Weekly Roundup: “Kill the Enemy”: Iran War Lies, "Killing" Talarico, + Calls For Political Violence

Brad Onishi: Welcome to Straight White American Jesus. I'm Brad Onishi, author of American Caesar: How Tech Lords and Theocrats Are Turning America into a Monarchy, coming in September. Founder of Axis Mundi Media, here today with my co-host.

Dan Miller: I'm Dan Miller, Professor of Religion and Social Thought at Landmark College — with a little bit of a cold. I sound like Brad Onishi when we record at like five in the morning. I've got that going for me, so, you know.

Brad: Yeah, all right, friends. We're going to talk about Iran and Joe Kent, the counterterrorism official who resigned this week by saying that there was no threat to the United States on the part of Iran, and he cannot support a war with Iran. We'll talk about the fallout from that and what it means. We'll then get into some pretty startling new footage from Pete Hegseth's pastor and another podcaster who say that they want James Talarico to be crucified and to die, and we'll tell you what that means. We'll then get into a little bit more on the Atlantic piece on Christian nationalism and James Talarico, and sort of clarify some comments and thoughts and analysis there — give Dan a chance to weigh in after I did so earlier this week. Lots to cover. Let's go.

Brad: All right, Dan. Here is Joe Kent. Joe Kent is the counterterrorism official who resigned this week, and he immediately went on Tucker Carlson — and that should tell you about Joe Kent. I'm going to give you a little bit of background on Joe Kent in a minute. But here's what he said about Iran, and there being no plan on their part for having a nuclear weapon.

Tucker Carlson: Was Iran on the verge of getting a nuclear weapon?

Joe Kent:No, they weren't — you know, three weeks ago when this started, and they weren't in June either. I mean, the Iranians have had a religious ruling, a fatwa, against actually developing a nuclear weapon since 2004. That's been in place since 2004. That's available in the public sphere. But then also, we had no intelligence to indicate that that fatwa was being disobeyed or was on the cusp of being lifted. The Iranian strategy is actually pretty pragmatic. The Iranians are obviously aware of what's taking place in their region, and their strategy was to not completely abandon their nuclear program, because they saw what happened to Muammar Gaddafi in Libya — when he said, hey, I've got no more nukes, I'll do what you say, I'll give up my nukes — and we gave him the Nobel Peace Prize, we regime-changed him, and he was executed by his own people in the most horrific —

Brad: Okay. So this is a guy who, as opposed to Donald Trump, as opposed to Mike Johnson, has actual battle experience. He was in combat. He lost his wife to combat. He's what's called a gold star husband. That in itself doesn't mean anything except that he has seen what war is like up front — which a lot of us have not. He then says, look, there was no plan for them to have a weapon. Not now, not anytime soon. It's just not what they're doing. Mike Johnson then said — let me read you the quote — he says: "We all understood there was clearly an imminent threat, that Iran was very close to the enrichment of nuclear capability. I don't know where Joe Kent is getting his information." Feelings. The president felt he had to strike first to prevent mass casualties. I got a lot of thoughts, Stan, but I'll throw it to you first. What do you make of the Joe Kent resignation and Mike Johnson's comments?

Dan: Yeah, so I mean, Mike Johnson — he does the same thing with that comment, however many comments they've made, trying to gin up a rationale for the Iran thing. But it always remains slippery as to what that rationale was, like what the timeline is. "Imminent" is always a great word for these folks — because like, what does imminent mean? Is that, I don't know, half a decade from now? Is that tomorrow?

Brad: He's been at war with Iran for 47 years.

Dan: Yeah, exactly. Right. So there's that, and he's going to do whatever Trump tells him to do. The resignation was really, really interesting. And I think neither one of us thinks Joe Kent is probably a great guy either. So, you know, he posted his letter of resignation on X, on Twitter, and part of it said this: "I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran poses no imminent threat to our nation." And if he just stopped there — I mean, that's the important thing. And then he goes on to say, "It is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby." So there's the sort of antisemitic piece of the MAGA America First wing floating around in there. But even so, acknowledging that — him coming out and saying there never was a threat and so forth — is really significant. And probably the highest-profile shot at the Trump administration and their rationale for this. And he got the typical administrative dismissals from the Trump administration. Donald Trump said: "When somebody is working with us that says they didn't think Iran was a threat, we don't want those people. They're not smart people, or they're not savvy people." I'll just point out — Trump appointed the guy. And this is the standard Trump thing that I don't understand, how the Trumpers don't get bothered by this — that every time one of his hand-chosen people does something he doesn't like, he says they were idiots and dumb and bad at their jobs. And you're like, dude, you're the one who appointed them. The standard dismissals. And I think by now everything's in kind of plain sight. It's really clear there was no clear rationale for this. They have not been able to articulate one. There was no clear end game — here are our set objectives, and when we achieve these, we're done. There clearly wasn't planning for contingencies like the Strait of Hormuz. And everybody has talked about this, and Trump is still trying to get other countries to come in and help. So I think it's significant — this high-profile defection. And then it feeds into whether there's really fragmentation in MAGA about Iran. And so what does he do? He goes straight on to Tucker Carlson, valorizes Charlie Kirk, floats conspiracy theories that Charlie Kirk was assassinated because he opposed military action in Iran. I think there are a lot of interesting pieces there. In terms of revealing anything new, it just confirms what most observers — including Mike Johnson and most Republicans — know, which is that there was no clear rationale for this. There was certainly no rationale for why now. And if you're the Republicans right now, you've got to be asking: why didn't this happen in like October or November, get past the midterms and then do what you want? Because this is a huge distraction. So it was really interesting and really telling, but also not revealing in that sense.

Brad: Yeah. A couple of points here. One is, last week we asked the question: is there really a split in MAGA over Iran? And there is popular sentiment on the ground, and that I think is ever-changing and we have to monitor it. But this is, to me, a kind of sign — when you start to see people like this resign. Now, Joe Kent is somebody who is from the Pacific Northwest, is kind of Portland-born, makes his way over the river to Southwest Washington, runs for Congress and loses in an upset — twice. He lost and then he went again and lost to Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, who is the person who made some waves recently for voting for funding for ICE as a Democrat. A lot of people frustrated with her, but she's the one who beat Joe Kent in the Third District of Washington. He lost that first matchup with her for many reasons, but one of them was he was Ultra MAGA and he went on Nazi-adjacent podcasts — so that sort of tipped it over the edge there. So this is not Mitt Romney, this is not Adam Kinzinger. This is who this guy is. However, I did mention that he lost his wife to war and military service, so I'm not going to sit here and — I don't know. Is this a play? Is this publicity? Is this him looking past Trump to align himself with the Tucker-Fuentes America First wing that is growing in MAGA? Is this him acting on principle — like, I know what war is, and I cannot support this, I'm not going to let Americans die in war? I don't know. What I do know is that it's one more sign of at least some internal division. That's number one.

