Looking for God in a godless world - Avenged Sevenfold's City of Evil

I've been doing something drastically different this Lent. Most people I know generally punt things that they find to be "perverse", "banal", or "crude". Or they focus on "more spiritual reading". Or something else. But then Lent is over and they go back to their usual every day lives. But Lent should be about refocusing our spiritual perspective to focus on the Holy even beyond the season of Lent. So instead of giving things up, I've been doing something that many would find, on surface value, counter-productive to the focus of Lent. But in the long-run, probably more beneficial. Let's face it, we give up things like video games for Lent but then we'll come back to playing them right when Lent is over. Why? It's just going through the motions. Maybe it's the sacrifice of pleasure that justifies it? But that pleasure sacrifice is going to be substituted ultimately by something else. Sure, I miss meat, but that can be substituted with another pleasure. And then I'm going through motions.

This Lent, I wanted to do something that I'm ordinarily confronted with on a daily basis. That is seeming godlessness. We all feel like we live in a world that is subjected to Satan. It's a spiritual reality. Our Lord refers to the Devil as the "ruler of this world" (John 12:31). While we know his time is temporary and Our Lord's reign will be eternal, we see godlessness everywhere. But if God is omnipresent, even He is present in the godlessness. In 2005, the hardcore rock band Avenged Sevenfold released an album called City of Evil. I know many people who would look at the Death-Bat on the album cover, look at the genre of music, and the parental advisory label, as well as the title of the album, and state that there is no way this is of God. Yet many of the tracks on the album, listened to carefully, reveal quite the opposite.

What is the City of Evil that is described in the album? The album starts off with the song, "The Beast and the Harlot". "This shining city of built of gold / a far cry from innocence ... a City of Evil". The song is about the Great Harlot of Revelation and her destruction. She "makes us drink the poisoned wine to fornicating with our kings". This sets the tone for the entirety of the album. There is an oppressive condition to this City of Evil that detracts us from reality, leads us to drunkenness, advertises things as an escape. "Bat Country" explores the destructiveness of drug addiction and how things that are ugly are made to look attractive in this delusion to the point that we explore giving up our humanity, making a beast out of ourselves to get rid of the pain of being a man. "Burn it Down" is a metaphorical reference to burning down bridges after someone has betrayed you severely, forcing your own self to wonder if you can even put trust in anyone ever again. "Bat Country" and "Burn it Down" are the two tracks where God may be hardest to find, yet even in here, we see the basic human need to find connection, to be able to trust in something or someone, to escape from the Hell of pleasures that the City of Evil leads us to believe are good.

One of the most prophetic songs on the album is "Blinded in Chains". Though it is severely harsh, the overall message is how our politicians brainwash us and convince us to believe that their side is the truly right side, even manipulating religiosity to swing followers over to them. "As they thank the Lord the blind can't see! / Like a plague fed to the brain deadly disease!" It starts off lamenting that another war has already begun. Looking for the source of the problem, he points to the radical leaders first and foremost. But "as clowns you follow suit, behind the blood between the red and white and blue / ... 'cause it's in sight you take the left, I'll take the right / I feel the hate you've built for me". While the radical leaders are divisive, it's our fault for following them to begin with! The entire political manipulation of both extremes and "if they had it their way I'd burn in Hell / and your future's a f***ing disaster!" Why can't we escape? "I'd run away tonight with my mind still intact / I'm gonna make it alright / Easier said than done!" It's a "scared, seductive system" that we're absorbed into. But here's the most impressive part of the song:

Please help us, please save us
Of course they have control, we're all the same
Up on the cross
Crucified their problem, drove the nail and let Him rot
Family and friends
It won't matter in the end, I'm sure they'll understand

The political discord and manipulation of religion by our political parties is re-crucifying Christ. Though there are profanities in the song, it's hard not to see the presence of God directly in it. The City of Evil subjects us to mental blasphemies and brain-rot in thinking in terms of us vs. them or guarding our sacred institutions which are the exact opposite of sacred.

