The fundamental basis of this push to insert God (the Christian version, of course) into American secular affairs is predicated on accepting the existence of this being.

We must also go beyond just accepting existence and agree this being has always existed. William Lane Craig, an American philosopher and Christian apologist, puts it this way when it comes to the universe.

1. Everything has a beginning
2. The Universe had a beginning (the Big Bang)
3. Therefore God created the universe.

This obviously raises the problem of infinite regression when one ask, who created the being that created the universe. Unless, of course, we merely accept as fact that there is a first cause, an uncaused cause, which must be God and, in Dr. Craig’s view, this can only the Christian God.

But quantum physics shows evidence of random, uncaused, events ocurring all the time. To which, I am sure, Dr. Craig would argue, ‘ well, God created quantum physics.’

But is God really necessary? Instead of inserting an eternal God before the universe isn’t it simpler to accept the universe as eternal? An eternal universe wherein the Big Bang isn’t the beginning of time but a consequence of quantum uncertainty.

A sophisticated version of the “eternal universe” argument draws from both metaphysics and contemporary cosmology. It begins by questioning the assumption that everything that exists must have a beginning. This assumption, while intuitive, is not logically necessary. Time itself may be an emergent, relational property of physical processes rather than an independent dimension requiring a first moment. If time emerges from deeper physical laws, the idea of a temporal “start” becomes nonsensical—much like asking what is north of the North Pole.

From a metaphysical standpoint, positing a God to explain the universe’s existence simply transfers the explanatory burden rather than resolving it. If everything must have a cause, then a God must also have a cause, leading to an infinite regress. To avoid that regress, proponents of the eternal universe suggest that the universe (or a larger multiverse) could be the fundamental brute fact—uncaused, necessary, or self-subsistent. In this view, the universe does not come into being; it simply is, and its existence is explained by its own nature rather than by external agency.

Modern cosmology offers models that cohere with this metaphysical picture. Theories such as conformal cyclic cosmology, bouncing cosmologies, and certain interpretations of quantum gravity propose that the universe is eternal in one form or another. These accounts do not require a creator because physical laws—whether classical or quantum—govern transitions from one cosmic phase to another without appealing to a supernatural cause. Creation ex nihilo becomes unnecessary when the universe never transitions from “nothing” to “something,” but instead moves through cycles or exists timelessly in a quantum state from which spacetime emerges.

Finally, the principle of parsimony supports this position. When two explanations attempt to account for the same phenomenon, the simpler one is typically preferred. An eternal universe governed by impersonal laws is less ontologically extravagant than a universe plus a supernatural creator. Therefore, unless there is compelling evidence for divine intervention, a self-existing or eternally cycling universe remains the simpler and more economical explanation.

In the interest of fairness, this is my understanding of the counter arguments for the existence and necessity of God.

A Philosophical Theistic Counter‑Argument

A common theistic response begins by challenging the idea that the universe can be self‑existent or eternal without explanation. While an eternal universe avoids a temporal beginning, it does not address why the universe exists at all rather than not existing. The principle of sufficient reason holds that every contingent reality—anything that could have been otherwise—must have an adequate explanation. The universe appears contingent: its physical constants, laws, and structure could have been different. Because it does not contain within itself a reason for its existence, it requires an external, non‑contingent cause.

That leads to the argument for a necessary being. A necessary being is one whose non‑existence is impossible and whose existence is explained by its own nature. Theists argue that stopping with a brute, unexplained universe undermines rational inquiry. If the universe is treated as a “just‑so” reality, the demand for explanation is arbitrarily abandoned. By contrast, positing a necessary being provides a coherent endpoint to explanation, grounding the existence of contingent things without invoking an infinite regress of causes.

Furthermore, the universe displays order, intelligibility, and mathematically describable laws. These features suggest that the universe is not merely a chaotic brute fact but structured in a way that supports life and rational investigation. Theists argue that such deep rational order points more plausibly to an intelligent source than to mere chance or impersonal necessity. Even if the universe or multiverse is eternal, the existence of rationally ordered laws still calls for an explanation. Theism provides one by proposing a mind as the foundation of those laws.

Lastly, theistic arguments contend that naturalistic explanations ultimately describe how physical processes unfold but cannot explain why there is something rather than nothing. The existence of contingent physical reality, the fine-tuning of constants, and the intelligibility of the cosmos all point beyond the physical domain. God, as a necessary, non‑material, uncaused cause, serves as the ultimate ground of being—something an eternal universe, still contingent and law‑bound, cannot fully account for.

Needless to say, when comparing the two sides of this issue, it seems quite evident to me God is a creation of man who needed to feel important and purposeful in a vast universe beyond his comprehension.