Number two — we've talked the last couple of weeks about the death of expertise. This is an administration that views expertise as an encumbrance, something that slows down men of action who act without thinking, who don't need others, don't need to invest in relationships. When Joe Kent was running for Congress and lost, Trump said, "He's amazing. I love this guy." On March 17 — three days ago, on St. Patrick's Day — he said, "I always thought he was weak on security, very weak. It's a good thing he's out." Mike Johnson: yeah, good thing. You said he was the best thing ever when he was running for Congress.

Moreover, Mike Johnson says, "I don't know where he's getting his information," and it's like — we've now reached a place where someone like Mike Johnson can basically say about one of the top counterterrorism officials in the country: "I don't know where he's getting his weirdo information." He's getting it from classified info, Mike. That's his whole job. You appointed him — the president appointed him — to get information that is highly sensitive and classified, and to analyze it so that he can advise the president on what we should do in cases like Iran. To just say, "I don't know where he's getting the information" — that's such an indication of: if somebody disagrees with you, either say they're weak, or say their information is bad and I did my own research, I have my own facts. And this is what it is. And here's Mike Johnson just peddling that line.

It's really disheartening to live in that kind of world. There is a world where this would have mattered. It would have mattered when Nixon or Bush or Reagan or Clinton were president — that a top official basically comes out and says about the president's war: there's no rationale for it. There was no threat. I have all the info. I'm the guy that was hired to do the job. So I think that's a takeaway for me. I do want to talk about what he said about Charlie Kirk, but any other thoughts on Kent and his resignation and what it means within MAGA?

Dan: Just one really basic thing — you talk about that 30,000-foot view, but it's really weird. And every now and then I'll get a student who will ask about all the Christian nationalism stuff. And when you lay it all out, they're like, so — does it bug them to lie all the time? And you're kind of like, yeah, there is that. There is that basic — I don't know. Nobody wears their good old Southern Christian identity on their sleeve like Mike Johnson does. And the dude is an inveterate liar, like, for a living. That's all he does: lie and spin for Trump. And I don't know. It's just another thing that's — maybe so banal at this point. We're so far past it that it's maybe not that noteworthy, but it really is sort of bizarre. And you know, people sometimes ask, was the Christianity you grew up in different? And I'm like, well, like — one of the things we were supposed to be is honest. And stuff like that was a thing. But yeah, just the constant disinformation and misinformation and open, bald-faced lying and deception is — yeah, it's disheartening.

Brad: So Joe Kent does say in his interview — and I'm actually not going to play the clip — he says he was prevented from investigating Charlie Kirk's murder, and the FBI wouldn't let him in. This kind of stuff. I don't know; it's hard, because on one hand, there's part of me that thinks that rings true. There's another part of me that's like, there's a lot of wink-wink here to antisemitic America First MAGA — because he's basically saying what Tucker really wants to say, which is that Israel ordered a hit on Charlie Kirk. He wants to give fuel to that fire that Nick Fuentes and Tucker Carlson want to stoke. So anyway, that's what he said.

Let's, before we take a break and go to the Talarico Christian assassination stuff from this week, go to this fact: Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth want $200 billion for this war in Iran. Okay, and here's Pete Hegseth explaining why we need that $200 billion.

Pete Hegseth [Clip]: I think that number could move. Obviously it takes money to kill bad guys, so we're going back to Congress and our folks there to ensure that we're properly funded — for what's been done, for what we may have to do in the future — ensure that our ammunition, everything's refilled. And not just refilled, but above and beyond. President Trump, as he said, rebuilt the military his first term. Didn't think he'd use it as dynamically in his second, but he has. So thank goodness he did that. An investment like this is meant to say: hey, we'll replace anything that was spent. And now that we're reviving our defense industrial base and rebuilding the arsenal of freedom, and cutting deals like our great deputy secretary here is doing — long lead times on exquisite munitions — we're going to be refilled faster than anyone imagined. And I think we're also still dealing with the environment that Joe Biden created, which was depleting those stockpiles and not sending them to our own military but to Ukraine. Which is why every time we reach back and look at any sort of challenge we have, it goes back to: well, send it to Ukraine. Ultimately, we think these munitions are better spent in our own interests at this point. And this kind of funding bill is going to ensure that we're properly funded going forward.

Brad: Take that out, Dan. He literally says it takes money to kill bad guys, and we're going to refill our ammunition. There are just times, man — like when you look at this Iran war and Trump, or you listen to Pete Hegseth talk, you're like: I know that these guys are narcissists. They have plans and schemes to get power. They are manipulative and smart, and their hungry-ghost-like nature for power makes them smart in a way that allows them to strategically conquer others. Like, I don't think you can just say, Donald Trump, what a stupid person — well, he's clearly conned the whole world his entire life. He is smart in ways that are insidious, crafty. And that doesn't mean he's virtuous, it doesn't mean he's wise. But you can't tell me he hasn't found ways to conquer the world with no repercussions. But there are other times when you listen to Hegseth say this — "it takes money to kill bad guys, and we're refilling our ammunition" — like it's a water bottle, like it's a gas tank. Watching this clip, I was like: this is one of the stupidest moments to be alive ever.

And I want you to comment on that. And then here's what Mother Jones — great piece, appreciate Tim Murphy, Jeremy Schulman — here's what $200 billion could get us. You ready? 2.8 million public school teacher salaries. I would love it if we just sent $200 billion to public schools. 378 years of federal public broadcasting. 500 more White House ballrooms — Donald, if you're listening, you can get a lot more of those if you want it. Four years of fully funded NIH — National Institutes of Health. 16.9 TSA budgets. 200 years of free New York City buses. 247 Consumer Financial Protection Bureaus. I know you're interested in that one, Dan. 1.4 billion pairs of floor-shine shoes for men like Marco Rubio to wear. 6.6 years of fully funded school lunches for every kid in America — not just kids who are underprivileged, but every kid. Three years of dental coverage as part of Medicare. 1.4 years' worth of annual ACA subsidies. And roughly $200 billion in medical debt — that's all the things $200 billion could get us.