"The Wicked End" is another powerful track on the album about the extent of sin and depravity in the world. "Man's becoming more corrupt now, godless, wicked, and cruel / The soulless man stood silence, Mary's words rang so true". People are pointing to Christ's coming, people are falling into wickedness, there's deception, deceit, false Messiahs, etc. "The Wicked End" starts with the current state, goes back to the beginning, and shows the cycle that we are headed in as a society. With the overtly religious and Christian content of the lyrics, it is impossible not to see God in that song.

While there are a dozen songs on the album, the last one I want to touch on is "M.I.A." That one's really deep. The entire song is about the experiences of a soldier in war, doing nothing but carrying out duty, going through motions, and now questioning what he's done. "I shot a mother right in front of her son (Change this from my consciousness and please erase my dreams)". In all of this, he begins to wonder if he's truly on the right side or if he's just a tool for his country, being used as a weapon. "Fight for honor, fight for your life / pray to God that our side is right" - all he can do is pray that his side is the right one at this point as his patriotic duty has corroded his sight from right and wrong. He takes other soldiers' lives just so they don't take his. In all the carnage in war, he realizes that the battle between flesh and blood is not the battle that is most significant.

I walk the city lonely
Memories that haunt are passing by
A murderer walks your street tonight
Forgive me for my crimes, don't forget that I was so young
Fought so scared in the name of God and country

I think it's important to remember in the current state of our own seeming godlessness to remember that God is ever-present with us. We are constantly caught in a spiritual battle. That we reflect on our own inner actions isn't what makes us monsters, but what helps us to become more humane. The sacrament of confession is about our own inward reflection on ourselves. I find a lot of "Christian" music to be corny at times. I much prefer it when a secular band like Avenged Sevenfold can put together songs that derive meaning from their own individual experiences which allows us to see the Image of God in such artists.

Pro-life hypocrisy? Voting for pro-abortion politicians...

There is an overwhelming push by the Republican Party to make abortion, at least under certain forms, to be acceptable. The abortion issue is gradually becoming a less decisive factor now for many Republican politicians when it comes to courting religious voters. This is simply just a fact of modern political life. This means that for a pro-lifers to continue to vote, there are fewer and fewer pro-life candidates to choose from. Democrats who are pro-life tend to exist at very local levels. Though they do exist, most Democrat candidates do support abortion under the banner of "women's reproductive rights". What exactly is someone who is pro-life to do?

This question came up for me last week and there was heated reproach and argument and slander directed regarding the topic. I live in Virginia as some of you know and there was the Virginia Governor's race. I have been deeply concerned about the presentation of autism by the current Trump Administration and I desired to have a counter-party representation at some level of government in Virginia. I ended up voting a split-ticket where I voted for candidates belonging to both parties. At the top of that ticket was my vote for Governor-Elect Abigail Spanberger. I have strong approval for the outgoing Gov. Glenn Youngkin and I definitely did not see my vote being cast as a rejection of the Republican Party overall nor did I see my vote as a rejection of conservative ideology. Our now outgoing Delegate whom I voted to support the re-election of is strongly pro-life.

Nevertheless, my vote for Abigail Spanberger drew great ire from many people on social media who are very well of my pro-life stances and also are very well of my Catholicity. Some of them claimed that Spanberger's policy platform was abortion up to the point of birth. I honestly do not think that this is going to be pushed for in Virginia after what happened with Gov. Ralph Northam back in 2019, but I could be wrong as politicians are sinners. That said, Spanberger's public statements have indicated support for limitations on third trimester abortions and supports parental consent laws currently present in the state for minors seeking abortion. I certainly don't think her position is perfect, but I don't see anything in her platform that suggested anything of the sort of a pro-abortion up to the point of birth position.

