understood the cultural battles around him.

That willingness to speak should challenge Christians today.

Courage does not require hatred. Conviction does not require cruelty. Christians can identify dangerous ideologies while remembering that human beings are not the ultimate enemy. Scripture reminds believers that the struggle is ultimately “not against flesh and blood,” but against spiritual forces of evil (Ephesians 6:12).

Christian courage tells the truth about evil without allowing hatred of people to take root in the heart.

Twenty-five years after September 11, America does not need to live in the fear of that morning. Neither should it erase the lessons purchased at such an enormous cost.

Remember the victims. Remember their families. Remember the first responders. Remember the passengers who fought back. Remember the courage that emerged from the rubble. Remember the enemy that attacked America and the ideology that animated its extremists.

Then make sure the children who were not there understand why it matters.

One day, September 11 will exist entirely outside living memory. When that day arrives, never forget will mean only as much as the truth one generation was willing to pass to the next. Continue examining the stories shaping America through a biblical worldview on The Daniel Cohen Show, streaming free on Real Life Network.