I sometimes think we need to expand and not allow reductive analysis and narratives to take hold in our public sphere. And then sometimes I think there's so much information and misinformation that we have to compress. So I just want to compress something for everyone. Dan, Donald Trump is stealing from you. He is stealing your country. I know that the Republicans and MAGA and Trump want you to think that immigrants and trans people and Muslims are stealing your country. He is literally stealing your country — and I'm not saying literally in the sense of, you know, the character from Parks and Rec who doesn't know what literally means. I mean literally: they are taking your money. They are taking your taxpayer money, giving it to themselves, and using it on wars to kill others — wars that have no purpose and make no sense. They are stealing your health. They're stealing your education. They are stealing your well-being, your safety, your way of life. That is what they're doing. All right — $200 billion, Pete Hegseth. Any thoughts?

Dan: I don't think we've used this term for the Trump administration for a while, but it still holds: it's just nihilism. Like, Hegseth revels in death.

Brad: He does, man.

Dan: That's all it is. Listen — people can go and listen to everything he's ever said about the military. It's all lethality and killing. We're gonna get rid of the parts of the JAG Corps that aren't directly about giving legal cover for military operations, and just on and on. It's all lethality and killing and death and destruction — and that's what the military is supposed to be. Everything that's considered, quote-unquote, woke for him that he wants out of the military is basically everything that isn't narrowly focused on killing people. He's one of those people that probably gets super upset that you have Navy hospital ships being sent on humanitarian missions. That's this guy. And you pair that with Trump, for whom the military is just a bunch of toys. That's why he wants his parade on his birthday — just, I want to see the military go by, look at all our planes and jets. It's not real lives — ours or anybody else's. So all of that callous disregard — not just callous disregard for life but the celebration of death — that's what I'm going to say. It's just nihilism. And to take that long list of things that could be done to provide life, to provide flourishing, to make lives better for people — when we talk about the culture of life language that the right likes to use, this is a culture of death. We want $200 billion to go blow more stuff up. There's no reason for it, no rationale given for it, no end point to it. Hegseth just wants to kill people, and Trump just likes using the military and hiding from the Epstein files and the other things that this does for him. All of that just comes through in this culture of death and nihilism that I think is at the heart of the Trump administration.

Brad: I agree with you about Pete Hegseth. I think for a lot of us, it's really hard to think ourselves into the shoes of someone whose understanding of what is good and exciting — because there are people in this world like Hegseth for whom death is actually exhilarating. And I think for most of us — I'll just speak for myself — it's really hard to put myself in shoes where I'm like, going to bed at night, thinking: you know what felt great today? We just killed a lot of people. That was fun. Had a good time. Really excited about it. Enjoyed watching the videos of it. Really gory, morbid, disgusting destruction of flesh. Just really into that. Yeah, can't wait to do it again tomorrow. Like, I just — you know, you ever feel alive, Dan? You ever have moments where something feels really good — you go white water rafting or bungee jumping, or you see an old friend, or you run a marathon, or — in Dan Miller's case — you bench press like 700 pounds, or whatever it is. What you're saying about Hegseth is true, and it's actually really terrifying. And we'll get into this in a minute about why it's really terrifying. But I think that's right.

So we're going to take a break and come back and talk about Pete Hegseth's pastor. And this is a perfect segue, Dan — it's like we planned it. You know Pete Hegseth is really into death? Well, Pete's pastor, Brooks Potteiger, was on a podcast this week where he and his podcast host talked about James Talarico needing to die, and maybe that would be what God wants. We'll be right back.

Brad: This week, Brooks Potteiger — Pete Hegseth's pastor, the man who runs a church that Pete Hegseth moved his family to Tennessee in order to attend — went on Josh Haymes' podcast to talk about James Talarico, the Senate candidate from Texas who is an avowed Christian and is now an obsession of the American right, of Christian nationalists, because he has made Christianity his brand as a politician. So here is Potteiger and Haymes talking about James Talarico and why God needs to kill him.

Brooks Potteiger [Clip]: Public enemies. These are the orcs at the gate. You are not called to love the barbarian horde that is planning to break into your city and, you know, pillage, plunder, rape, and mutilate you and your people. You don't love that horde — that is your enemy. And you pray — this is where you have imprecatory Psalms. This is where you pray strongly. The Psalmist is not shy. "God, destroy them, make them as dung on the ground." Right? So — but Madison and I were talking about that, and so I say: even in the debate — I think you might have seen it, but I had on campus the other day — I pray that God kills him. Ultimately, that means killing his heart and raising him up to new life in Christ. That's the first —

Josh Haymes [Clip]: Him crucified with Christ. That's exactly right. Him to be — I think — Saul of Tarsus. Rico of Tarsus. Yes, that's what I want. Who would say, "I was holding the garments while they stoned Stephen, and now I'm the —"

Brooks Potteiger [Clip]: That's what we want. Yes, we want death and new life, right? And if it would not be within God's will to do so — stop him by any means necessary.

Brad: Oh, God. Dan — Potteiger and Haymes here basically say: we really want God to crucify him and kill him in Christ, so he will be raised from the dead, he'll be born again. Okay. But then right at the end there, Haymes is like, but — but if that doesn't happen, whatever God's will needs to do to stop him, we hope that happens. Okay?

And if you're like, well, Brad, just come on, you read into everything — you're just — okay, let me pull up the Joshua Haymes Twitter machine. December 31, 2024: "In the year of our Lord 2025, may God raise up a host of godly Christian men like Stonewall Jackson." Great. He then followed this up with: he realized that God gave Moses the law, that God gave Moses did not abolish slavery after the Exodus, the institution itself was not inherently sinful. Let's play a clip, Dan, of him saying this very thing — one we covered a few months ago.