One conservative man I follow even cracked a joke about Youngkin's current preparation for transition and stated that Spanberger hasn't even become governor yet and is already forcing people to transition. This is a reflection regarding her LGBTQ policies and how conservatives have presented Spanberger as being "ultra-left" on that position too. Where she stands on gender transitions for minors is no where indicated on her platform, though she has stated that she affirms handling issues on transgender involvement in sports and in bathrooms should be settled on individual bases. There is nothing in her platform that would universally put local communities at risk of harm from predators pretending to be women. To paint her as an extremist one way or the other is simply slander.

Is it possible she is disingenuous? Like all politicians, I think that many try and court two views, but Spanberger's platform is of a centrist-Democrat and not a hardliner on either point. But the more important question should be addressed as to whether it is pro-life hypocrisy to have voted for her to begin with. I have several points to address on this issue.

Catholics on social media often like to portray a vote for a candidate as being tantamount to supporting the whole of that candidate's positions and much in online Catholic sources support this as well. Shamefully, many Catholic priests seem hell-bent on holding people accountable not to vote for particular candidates one way or the other. I received spiritual guidance from three different priests on the issue and all spoke similar. The first priest told me that given two bad options, it is preferable to go with the lesser evil. Often times, the lesser evil is a subjective position. Winsome Earle-Sears, Spanberger's opponent, unfortunately pivoted on the issue of abortion making her, at best, a lesser evil...and in the greater context of Christian polity where multiple issues ought to be pursued, made voting for her against Spanberger to be less ideal. My godfather also pointed out that while for him, abortion is a decisive factor in who he votes for, there are circumstances where others may choose to take into account other issues. The Archimandrite also affirmed that there are a variety of other issues involved in Christian polity besides abortion and sometimes one just has to hold their nose and vote.

While it could be held that "not voting" is the "moral high ground", I've been spiritually advised in the past never to waste a vote by not voting. If it wasn't for that advice, from a man who grew up under the aftermath of Nazi Germany, I would hold that philosophy too. But I don't. And these are all sincere men who are strongly pro-life, actively engaged in the March for Life yearly, and one who refused to acknowledge Joe Biden's Catholicity over the abortion issue. These are not heterodox men but men who have a deeply orthodox track record whom I would put my trust in before a heartbeat.

Voting for a person, regardless of where they stand on issues, no matter how ungodly, is much different than voting for a policy since voting for a person requires that one put their trust in a human being who by nature is subjected to the effects of original sin. This is why voting for a person should not be seen as being tantamount to supporting the policies of that person. Voting for a person requires more investigation often and can end up leading to a much less informed electorate than voting for a policy. We elect representatives to govern us and under the principles of democracy, those elected officials are supposed to represent our best interests. While they can only represent the interests of a collective whole which is already varied to begin with, their duty is to represent the best interests of the public as possible.

I wanted a situation of balance where the dignity of autistic people are protected. This is also a very significant part of Christian polity. No human being is a demon, regardless of what sorts of evil they may find the winds taking them to favor. Human beings are all looking for God in the end and some do it while using very sinister means. That doesn't make them sinister in themselves. Politicians are exactly like this. There isn't a single politician who is unlike this. Democracy allows people to give input and feedback to their government via the voting process. It's not a perfect system nor is it a perfect or always accurate reflection of the values of the populace, but it is the system that we have been given to work under. Voting for one particular representative over another does not tie you to the wicked policies of that person unless your intent was to support whatever policies that would lead to these sinister positions. It does not make someone a hypocrite who supports these policies nor is it a mortal sin. Politicians are imperfect and both sides often support wicked things. As Christians, we have the duty to pray for all elected officials. So let us remember to pray for the Governor-Elect Abigail Spanberger and for all our civil magistrates, let us pray to the Lord!