But, if I concede for the sake of argument God created the universe and all that is in it. A universe of incomprehensible complexities. Does it make sense a being capable of such grandeur and wonder would demand the adoration of one evolution-produced being?

And, even more troubling, in the absence of such devotion punish this behavior with eternal torture and damnation? Hardly consistent with someone who created the Milky Way the Andromeda galaxy, the orchid, or the hummingbird.

Or, to borrow lines from Blake,

“Tyger, Tyger, burning bright
In the forest of the night;
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?”

God isn’t necessary in a universe that is eternal and to which we all belong and will return.

Examining the Moral and Ethical Responsibilities in Immigration Discourse

Throughout American history, the nation has been shaped by waves of immigrants seeking freedom, safety, and opportunity. Yet, the contemporary attitude of many Americans toward immigrants—and particularly toward illegal aliens—is frequently marked by suspicion, exclusion, and hostility. This stance stands in stark contrast to the core Christian principles of compassion, love, and hospitality.

For a country such as ours where many wrap themselves in the aura of Christianity, they act in a manner not just inconsistent but diametrically opposed to the teachings and actions of Jesus.

They are more reflective of the corruption of organized religion which created the Inquisition and burning at the stake.

The Christian Ethos: Welcoming the Stranger

Christian teachings, as exemplified in the parable of the Good Samaritan and the commandment to “love thy neighbor as thyself,” emphasize empathy and care for the vulnerable. The Bible repeatedly urges believers to welcome the stranger and treat foreigners with dignity. Leviticus 19:34 states, “The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself.” When Americans ignore these teachings by demonizing or mistreating immigrants, they betray the very foundations of their professed faith.

Exclusion and Hostility: A Moral Contradiction

In practice, many Americans support policies and rhetoric that dehumanize illegal aliens, treating them as threats rather than fellow human beings in need. The use of derogatory language, the endorsement of harsh border enforcement, and the lack of empathy for families separated by immigration laws reflect an attitude that is fundamentally unchristian. Such behaviors contradict the biblical call to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

The Plight of Illegal Aliens

Illegal aliens often endure perilous journeys, economic hardship, and social isolation. Despite these struggles, they frequently face exploitation, fear of deportation, and limited access to basic services. Many Americans respond not with compassion, but with indifference or outright hostility, failing to recognize the shared humanity and dignity of these individuals. This lack of empathy undermines the Christian ideal of caring for “the least of these.”

The Responsibility to Act with Compassion

Christianity calls its adherents to act with mercy and justice, to stand up for the oppressed and marginalized. The current American attitude toward immigrants—especially illegal aliens—represents a failure to live up to these moral and ethical standards. If Americans wish to honor their Christian heritage, they must move beyond fear and prejudice, embracing policies and personal actions that reflect genuine love and concern for all people, regardless of their legal status.

Conclusion

The unchristian attitude of many Americans toward immigrants and illegal aliens is a moral failing that demands reflection and change. By returning to the core principles of compassion, hospitality, and justice, Americans can begin to repair the deep wounds caused by exclusion and hostility, building a society that truly reflects the values they claim to uphold.

I’ll now wait for all the Bible Quotes justifying this hypocrisy. But be forewarned, I have some favorites of my own. The Bible isn’t reflective of Jesus, it has been corrupted into a tool to assert dominance.

I am rarely one to engage in conspiracy theory, but, if one embraced the scientific definition of theory in this case, when there is mounting, verifiable, and consistent evidence pointing to a rising conspiracy one has to consider it.

Mr. Trump has often “joked” about serving a third term. As recently as just a few days ago he “jokingly” suggested there was reason to cancel the mid-term election citing the normal pattern of the party in the White House losing seats in Congress. He bemoaned the problems that would cause for his “perfect” agenda.

I see no humor in such statements from a sitting President of the United States. What I see is a man intent on solidifying his grip on government, neutering any checks and balances on his power, and testing the waters to see just how far he can go.

He has instigated a rash of questionable investigations—lawfare—he claims was a tactic of the Democrats and taken it to a new level of abuse of power. When career prosecutors who have served under a variety of Presidents and political climates resign as a matter of conscience rather than play along with this blatant abuse of power, it shows where this practice of using the Department of Justice as a Department of Retribution actually originated.

And do not be fooled by reassurances that suspending the Writ of Habeus Corpus cannot happen here. It already has as recently as 1942 with Executive Order 9066 and the unlawful internment of over 120,000 American citizens of Japanese ancestry.

Mr. Trump and administration are following the totalitarian’s playbook to set the stage for similar actions. Exaggerate a problem (crime by illegal immigrants), create an “enemy” (all illegal aliens), blame the problems faced by Americans on this “enemy.”