Josh Haymes [Clip]: The institution of slavery is not inherently evil. I know some of you guys are upset by that. Some of you guys are saying, I've been saying that for years. Okay, I'll take it a step further. It is not inherently evil to own another human being. I know — just wait, some of you guys are really upset. But let's talk through this, because it is very important that every Christian affirm what I just said. And not only should they affirm it, every Christian in today's society should be able to defend what I just said. Okay, every Christian should be able to defend it. Big Eva — Big Evangelicalism — has been getting this wrong for years, basically since the advent of Big Eva. They haven't had a good answer for the slavery issue, right? Christians in America have been led astray on this topic. They've been led to believe things that the Bible doesn't teach. And when we go beyond the Bible, there are dire consequences.

Brad: He goes on to say: abortion is more wicked than slavery. There were masters who truly loved their slaves and honored their humanity. There are no babies who are thankful for being torn apart in their mother's womb. If you are pro-choice today, you would have almost certainly been pro-slavery in the 1860s.

We have reached a place where Pete Hegseth's pastor — a man with direct links to Doug Wilson, a man who has been assigned to lead a church, Brooks Potteiger, in the heart of Washington, DC, where Pete Hegseth attends church — everybody stop. This is not a fringe pastor. This is not a guy with no following. This is not a guy that I dug up to cover on this podcast so Dan and I could have some titillating material. When Pete Hegseth goes to church on Sunday, the guy you just heard on the podcast is the man preaching. Okay?

To me this is a direct outcome of a certain kind of theology. But I'll shut up, Dan — my initial reactions to this whole idea that James Talarico should be crucified, spiritually or physically if needed.

Dan: Yeah — part of what he does, it's weird. There's this kind of back and forth in his rhetoric. And as people know, I've been talking about Josh Hawley's book, and he does the same thing — the kinder, gentler version, but the same kind of thing — where you start with something in the Bible that's like: we need to be more aggressive. The Bible's not nice. God isn't always nice, like liberals think, or whatever. And so he cites what he calls the imprecatory Psalms. For people who aren't familiar, the Psalms are songs — poetry written in the Hebrew Bible. And they cover all kinds of things, but some of them are really, really dark and very violent, like celebrating God casting down people's enemies, and punishing them, and killing them in grotesque ways, and killing their children. Really pretty tough stuff to kind of square morally with a lot of other people's understanding of what Christianity is about. So he's citing the imprecatory Psalms to do this whole: God celebrates — people celebrate — the death of God's enemies. He goes, "the enemy at the gate, the orcs at the gate." He's got some weird Tolkien stuff — these guys love Tolkien.

Brad: They love Tolkien.

Dan: They love it. And so he uses that — the orcs at the gate — and again, the back and forth: we want him to be spiritually killed and raised to new life. But if not — stop him by any means necessary. And what's really, I think, telling and significant — and let me push you on this too, Brad — is that this, combined with the whole slavery clip, is just such a clear indication of what this whole movement is about. Because the slavery thing is not — I mean it's absolutely wrong, it's absolutely historically wrong, it's absolutely morally bankrupt — but it's not a quirky thing. It fits with the whole worldview. It fits with a world in which the strong have authority over the weak, in which you can be — and again, the language they use is often about who is chosen and who is not chosen, who God has elevated and who God has subjugated. And so in that framework, you know — the person that God has not elevated, that God has subjugated, that God has made a servant? Yeah, okay, we can take that person and they can serve us. And it's the same idea: the orcs at the gate, the people God has given over to evil and wickedness? Yeah, we can kill them. And so it all fits together. These aren't separate things. It's really one coherent worldview, even if it kind of comes out in these pieces.

Brad: If you think that this is isolated, it's not. So here is a direct quote. "Worship is warfare." That's Jared Longshore, the executive pastor of Christ Kirk — Doug Wilson's church in Idaho — and he said this from the pulpit of their church plant in Washington, DC, likely with Pete Hegseth in attendance, because that is where Pete Hegseth goes to church every Sunday. So: worship is warfare.

Now, why is this a big deal to me? It's a big deal to me for a number of reasons. But I agree with everything you just said. There's this wink-wink, nod-nod. It's like when the fascist is like, "Oh, I was just kidding. I was just joking. It was a joke. Trump was joking." No, no, no. "Elon didn't really give a Nazi salute. Gosh, you guys are ridiculous. You guys have no sense of humor." Okay? But just like you hit on something, Dan, I think is such a through line for today: Hegseth likes violence and death. And there's a sense among this crowd of Christian nationalists that just loves violence. Doug Wilson talks about violence as sacred. It's like a man's duty to engage in what he calls sacred violence.

One of the things I've maintained for a long time — and so has Matthew Taylor, if you listen to Matt Taylor — Charismatic Revival Fury — if you read his book or any of his work, he's really great on this — when you emphasize spiritual warfare over and over and over again: "Oh, this is demonic. Oh, that's demonic. Oh, that's a spiritual assault, that's a spiritual battle, there are demons, there are enemies of God, there are bad spirits here." These guys talk about that all the time. Everybody in the Doug Wilson universe, along with the New Apostolic Reformation universe, is very into spiritual warfare. We have to pray out the demons. C. Jay Engel, one of the other guys in this universe, talks about how Halloween literally unleashes demons on the earth because so many people dress up and engage in scary costumes. And I mean, I have no idea what he would say, Dan, if he saw a picture of you going to one of your metal concerts. Because they really think and advocate for this idea that we are always in warfare.

One of the spiritual heads, the progenitor of this tradition — R.J. Rushdoony — said that he thinks all theology is warfare: either human thought recognizes God's sovereignty or it does not. That's Michael McVicar, his biographer, writing about R.J. Rushdoony.

Here's my point. I think it's a point we've made on the show a bunch of times, but it's worth making again today. When you talk about your political or cultural nemeses as demonic — when you treat them as orcs, when you treat them as enemies of God who have been spiritually possessed by different demons — you are really, really, really at the razor's edge of advocating for them being hurt or killed in actual warfare. You're just one step away. Okay? So if you listen to the Christian nationalists, you will hear Erika Kirktalk about things that are demonic. Oh, that's such a demonic thing. She'll talk about that with people on the American left.

I saw an interview with Candace Cameron Bure — this is really sad, Dan. Do you know how sad my life is? This is my algorithm. Candace Cameron Bure is the Christian actor, the sister of Kirk Cameron, you know, Growing Pains — anyway, they're very Christian. And she went on a podcast recently and told the host, "Oh yeah, my husband and I got tricked into going to an SM party."