Bones - autistic spectrum represented by the titular character

The television show Bones, known infamously for its macabre and somewhat grotesque discoveries of rotting corpses, skeletons, and murder mysteries, is actually one of the best shows, in my opinion, of representing someone on the autistic spectrum. While The Good Doctor openly declares its protagonist as an autistic person, there are some weaknesses in that portrayal. Particularly, what irritates me about The Good Doctor is the focus on a monotone voice which may relate to some on the autistic spectrum, but others on the autistic spectrum may not relate to it. Watching Bones again earlier this year, I realized many autistic traits in Dr. Temperance Brennan, and not just autistic traits, but traits that most autistic individuals can relate to having experienced at some point.

For instance, the show features her hyper-fixation on her special interest - anthropology. Dr. Temperance Brennan is a forensic anthropologist who studies the human remains and cultures of various different groups. So the show also focuses its murder mysteries on a variety of different cultures too. From Voodoo to Catholic to cannibals. In many episodes, a common phrase used by the main character is "Anthropologically speaking...". This shows her hyper-fixation in her interest in anthropology. Hyper-fixation is one common feature of autism.

Very often times, Brennan can be very literal and misunderstand certain things. Such as when a victim's ex-girlfriend talks about his interest in The Cure, she asks what the cure is for and Agent Booth has to inform her that she's talking about the band, not a cure for a disease. One of the many lines in the series is "I don't know what that means." Another example is after a character is shot and the intended victim was Booth, Booth makes it affirmative that he does not fault himself but only holds the sniper accountable. Brennan tells him that he still has blood on his hands. To have blood on one's hands is a common idiom that expresses blood-guilt, but Brennan means it literally - Booth actually has the victim's blood on his hands from trying to save the victim's life by applying pressure to the wound.

There's many instances where Dr. Brennan's comments, which can be referred to as examples of brutal honesty, come across to many characters as abrasive and lacking empathy. In her relationship with her partner at the FBI, Special Agent Seeley Booth, she comments about this quite a bit. Booth always makes it clear that she has her own approach to things. One of her interns refers to her as "abrasive". Autistic people tend to be portrayed as lacking empathy, but the reality is a lot more fuzzy. Often, what is deemed as lacking empathy by neurotypicals, to an autistic person, can be a trait of needed honesty when there is none present. Dr. Brennan calls things much more as she sees them.

She also finds security in predictability and routine. While it may not be noticeable at first, it becomes obvious whenever Booth has to step away from partnering with her on a criminal case. Whether it's because he has to be psychologically evaluated, or because he's a suspect, or because he's been called to focus on some administrative duty, she always expresses discomfort regarding the idea that she may not be working with him on the case. This is an example of a needed routine to provide security to an autistic person.

While Dr. Temperance Brennan is never formally diagnosed with autism in the show, there are overwhelming instances of a display of autistic symptoms that are common in both the high-functioning and low-functioning degrees of the spectrum that seem to indicate that she is at the high-functioning end of the spectrum. Autism is a hidden disability. No one looks autistic. But to an autistic person, the traits are visible in how they present themselves. I would say that Bones accomplishes a wonderful presentation of someone on the autistic spectrum even though the character is never formally diagnosed in the show as being on the spectrum. As being on the autistic spectrum myself, there are many instances where I find myself relating to her. 

Confusion...

He stepped out into the world for the first time it seemed. It was a world he barely recognized. He smelled the air of the hot dog stand and the mustard as people munched on the wieners smacking sloppy ketchup-filled lips. He heard the screeching honks of the horns and the angry drivers cursing. He wasn't sure if this was a safe place but it beat his apartment where his neighbors would talk about him behind his back.

He waited patiently to cross the street, waiting for the walkman to turn white. He'd been down here many times but he still seemed a stranger to most of these people. They barely talked to him. To them, he was strange. To him, they were just mean. They seemed to talk in code all the time. He wished he could know what it was they were saying but they weren't very clear in what they meant. "It's uncanny valley territory today." What? Why say that when he'd been down this path before.