Then, when people of conscience (dare I say people who actually embrace the philosophy of Christianity so many claim is necessary and elemental to our nation) argue for a more equitable and realistic approach to dealing with the matter, the President paints them as unpatriotic rabble rousers poised to engage in insurrection.

All that’s needed is a catalyst to claim the revoilt has begun and Mr. Trump has his opening.

As tragic as the shooting of Renee Good is, it wasn’t the one he needs most. As harsh as this may be to say, what the President and those who endorse his policies would love to see would be a couple of more dead cops or National Guard members. That would be the excuse to crank up the “we need to impose martial law and suspend the Constitution to save the country.”

It is reminiscent of a quote from an American field commander in Vietnam who said, “we needed to destroy the village to save the village.”

Sound crazy? Not if one’s eyes have been open these past few months. Remember January 6^th?

In a rare national emergency, such as a foreign invasion or widespread civil unrest threatening the constitutional order, the president could invoke emergency powers to temporarily suspend elections. This would be justified as a measure to preserve national security and ensure the functioning of government during the crisis. However, any suspension would be highly controversial, subject to judicial review, and likely require congressional approval to avoid violating democratic principles and constitutional protections

“Presidents can also rely on a cornucopia of powers provided by Congress, which has historically been the principal source of emergency authority for the executive branch. Throughout the late 18th and 19th centuries, Congress passed laws to give the president additional leeway during military, economic, and labor crises. A more formalized approach evolved in the early 20th century, when Congress legislated powers that would lie dormant until the president activated them by declaring a national emergency.” (https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/what-president-could-do-if-he-declares-state-emergency

Summary of the President’s Power to Suspend Habeas Corpus

The authority to suspend habeas corpus, a foundational protection against unlawful detention, is established under Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution. This clause unequivocally states that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus may be suspended only “when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” The constitutional text places this power within the jurisdiction of Congress, as Article I pertains exclusively to legislative functions. While certain historical instances—most notably President Abraham Lincoln’s actions during the Civil War—illustrate the executive branch’s assertion of this authority in times of national crisis, such actions have provoked enduring legal controversy and judicial scrutiny. The prevailing constitutional interpretation affirms that only Congress has the explicit and legitimate power to suspend habeas corpus. Still, the boundaries of executive authority under extraordinary circumstances remain a subject of legal debate and analysis within American constitutional law.

In an article published on the National Constitution Center website, then Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame Law School and now Supreme Court Justice Amy Barrett along with Neal A. Katyal, then Paul and Patricia Saunders Professor of National Security Law at Georgetown University Law Center; Partner at Hogan Lovells and now a partner at Milbank LLP and the Paul and Patricia Saunders Professor of National Security Law at Georgetown University Law Center, publishes an article addressing this issue.

“The Suspension Clause follows in this tradition. It protects the writ by imposing a general bar on its suspension. At the same time, it makes an exception for cases when an invasion or rebellion endangers the public safety. A suspension is temporary, but the power it confers is extraordinary. When a suspension is in effect, the president, typically acting through subordinates, can imprison people indefinitely without any judicial check.
The Clause does not specify which branch of government has the authority to suspend the privilege of the writ, but most agree that only Congress can do it. President Abraham Lincoln provoked controversy by suspending the privilege of his own accord during the Civil War, but Congress largely extinguished challenges to his authority by enacting a statute permitting suspension. On every other occasion, the executive has proceeded only after first securing congressional authorization. The writ of habeas corpus has been suspended four times since the Constitution was ratified: throughout the entire country during the Civil War; in eleven South Carolina counties overrun by the Ku Klux Klan during Reconstruction; in two provinces of the Philippines during a 1905 insurrection; and in Hawaii after the bombing of Pearl Harbor.” (https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-i/clauses/763)

The most troubling part of this article, written by a now sitting Supreme Court Justice who would be one of the justices deciding the issue if it came to fruition, is that it does not say the President cannot suspend the right, it argues that it is not clear.

Such uncertainty plays directly into the hands of someone like Mr. Trump, his most ardent supporters, and those who crafted Project 2025, who hold a callous and dismissive view of the law and legal precedent.

We are facing a crisis tantamount to an an invasion. But it is an invasion from within by those whose idea of the law and the protections of the Constitution are only necessary to protect them. They can be ignored when it comes to those who disagree.

The President’s senior advisor Stephen Miller said they are “actively looking at invoking the insurrection act” to detain illegal immigrants. The next step is using it against those protesting such actions.

Such considerations should chill every American.

This may be a crazy conspiracy theory we can hope never bears fruit. But the signs and the evidence show it is a real possibility. It is based on the words, actions, and history of the man in the White House.

That it should never come to pass is our fervent hope. That we should be ready to face this possibility and be ready to face the consequences is our wisest course of action.