Dan: Sure, you did.

Brad: I love this story so much. It's like, oh, Josie called and said she wanted to go get a Shake Shack. You know, we ended up in a dungeon, orgies everywhere. It was just not what I really planned for our Thursday. But she says in this interview, oh, I went down to this dungeon, and there were people doing things, and it was just demonic. Okay? And don't get me wrong — I have no idea what she saw. I hope no one was being abused or hurt in ways that they — blah blah blah. But when you talk about people as demonic, you're justifying treating them as not human. Let me say that again: when you say somebody is demonic, you're justifying treating them as not human. And if you don't have to treat them as human, then you can say: well, it's okay if they get hurt or killed or maimed. As Pete Hegseth is like, give me $200 billion, I just want to kill as many people as I can, because that's what God wants.

And in this case, with Talarico — these guys are like, well, he's an enemy. He's God's enemy. He's clearly God's enemy. So we hope that he spiritually dies and is crucified and is born again. But if that doesn't happen — well, we'll see. Maybe God has to stop him another way. Who else does that apply to, Josh Haymes? Who else does it apply to? Does that apply to every immigrant trying to cross the border? Every person who's fleeing violence in their home country, who is trying to get asylum? Every refugee who has to leave a place because the US was involved in a war there and made their life insecure? Every person who advocates for abortion or gets an abortion? Every person who doesn't worship your God in the way you want? Talarico is a Christian, and you still want this to happen to him. What about Mamdani? What about Buddhists, Hindus? What about people who don't worship any god?

Like, this rhetoric leads there. It goes from: "Oh yeah, maybe God needs to stop him — wink, wink" — clever mustache guy on a podcast — and then it goes to — if you see Josh Haymes, he looks like a hipster from 2012. Like, you know his closet has a suspender corner. Like, he doesn't —

Dan: There's no way he's not wearing pattern socks.

Brad: No, yeah, there's pattern socks. And then there's definitely a whole section of the closet for the suspenders. It's not just that he has a pair — it's like — okay. He only drinks out of Mason jars. Anyway, it's okay, whatever.

Dan: Oh, the memories, Brad.

Brad: The memories. I only drink Moscow Mules, and I only drink them out of Mason jars. Okay? This rhetoric goes from "oh yeah, maybe God needs to stop Talarico — wink, wink" — to: maybe God needs to stop Muslims and Jews, atheists, women who get abortions, refugees, everyone who's against God's chosen people, all the orcs at the gate. Anyway, Dan — further thoughts on this.

Dan: Well, just — if you come further down: so you've got the leading lights, the main figures in this, and they talk about the spiritual warfare and so forth. And I can hear somebody saying, okay, I get it, I hear it, they talk about that, it's scary, it's bad, whatever. But not everybody out in the audience actually takes it that way, or not every church that talks about spiritual warfare is being this kind of militant or literalistic about it or whatever. And I've talked to my brother-in-law who uses this language, and I've said, you know, do you really think this? He's like, you know, at the end of the day it's a metaphor. It's a way of speaking. Of course I don't hate people, of course I don't want to exercise violence against them. And you'll hear that kind of dismissal — it's just a figure of speech, or it's just, you know, I'm just using biblical language.

And the trick that's always there is: okay, but — why that metaphor? Why not some other way of viewing the people you disagree with? We don't call them our debate opponents. We don't call them the competitors on the opposing team or something like that. I'm a football fan, and teams can really hate each other — they don't usually call each other demons or orcs or whatever. They recognize that they're the opponent, but they don't have to hate them or dehumanize them.

I think it's really significant, because it's easy for people to take the critique you're making — which I completely agree with — of people who use this language, and kind of box it off and say: well, yeah, those people are extremists, but the Bible uses the language of spiritual warfare. When regular people do that, they're not saying that. They're just using a biblical metaphor that helps them express something spiritual. And that's my point: the metaphor still matters. Why that metaphor? Why that image? Why not something else? I don't know how many times in my life I've heard "it's in the Bible" as a justification for the metaphor. But it's in the Bible — cool. Start reading a different book. Find a different metaphor. Do something else. The metaphor sucks — unless you want to revel in violence and dehumanize people and legitimize their death and destruction and make that a part of your spiritual vision. Which is exactly what these folks want to do.

Brad: Well, I want to bring in something that may feel like it's going afield, but I actually think it's directly related to this theme today — of we are led right now by men who revel in violence. Not in democratic dialogue, not in negotiation, not in working together, not in trying to help when they can. Rand Paul went directly at Markwayne Mullin in his Senate confirmation hearing this week about the fact that Markwayne Mullin challenged people to violence in the Senate chamber — which we've talked about on this show already — but Markwayne Mullin also talked about how, when Rand Paul was hurt and beat up by his neighbor, Mullin said it was great, basically laughed at Rand Paul and made fun of him. And Rand Paul was like, I'm sitting right here, say it to my face. And Mullin was like, this is character assassination. And Rand Paul's like, I'm just reading your words.

But what's the point? Rand Paul's comments on Markwayne Mullin as the leader of DHS are: we cannot have a man leading ICE agents who thinks there is no check on violence. How can you ask ICE agents to act appropriately with people? How can you ask law enforcement to not use excessive force, to not shoot people in their car through a window, when you have the man in charge of DHS who is challenging people to fights in the Senate chamber? There's no way to have functioning law enforcement with this. But this is who's in charge. Pete Hegseth: "it takes money to kill bad guys." His pastor goes on a podcast where the host is like, James Talarico may need to die. Kash Patel is like, there's a historic opportunity for our FBI to be trained by UFC fighters. Yeah. Okay, yay. Like — this is who we are led by. They're stealing from you, and they have no interest in anything but, if you disagree with them, violence is the answer. That is where we are at this moment. I just want to make sure we all see that. This is a pattern.

Markwayne Mullin, Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump, Kash Patel — this is what this administration wants to do. So all right. Let me give you just a couple more quotes. I want to drive home this point and then I'll leave it alone.

Andrew Isker — also part of this whole kind of Theo-bro world — says: "You must learn what to hate." Direct quote. Joel Webbon, another part of the Doug Wilson universe, the Josh Haymes universe — they hang out together — says: "I want Christians to have power, and with that power I want it to be wielded righteously. What does that mean? It means crushing our enemies and rewarding our friends."