He proceeded on his way to the market. He needed bread, peanut butter, deli meat, and a few other things. He always preferred to make his sandwiches. They were an easy meal. They required little preparation. They were always easy to make and he could make so many of them at once. He felt like a master chef when he made his favorite grilled cheese sandwiches, always searching for the best ways to make the perfect cheese melt.

The noises today were getting to him though. People shouting. People shoving. Crowds blocking areas all throughout the supermarket. More people talking to him. Using the same coded language. "Cat got your tongue?" Do you see a cat here? A manager with a stern face came up to him and told him to leave. Why? I've been shopping here for years! This has to be a joke! The manager said he had glanced over at a woman making her feel uncomfortable. She doesn't look uncomfortable. He could see her wavering face, but he never learned of body language. That was more code to him. He'd been told he had difficulties with that in the past, but whenever given an example, he would try to make out what it meant and would never be told. To him, it meant that people didn't think it was important.

"Screw you!" he yelled at the manager. "I've been coming here for years! If you think she's uncomfortable, she could have told me that! Besides, I may have glanced awkwardly at her in one of the aisles but never meant anything by it! I can see perfectly. She never told me she was uncomfortable so if she told you, then she's frankly making up crap!"

He'd been used to it before. Accused of stalking women because of awkward interactions. Made to leave places because of confused interactions. He'd had enough of it. He was not going to lose anymore ground. Especially this supermarket that had been his territory for years. He hurriedly wandered away from the manager to avoid the false imprisonment that would come like it had so many times before. He obtained most of his intended groceries, rushed through the self-checkout, and ran home.

Same old at home. Neighbors leering at him, talking about him, he knew. Talking in code. They always did. Utter rubbish. They were trash. Finally, in the comfort of his apartment he could be. Another resentful day where he could never understand people. Why were they so mean to him?

Why I find tests like Myers-Briggs and the PI frustrating as a neurodivergent person...

We all have probably taken the Myers-Briggs or the PI at least once. If you're in the workforce or have applied for a job, you most certainly have taken the PI or a form of the PI. You may not have gotten your test results back because it's primarily for your employer to look at and evaluate to test where you may best belong, but that's irrelevant. Most people have probably at least heard of the Myers-Briggs and seen initials like IFNJ or something like that at least once. A conversation a few weeks ago made me really frustrated. I remember a while back, people talking about it and getting emotionally frustrated with the situation because I don't really know my own Myers-Briggs. I have tried to take it a few times and it's come up slightly different each time. Usually, it comes up introverted, but at least once, recently, it came up extroverted.

I wanted to delve into why that is. And I think one thing that is very difficult for a neurodivergent person about such tests is it puts our brains into a systematized box which is something that isn't actually helpful for us. By asking us about adjectives people would use to describe us, we may not necessarily think in terms of restricting these types of people usually whereas a neurotypical person might restrict the types of people. Or even if it's adjectives we would use to describe ourselves, our brains are not wired in such ways. I'm autistic so communication is not one of my specialties. For neurotypical people, communication works very well. I've had job coaches in the past who have helped me with the PI part of an application explaining what the test is actually "looking" for. It still doesn't make sense.

Let me just give an example of a typical question that a neurotypical person might be able to systematize but a neurodivergent person may not. "Do you get along well with others?" This type of question makes for an easy yes or no response from a neurotypical person. They can assess themselves and say "Yes I do!" or "No, I prefer to hang out by myself." For myself, as an autistic person, the answer isn't easy. Sometimes it might be a strong agreement because I enjoy being with other people and having quality conversations. But other times, I worry about what I may or may not say wrong. Or if someone says something facetious that I don't understand. Or I misread "body language". All of these things could happen. And so I might lean toward the strongly disagree position. And it wouldn't matter whether I'm extroverted or introverted, the test comes up wayward in both directions.

