Tuesday, October 20, 2026

(upbeat music) It's Tuesday, October 20, 2026. I'm Albert Mulder, and this is the briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. There are certain decisions that can only be made by a president of the United States. And sometimes there are certain announcements that can only be, say, clarified or reversed by a president of the United States. So the headline that ran in the Wall Street Journal was this Trump cancels plans to live stream execution of Fort Hood shooter. Now, I think that's a big story. I discussed it back when this was a proposal, when the announcement was made, Secretary of Defense, or Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, had indicated not only that this would be an execution by firing squad, but that it would be live streamed. And he spoke of a deterrent effect. Of course, there's more to it than that. And that's why at the time I pointed out that one of the most severe issues of moral conscience when it comes to the death penalty, which I think is absolutely supportable. In other words, I think capital punishment's absolutely right. I would go back to Genesis 9 saying that for a premeditated murder, it's actually biblically mandated. And it needs to be effective. It also needs to be respectful. It needs to be formal. It is a very grave act. It is the ultimate human sanction when it comes to the death penalty. It needs to be taken with solemnity. And when you look at live streaming and you look at video and modern social media, and frankly, when you even look at what Americans enemies would do with this, you come to understand this is a very mixed picture. So I want to express appreciation. I think President Trump did exactly the right thing and making very clear, it's his decision and his decision is that the execution will go forward and it will go forward with the use of a firing squad, but it will not go forward live streamed. And I just want to say sometimes, people I think get to the right place, but I also want to say on some big moral issues like this, it takes a while for people to think through the issues. And when it comes to something like this, and the graphic nature of a public execution, and for that matter, it's not just public execution, in terms of people physically present, it will be a public execution broadcast by live streaming to the world, there is an understanding that the abuse is more likely to outweigh the use or the usefulness, the moral usefulness of such an event, of such a broadcast, so to speak. It's also just manifestly true that the enemies of the United States in the Muslim world, in the Arab world, they would use that in order to further the Islamist agenda. And in order to point out that the United States is the great Satan right down to a man being executed by a firing squad with international broadcast, streaming broadcast in order to make the point. My point is this, I think Christians need to focus on the rightness of capital punishment when it comes to a justice system and understanding the gravity of capital murder. But we also need to understand that government rightly conducting the rule of law has to also follow a certain salimnity and seriousness, even formality when it comes to something like this, precisely because it is a state operating by the rule of law. But next, thinking about and speaking about the rule of law, I want to cross the Atlantic and go to France because what we're seeing right there, right in that country is the breakdown of the rule of law. So if you're looking for the breakdown of the rule of law, what do you look for? Do you look for that to break down in the courtroom? No, in this case, it breaks down with the burning of a courthouse. In this case, the city hall of Limoges in France, very famous, of course, for its porcelain. But right now, infamous because the 19th century town hall was burned down by a mob. Now, here's where things also get very interesting. When you see the mainstream media, say, who's in the mob? But this is also where we need to note that the mainstream media, the establishment media, that lean typically to the left, they are beginning to acknowledge that this is not just your run-of-the-mill student protest. This is not just a bunch of high school students upset about a failure of funding for their academic programs and their hot classrooms and all the rest. This is now becoming something that threatens the disintegration of the entire society. So when I talked about this a few days ago, I went through the successive different constitutional regimes that had been in place in France ever since the French Revolution. This is now the fifth republic that is to say, the fifth major constitutional order. And when you think of France, I think if we had just said, well, let's look at this four or five years ago, people would have said, well, that's a remarkable stability over time, but we got to specify what we mean by over time because you talk about the American constitutional order over time, that's now over two centuries. You talk about the French fifth republic we're talking about just over a half a century, just less than a century of age. And already, it's very much under subversive attack. And you can see that that's what this is when you see riots. And by the way, we talked about the fact that in France, riots are a part of the political vocabulary, but not at this extent, not when you're talking about burning city halls in major historic French cities. You're talking about a loss of control. And this also points to something else. In France, you have a separation of the head of state and the head of government. The head of state is by the Constitution of France, the president of France. But the chief of the government in terms of the operation is actually the prime minister who operates, especially through the National Assembly. And you look at all this and you say, well, whatever you want to call