C. Jay Engel, who also hangs out with them, goes back to the whole Jewish question: "The Jews as a collective have largely operated at odds with the old American way of life, rooted as it is in European Christendom." European Christendom — meaning the way of life where Muslims and Jews and infidels and barbarians were seen as an enemy that needed to be approached with violence. That's where we are.

Okay, let's take a break. We'll come back and talk about the Christian nationalism piece at the Atlantic that I talked about earlier this week. We'll let Dan chime in and really reflect on why it matters. Be right back.

Brad: All right, Dan — can I throw something at you that we did not prepare for?

Dan: Yes, throw away.

Brad: I've got to get it out of my system. One of the things the American right is obsessed about right now is a quote from James Talarico where he said, "God is non-binary." Okay? And I just want everyone out there to have the tools to respond to that at the barbecue this weekend. So when somebody's like, well, James Talarico says God's non-binary — come on, bro — I want you to look that person in the face and say: please describe for me God's penis. I would, can you draw God's — I would really, really appreciate that. And when they're like, come on, man, quit being gross, that's God you're talking about — then ask them: what is a man? Well, a man has an X and Y chromosome, okay? Does God the Father have that? Yes or no? Okay. Do men have a penis? They do. Then show me in the Bible where God's penis is described. Please draw it for me, because I'd love to understand how God's penis works. There are descriptions of God's face. There are descriptions of God's hands in Exodus. But there's no description of God's penis. So are those metaphors or not? How come his hands and his head are described? I mean, are you saying God's a man with no penis? That's weird — because I've looked in the Bible and found no descriptions of the penis. Can anyone either show me that, or just tell me that God is a man with no penis — which sounds like not a man, not a real man as you would describe it. Or maybe we just need to get away from the fact that God is male, and this whole thing. What do y'all think? Either God has a penis and you can't find it, God has no penis and is not a real man — or this whole thing is silly, and you're just an insecure little masculine baby who can't deal with the idea that maybe the divine gender doesn't align with yours. Okay. I got it out, Dan. If you want to respond, go ahead. Otherwise, let's just take a moment in brief reflection, quiet time, and reset.

Dan: I mean, you can go that direction. You can also go — even with the other language, "God's hands" — you're like, well, God is everywhere. God's doing things everywhere all the time. So like, how many hands does God have? How anthropomorphic do we even want to make God?

Brad: Do they not end? Like, are they infinite hands?

Dan: Yeah. What kind of hands would be infinite? If you're gonna have this humanoid description of God — I can't do everything with my hands; I only have two. I don't know how many humans typically have. Like, as you're saying, you'd need an infinite number of hands to be omnipresent, doing things everywhere. If that's true, then I don't know how many penises God has to have to be, like, symmetrical and so forth. The point is it's absolutely absurd. And that's the point — people get so worked up on these things, but if you probe it just a little they're like, oh, I don't know. And then they'll just default to whatever their standard position is.

Brad: Are God's hands everywhere? Yes or no?

Dan: Yes.

Brad: So God's hands are everywhere.

Dan: Start sounding like a Hindu deity, Brad. Yeah, that's true. This is getting —

Brad: Yeah, this is getting pantheistic now. Do you just say pansexual? I don't think so, dude. Nope. It's not what I said. Jimmy — all right. Comment down, James: are God's hands everywhere? Yes or no?

Dan: Yes.

Brad: Great. Is his penis everywhere? Is God's penis here right now? Can you show me where it is? Is it guiding our meal? Is it leading this prayer time? I just want to know what's involved, what parts of God's body are involved in the prayer time today. Jimmy: his hands, his heart, his head, his testicles, his anus — I'm just trying to figure it out. Please. Okay. I just want to know. That's the rectum — is that somewhere? Okay. All right. I'm done, Dan. I'm sorry.

Dan: Remember that whole seminary class on God's anus? I don't — either. It's — never mind. Never mind. Yep. That's what we were supposed to talk about.

Brad: That's okay. About ten or twelve days ago, Heath Carter wrote a piece in the Atlantic about Christian nationalism, and it was about how Americans should stop using the term Christian nationalism. I did a whole episode about this earlier this week. I've heard from a lot of people about that episode. It stirred up a lot of interest.

I want to recognize from the start: Heath Carter is an American historian who has done a lot of great work in the field. This is not a chance for us to make fun of Heath Carter or to personally attack him. I have no interest in that. I don't know Heath Carter. I've never met him. I have interacted with him at times on social media and in other professional contexts. I'm not here to talk about Heath Carter in a personally denigrating manner. This is a purely intellectual situation where I highly and vehemently disagree with what he wrote. But I want to give Dan a chance to chime in. So I'll summarize the piece, and then you take it away.

Basically, Carter says that James Talarico and others from American history are also Christian nationalists, because they dream of a more Christian nation and they are Christians who want power. There are suggestions in the piece that people like Frederick Douglass or Walter Rauschenbusch, or any Christian who wants to build a society that more resembles what they would take to be a Christian society, are also Christian nationalists. Therefore, Christian nationalism as a label does not make any sense, and everyone should stop using it. To me, there are lines in the piece that are somewhat mocking of Talarico — like, he says it verges on irony that Talarico is still against Christian nationalism when he's a Christian who wants to have power as a senator. I have said my piece about this. I have way more thoughts, but I'll defer to you. You take it away. What did you think of this?

Dan: I want to reiterate what you said: this is not any kind of criticism against Carter as a person. I don't think I've ever met Heath Carter or engaged with him. But I think it's a really problematic thesis. There are a few fallacies going on here.

And I just wrote this as you were talking — I didn't even have this in my notes — it'd be interesting to hear a definition of what he thinks nationalism is, just nationalism, because everybody who runs for political office is not a nationalist. Desiring to hold political office does not make you a nationalist. You need more than just that. So saying a person is a Christian and wants political power, ergo they're a Christian nationalist — that doesn't fly.