Sometimes I prefer to work on a team. It relaxes pressure during those moments. But then teammates can start bickering and the social interaction becomes overwhelming. All of these things imbalance neurodivergent people far more than they cause imbalance or distress to a neurotypical person. And it causes misreadings of more than just social interactions. Exactly how much to "mask" my neurodivergence is another difficulty I have. It can be frustrating.

As an autistic person, I also like to find an answer that's a solid "yes" or "no" but these tests also don't usually come with a solid "yes" or "no". Like in being asked adjectives people use to describe me, I may factor in what enemies have said which can be very unkind things. "Smart-alac" would be one word. "Sassy" is a word that's been used to describe me. But so have words such as "reliable" and "meticulous". It's a frustrating experience filtering out words and knowing what adjectives are best used. These are just some examples. Overall, I think there is a deeper problem.

For neurotypical people, mood swings are more natural and detectable and intrusive thoughts don't hit as hard as their brains are able to systematize things better. Neurodivergent people have much greater challenges. Our brains are not wired into a system. It can be a tangled mess. A fuse can blow at just about anytime. It doesn't mean we're something to be fearful of, it just means our brains are not in the alignment of a neurotypical assumption and these tests assume a neurotypical mindset. This makes these tests problematic. I can be an extrovert at times, but when I get overwhelmed, I want to go into a corner and become an introvert and only care about cats. For a neurotypical person, they know whether they are extroverted or introverted or whether they'll be able to deal with people or not. That doesn't come easily for a neurodivergent people. It feels like the wires in my brain are flickering and dancing, scrambled, jumbled, etc. These tests frustrate me...I wish I could belong in a more systematized structure, but I think a puzzle piece definitely more accurately describes my situation. 

Jo Cox and Charlier Kirk - a reflection...

The past couple days, I have had trauma triggered...as mentioned before, while I may have been more political in the past, I've become less and less political lately. And I didn't really become interested in political affairs in general until 2016 to begin with. But in 2016, I had a long-distance relationship with a woman in England. She got involved in politically campaigning for the "Bremain" position. When Jo Cox was brutally and senselessly murdered, I remembered just being in fear for her safety. She's my ex-girlfriend now but if you have unconditional love for someone, that love never fades away entirely and that fear at the time is still there. I had wanted her out of politics...not to mention, the campaign was exhausting to her and severed time to actually communicate with her. It's the feeling that someone you love may not be safe. For a lot of us, we may look at the assassination or the death of a celebrity as a one-off blip on the radar, but for others it hits close to home.

I had been reflecting on this a bit and noticed that progressive blogger Fred Clark wrote an article about what he learned from the murder of Jo Cox. I decided to read it thinking he had some reflections to make about how both of these events felt personal to him, but I gave up hope upon reading through the article. It's entirely a politicization of two human lives that were wrongly and senselessly taken from us now being used as political football. Though we tend to be simplified into right and left in this world, people are a lot more complicated, and the world is a lot more complicated, to define someone as being on a linear model. I think I might mention that when I end up writing a different reflection that's non-political next week. But Fred Clark seems to see the lack of rallying toward "Bremain" in the end as a reflection of non-empathy of the right and his overall understanding of human nature is completely lacking.

It's not like we go from shedding the stain of original sin by becoming "right-wing" or "left-wing". We are subjected to the tyranny of the Devil due to the sin of our first parents and can only be set free by Christ. A true and genuine encounter with Truth and with Love. Being a member of an earthly political party does not free us because Christ's Kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36). Adopting someone's politics does not indicate how empathetic we are toward someone either. Political assassinations didn't originate back in 2016, they've been a thing for quite a while and it doesn't matter what the earthly group is, as long as people are subjected to the tyranny of the Devil, some will confuse that tyranny as freedom, embrace it, and act out on it. Both the murderers of Jo Cox and Charlie Kirk acted out on that.