But I think another part of the thesis is this sense that — and he's not unique in this — the logic he uses here is the same in some ways as some of the super right-wing Christian nationalists, where they'll come along and say: well, Christian nationalism isn't a thing. It's just that you're trying to tell people they shouldn't bring their faith into the public sphere, and if they do, you denigrate them, you bunch of secularist elites. You're just trying to mock people or keep them out of the public sphere if they vote their conscience or bring their Christian morality or whatever. Allie Beth Stuckey says that. Charlie Kirk says that. And Carter kind of says the same thing. And I think it just doesn't line up.

He also does this thing that's sort of interesting, where he's basically saying every committed Christian in American history who engaged in politics or social activism out of their Christian identity is somehow a Christian nationalist. I think that's the claim. And I just think it's far too broad a concept of Christian nationalism — it then has no bounds or coherence at all.

He also seems to oppose qualifiers. Like, he'll talk about how, on some measures — this is true on some survey data around beliefs that people might have about America and its Christian heritage — lots of African American Christians will answer some of the same things that lots of white Christians will. And then he'll do things that I would do — and say, okay, let's talk about white Christian nationalism then. Except he dismisses that. He's like, well, that's just adding a qualifier. But I'm like — okay, you know your American religious history. The bifurcation of white Christianity and Black Christianity in this country goes all the way back to before the founding. It's a fundamental defining feature of American Christianity, how it has been racialized literally since the origins of the nation. So yeah, if you want to distinguish it and say contemporary white Christian nationalism, I've got no problem with the qualifications.

So he does that weird thing that sometimes people do where they're like, you can't use the term Christian nationalist, it's too big. And you're like, okay, how about contemporary white Christian nationalism? Oh, well, why are you qualifying it? I'm like, well, I'm qualifying it because you just said there could be other forms of Christian nationalism that I should be aware of. So there's that sort of move.

But then what he highlights are some other things that I think just historically don't do the work he needs them to do. This gets back around to concepts like nationalism, populism, and so forth. So he talks about what were known as the people who advocated the Social Gospel — say, late 19th century into the early 20th century. He notes the Federal Council of Churches and how they supported the New Deal. And he basically says these were sort of more politically left Christian nationalists.

And I disagree with him, and here's why. Number one: the Federal Council of Churches and its later successor, the National Council of Churches — these were what were known as modernists, what would now be known as liberal Protestants. They were much more ecumenical. They were willing to work with Jewish Americans. They were willing to work with progressives who were not Christian or who didn't identify as Christian. They were very eclectic in their alliances — not defined by a narrow Christian identity. And so if somebody says part of what makes Christian nationalism Christian nationalism is: you're not a real American if you're not Christian — that was absolutely not the position they were advocating. And many of them were explicit that God didn't have a nation, God didn't play favorites with nations, that the kingdom of God as they envisioned it was transnational, that it transcended all forms of nations. So how do you have a nationalism that is simultaneously a transnationalism saying there's no such thing as a nation, God doesn't play favorites with nations?

At the same time, Christian conservatives at the time opposed the Federal Council of Churches — for exactly that reason. They were too open, too ecumenical. They felt they were giving up their Christian identity. It's the same reason why conservative Catholics and conservative Protestants who drive white Christian nationalism at present have always hated the National Council of Churches. They say it's not Christian enough. It doesn't maintain its Christian identity. It's too broad. So I think all of those things just undermine this notion that everybody who acts out of Christian values in the public sphere is somehow a Christian nationalist.

Partly because I think it is different to say: I, as a Christian, have a vision of what a good and just society would be, and I'm going to try to make my society look like that — versus saying this is a nation that God has chosen, and only Christians can be part of it. And then you get the nationalist, populist piece of it. And I think there's a difference between populism — which I've talked about a lot — which is about exclusively defining who the real people are, about excluding and marginalizing others — and a form of popular Christianity which was about expanding the services of government, expanding and helping those they would say are the least of these, the poor, the oppressed, and the downtrodden. Absolutely not in a nationalistic or populistic way like contemporary Christian nationalism. So I think it's a real distinction. It's an overbroad thesis to say that all Christians who are engaged in politics are Christian nationalists.

Brad: Here's why this got under my skin so much. And I don't think Heath Carter intended this, but I do think it is happening: Allie Beth Stuckey, William Wolfe, vehement Christian nationalists on the right, are using this tactic — hey, James Talarico is just a Christian nationalist on the left, he's more Christian nationalist than us but nobody calls him that because liberal media. And when you read Carter's piece, you basically get the same sentiment. And that's really not helpful in the current setting. I'm not saying Heath Carter meant to do that, and I'm not saying he has any sympathy for those people. I'm just saying that's what happened here.

Here's why we can — I could pick this apart for three more hours. But here's what really matters at the end of our episode today. James Talarico is a Christian who does not believe a couple of things. You ready? Here's a couple of things I do not think he believes — I can't speak for him, but examining so much of his statements, here's what I've taken away. He does not think you need to be a Christian to be a real American. He does not think you need to be a Christian to be a good person. And he does not think there should be a distinction in the ways that Christians love and care for and treat others depending on whether they are Christian or not. Meaning: if you elect him as senator, he does not think you need to be a Christian to be a real American, and he's not going to treat you differently because you're not a Christian.

That is the exact opposite of all the other Christian folks we've talked about today. They say: if you're not a Christian, you can't be a good person, you can't be a real American, and we might need to punish you — or you might need to die, according to what we talked about earlier.

The Democrats cannot win — and I know some of you are atheists and agnostics and humanists out there, and I hope you'll hear me for a minute. We have too many Christians in this country, just de facto. I'm just describing reality. The Democratic Party cannot win unless it appeals to people of faith. I'm sorry. Doug Pagitt came on the show and we disagreed on some stuff, but I think Doug is absolutely right about that. The Democrats don't have religious groups at their convention. They don't have booths. If you go to the RNC, they're everywhere.

Brad: I would argue James Talarico is the only national-profile Democrat in decades whose brand is Christianity. Dan, I don't know if you agree with that. I'm not saying he's the only Christian Democrat — so don't, don't email me. I will not answer that email. Joe Biden: Christian. Pete Buttigieg: Christian. Raphael Warnock: Christian. All Christians. Yes. But their brand is not Christianity — their brand is something else. Talarico is different because that's his brand. And you might be like, well, I'm a humanist, I'm an atheist, I don't want to vote for a Christian. And it's like — okay, then what are we doing? This is a democracy. I have a really complicated history with Christianity. I want to vote for people who think that we can work together to create human flourishing. I want to vote for atheists, agnostics, humanists. I want to vote for Hindus and Muslims, Buddhists and Christians. That's what it means to live here. So if we're not going to do that, then I don't know what we're doing.

And if this is the guy that's running on this kind of ticket, and he's able to do something — Dan, I think you and I can sympathize with so much — which is to use theological language to destroy the arguments of his Christian opponents. Like Biden rarely takes on other Christians using theology. Buttigieg is really good rhetorically, but it's usually about transportation or budgets. When Talarico speaks, he's like, here's why, from a Christian theological perspective, posting the Ten Commandments on the classroom wall is unchristian. And it's really hard to argue with him because he's so theologically astute. We haven't seen that in forever. Dan, right?

So when Heath Carter published this, I was like: this doesn't help. And one of the things I think folks outside of the Northeast Ivy League bubble need to realize is — when the Atlantic is seen as like a sweater-vest bow-tie magazine by most people, and Princeton is seen as a sweater-vest bow-tie university filled with WASPs — when you write stuff like this, it feels like you're looking down on the rest of us as the hoi polloi masses who are trying to do what we can with what we've got. And Talarico is not Mr. Dead Handsome Rolled-Up-My-Sleeves Beto. You know, he's not dripping with sex appeal — Beto, I don't know. Maybe that's just me. I'm like revealing how I feel about Beto. I don't know. He's like a Jimmy Carter. You ever look at a picture of Jimmy Carter and James Talarico side by side? They look alike. He looks like his son. It's kind of — I don't know if he's done 23andMe, but it's weird. He kind of talks like Mr. Rogers, and somehow he's the Texas Dem Senate candidate. This is what we've got. Why are we writing this stuff that doesn't help? Anyway, that's why it got under my skin. Any more thoughts, or do you want to go to reasons for hope?

Dan: I will say the one point that Carter makes that I broadly agree with is that there is a segment — and in some places a significant segment — of people on the left, or a certain kind of intelligentsia, that are overly dismissive of anything religious. They have concluded that religion is always oppressive, that people who are religious are always ignorant people, or whatever. And it's not true, and it's also not helpful. I think that's a point worth holding on to. I don't think that means that every Christian who engages in politics is a Christian nationalist — that just doesn't work. And again, I absolutely agree: I cannot imagine that Heath Carter is like, oh, I hope this gets picked up by people on the far right. But it's the kind of thing that will get cited by somebody when they want to look academic.

Brad:William Wolfe retweeted it.

Dan: I saw him. Here's what the Princeton professor said — because they're all anti-Ivy League, until somebody at the Ivy League says something they like or can use. And then they'll cash in on that.

I think one last point about this, and then I'll get to my reason for hope. Carter also makes this point, and it's one of those points I don't actually know what it achieves: he says, you know, you're not really upset about Christian nationalism — you're just upset about a certain kind of Christian nationalism. To which I'll say: happily, yes. Cool. All right, let's say Walter Rauschenbusch is a Christian nationalist. We want to call him a Christian nationalist — okay. I would rather have that kind of Christianity than whatever is peddled by all the other people we've been talking about for the last hour. I'm not sure what that criticism is really supposed to do, unless it's some sort of weird both-and kind of thing. Like, these are Christians and you'd say you don't hate all Christians, you have to have room for everybody — nope. I don't. And I think that's another problematic element of the piece.

My reason for hope comes from the state of Washington, Brad, which passed a law banning law enforcement face coverings. This was significant. California tried to do this recently and it got blocked in court — but the reason it got blocked was that it specifically targeted federal law enforcement, and the judge said it was essentially discriminatory, that you couldn't single out federal law enforcement. Most people read that as a pathway to saying: okay, we're just going to ban face coverings of all law enforcement at all levels. And that's what Washington did. Several other states have similar legislation in the works at various stages toward passage. This is obviously aimed at ICE and its tactics, and I thought that was great to see happen. We've been waiting to see where it would happen after the California law was blocked, because it was only a matter of time before it passed somewhere else.

Brad: We got a bunch of great reasons for hope in our Discord. Nathan put in one about a week ago: Indiana judge says state's abortion ban violates religious freedom. Yep, that's great. One from Dawson: the federal appeals court upholds the injunction against Montana's drag ban. So there was a drag ban in Montana and the federal appeals court said, nope. This is just from earlier this week. The last protester in immigration detention after Trump's campus crackdown — a Palestinian woman — was released. And so that is good news.

And there's one that I love, and this is going to feel silly, but I just do love it. Zyal put this in our Discord: kids in hospital help penguins woo mates with painted pebbles. So kids in the hospital are painting pebbles, and it's part of like penguin Twitter — patients falling in love. It's springtime. Everyone needs to fall in love in springtime, including penguins, and that's fun.

So all right, y'all — I need you to do a couple of things. One is subscribe to our newsletter, and in that newsletter you'll get our Sunday Interview in print form, shout-outs to new members, Discord comments of the week, and ways to connect with us. And one way you can connect with us is on March 31 — our next bonus episode recording — 7:15 Eastern. Dan and I are going to break down the new Louis Theroux documentary into the manosphere, which is on Netflix. So go watch that. You will be horrified. You'll need to take a shower. You'll need to drink some whiskey. You should probably go get a Shamrock Shake from McDonald's and try to reset your equilibrium. Once you do a cryo chamber and a hyperbaric chamber and a sauna, you'll be ready for normal. Go watch it and then hang out with us. If you're a subscriber, March 31, 7:15 Eastern — we're going to break it down and take questions. You'll see other ways to connect with us, office hours and other events that are coming up. Check it out. You'll also see what's going on across Axis Mundi Media and some other things.

I need you to tell the YouTube people in your life to go subscribe to our YouTube channel. You might have people who don't listen to podcasts — we are on YouTube. Tell them to go find us. You can see Dan's amazing t-shirt collection. You can see how big my head is in person and how it barely sometimes —

Dan: They can see my state mugs, Brad. Yeah, exactly. All the things that Brad loves — my t-shirts, my mugs — they're all on display.

Brad: And I need you to subscribe to Reign of Error, which just finished its first season on Axis Mundi Media and is going to be starting again as soon as possible — so go check that out in the show notes. Appreciate you all. Thanks for being here. Have a good day.

Dan: Thanks, Brad.