Another thing I should note is that a lot of people seem to think social media is a good indicator of where the world's at. Social media is nothing but a lot of anger amplified. It tends to be anger that gets likes, that gets praised, and that gets one's voice heard. It's awful, but it's true. As such, the wicked in all parties get amplified and we tend to think the other is out to get us. Common sense doesn't exist anymore. Moderation doesn't exist anymore. If someone doesn't support COVID lockdowns, it's not because they find the loss of freedom and interpersonal connection too great a price to pay for an unknown number of lives, if any, to save. It must be because they want everyone to die or they deny the reality of the virus. And so people are villainized for having entirely human concerns.

Empathy is not the same as sympathy and people who emphasize the need to show empathy often do not show any empathy whatsoever. Empathy is not about discarding rational thought and simply just agreeing with someone's politics. I never really paid any attention to Charlie Kirk to be honest and never knew Jo Cox. But the horror of losing a father of two kids or a mother of two kids, that's unfathomable. I'm fine not accepting and seeing eye-to-eye with these people on everything. That doesn't mean I lack empathy. Empathy is the ability to understand the sufferings of another from an outward position, namely that of not having the experience. Compassion is partaking in those sufferings and sympathy is having concern for another experiencing suffering. While I have not shared the experience of losing someone close to me due to political violence, I certainly shared the fear of losing someone I loved to political violence. Jo Cox was doing something similar to Charlie Kirk when she was murdered. She was going to hear from her constituents. Charlie Kirk, even if you didn't agree with his politics, introduced to academia methods of discourse and ways to build up stronger arguments for and against particular positions. I think that's important to remember. He was murdered trying to get kids of all political positions involved in a discussion.

Empathy does not mean I have to agree with you. Empathy is about sharing in another's emotional experience from an outward position. Empathy isn't something political. It's something human. It's something that flows from the image of God. Empathy is an act of love. It does not mean I have to share your beliefs if they are inconsistent with the image of God. Empathy does not discard rationality. I don't know if this is something that neurotypicals just don't get or if they just skirt over and don't have empathy in general - which is something odd because it is usually neurodivergents who are accused of lacking empathy. Empathy actually demands rationality in order to process and to provide necessary help. I grieve for Brendan Cox and I grieve for Erika Kirk. I grieve for them because we are one with the human race and two humans were brutally and senselessly murdered by people who hated their spouses' politics. That should not happen. While emotionally driven people would discard their viewpoints and use this to adopt to their views, that is not the same thing as empathy. That is conversion. My opinion is that I should only convert to a person's viewpoints if I believe them.

Political violence is horror and I am sorry for people like Fred Clark who cannot empathize with the brokenness of the human race and feel a need to score political talking points for their team. That goes back to what I talked about yesterday with our desire to dominate and displace God. I also am sorry for people who think the murder of Charlie Kirk should be used to have people come over to their side as if the "other guys" somehow plotted it. The rhetoric on both sides needs to calm down. While the neo-conservative media tends to dominate the discussion and tends to stoke the fire more, nobody ordered that Brexiteer to brutally murder Jo Cox and nobody ordered a sniper to fire at Charlie Kirk. These people made their own decisions and gave themselves over to a cult of demons.

The death of Charlier Kirk

Many of us truthfully don't know what to think about the events that have happened recently. Some of us are just in shock. It's not just a left-right thing. It's a spiritual problem. I'm much more reserved about politics lately. In the past, I was much more "right-leaning" and now have become much more eclectic in my political views to the point where I don't even belong to a solid right/left paradigm. While I still would favor the laissez-faire market economy for practical reasons, I'm much less firm in my commitment to a political system as systems are not the problem. The problem is a spiritual problem. It's easy for many people to see the recent killings as evidence of a problem solely with the left, but I think there is real caution for retaliation from the right. It's not so much that Charlie Kirk was a "racist, rape apologist, bigot, sexist, grifter, etc.". It's that Charlie Kirk was killed simply because someone didn't want him to be alive, possibly because he disagreed with his politics.

While there are often moral views at stake in politics, much of political debate has little to do with morals and much more to do with systems and what system is the best. This is why I can't do partisan politics anymore as I've done more so in the past. Regardless of what position I'm taking in a political discord, I would have to be lumped into a system favoring a party and an outcome in favor of one party over another. People have turned politics into a war for control over each other. This is why Charlie Kirk was killed. Awful accusations and comparisons to Nazism and racism or communism and anti-religiosity are how people try to "win" their side of the argument.

I had intended to write about something else today, but I think with Charlie Kirk's death, there is a certain heaviness that a lot of us are feeling and it has much more to do with the symbolic meaning of how he died. If he had died some other way or even accidentally, we wouldn't be feeling so heavy, but we would certainly be sad for his wife and kids. Instead, we are feeling emotionally heavy and we also have breaking hearts for his wife and kids because he was killed. And he was killed for merely have the "wrong" political views. And what this means to all of us is a fear of what will happen if we exercise our own First Amendment rights.

Freedom of speech and freedom of the free exercise of religious practices are two of the biggest guarantees against a totalitarian society in order to uphold man's search for meaning and truthfulness. While many Catholics have come to oppose freedom of speech and freedom of religion in favor of forcible conversion to Catholicism, that view has never been consistent with a charitable response to the Faith. There must be liberty without fear in the approach to God, filled with utmost awe and reverence for the wonder and beauty of God. Perfect love casts out fear whereas coercion creates and stirs up fear. Perfect love does not insist on its own way. Many of us are now living in fear. Living in fear because an America we once thought was for the law-abiding and provided free and civic discourse is now under attack.

Although the media tries to deflect the blame on Trump, the reality is that he's not the one behind this. He's not the one ordering the execution of Minnesota lawmakers. He's not the one who opened fire on kids as they prayed in church. He's not the one who took up the knife and stabbed a Ukrainian refugee to death. He's not the one who shot and killed Charlie Kirk. Trump is a symptom. Politicians never solve any of the real issues because then they wouldn't have anything to run on. The problem is a spiritual problem. People have lost a desire to pursue and search for truth and have filled that gap with a desire for dominance and control. To each, one must become his own lord. This is why demagogues are the nominees of the parties and it is why people break into factions over their preferred demagogue. He speaks their own values, he does what they want to have carried out, and he rules over their enemies with an iron fist.

It is the fantasization of controlling and dominating and lording it over others. And what does Jesus say of that? It is the Pagans who lord it over one another (Luke 22:25). In the meanwhile, Christendom makes the same mistake that ancient Israel did. We too beg for a king just like the other nations (1 Sam. 8:5). A ruler to lord it over and dominate the others. We reject God as our own King and turn toward the secular state to dominate. It is becoming impossible to be a Christian while also moving with the flow of Christendom. And it doesn't matter where I turn to these days. The spiritual vacuum is devoid of reason. Truly, only in the silence can God be found. Only in the silence, away from the hustle and bustle and busyness of this world can God be found. The world is suffering from a spiritual vacuum and a vacuum must be filled. Progressive ideology has done away with meaning by embracing the times. Conservatism has done away with meaning by conserving the old wineskins. In the vacuum, there is only "right and wrong" for the adherents of these ideologies. And that vacuum is to be fulfilled by mankind rebelling against his own Creator.

Christendom is in an open state of rebellion against God. Progressivism is in an open state of rebellion against God. How does one find hope? God is not in the earthquake. He isn't the fire. He isn't in the thunder. He is in the silence. The world is oppressed and is lashing out from the tyranny that it has subjected itself to. We dominate over each other. We choose violence. We choose our own way. People are killed. Charlie Kirk's death seems to many to be an ominous foreshadowing of a horror to come. While it's difficult to see the future, I don't think anyone's thinking soberly.