it, this is a constitutional crisis, there are huge questions about why President Macron is not more active in this. And one of the things it points out is that he's coming to the end of his second term, and he's really coming to the end of his political tether. Frankly, just a matter of say four or five years ago, the entire nation would have been asking what's President Macron going to do. That is no longer the operative question. The entire political future of France is now very much in question. And it is not untrue that high school students have been very much a part of these protests. It is to say that now you're really talking about the French political left in the driver's seat and with a far more radical agenda. French national elections are coming up. And by the way, the French left is trying to do its best to destabilize the entire society, hoping this will be to their political gain. I can simply say we hope not. Those who believe in civic order and in the rule of law have to hope that the far left in terms of this kind of violent agitation is not going to gain the political initiative much less the political authority there in France. But at this point, I think it's safe to say that the continuation and the stability of the current French constitutional order is in question. And thus we're looking at much of Europe, not to mention North America in some ways, but at least much of Europe now being in a time of political and perhaps even constitutional turmoil. This is an unexpected development in the 21st century, pointing out that at least this much is clear, human beings are not very good at predicting the future. We'll be tracking this with you, but it now becomes clear this isn't becoming less a story every day if anything is becoming even more of a story, not only of national concern in France, but of international concern as well. All right, talking about big news stories, I want to come back to the United States. As you know, we have the midterm elections coming up in just a matter of days, just a little over two weeks now. And this is a big development because it's going to have a great deal to do with the political future of the United States. And it's going to have a great deal to do with what the United States Congress and both the House and the Senate is going to look like after the first of the year because the elections will determine that and we are going to be off to the races with a new political equation. And yet at the same time when you look at these elections, there are certain of these electoral contests that certainly stand out. We need to look back and say what in the world's going on here. So I want to point to something and I'm going to look at one newspaper as kind of the evidence of what's going on here that newspapers the Washington Post. So that is the most influential newspaper in the nation's capital. It's a newspaper that really gained in political influence during the second half of the 20th century. And thus when you say the Washington Post right now, you're talking about insider reporting inside the Beltway, as they say in Washington, DC. Okay, so there were two major pieces that ran in the Washington Posts within just a very close proximity. On October the 16th, columnist Mark A. Theson wrote a piece entitled The Stealth Candidacy of Abdul Al-Saheed. Then just three days later, October the 18th. So we're talking about Sunday, the same paper ran a piece by Aaron Cox with a headline, Al-Saheed's Exchange over Muslim Brotherhoodsters, Inspiration, comma, condemnation. Okay, so let's go back to the first one. October the 16th, that's just a few days ago. The columnist is making a very clear point. It is a stealth candidacy. And Theson writes this quote, Abdul Al-Saheed is not who he says he is. The U.S. Senate candidate wants Michigan voters to believe that he is a conventional progressive Democrat with no ties or sympathies for Islamic radicalism. The opposite is true. Al-Saheed is a radical leftist whose campaign serves as a Trojan horse for a red-green alliance of Marxist and Islamist seeking power in Washington. Okay, just step back for a moment. That is a lead for this article of amazing candor. It's just astoundingly clear. He's accusing the Senate candidate of running a stealth candidacy, saying that in truth, he's not a conventional progressive Democrat. He instead is a radical leftist whose campaign serves. Here's his term as a Trojan horse. He is instead a radical leftist whose again, red-green alliance as Marxist and Islamist is all about seeking power in Washington. Now, if you're going to make a statement like that, you're going to need to back it up. And in this case, the columnist did quote, "When an Islamist terrorist attacked Temple Israel in West Blinkfield, Michigan, and what the FBI called a Hezbollah-inspired act of terrorism, purposefully targeting the Jewish community and the largest Jewish temple in Michigan, Al-Saheed rationalized the attack, pointing out that the perpetrator had lost family and his regularly. strike in Lebanon and that here's that term that's coming back to haunt him. The phrase hurt people hurt people. L. Syee later said quote to anyone who feels like my comments might have been hurtful. I'm really sorry saying that there wasn't the time for context as as Theson says as if a terrorist attack on a synagogue could be justified by any context much less one targeting American Jews and retaliation for Israeli actions. End quote. Also writes about the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and and that's the Iranian Supreme Leader who was killed in the joint effort undertaken earlier this year by the United States in Israel. And Theson describes Khamenei as quote a man with the blood of thousands of Americans on his hands. And al-Saheed well he advised campaign staff that quote there are a lot of people in Dearborn who are sad today sad over the death of the Iranian Supreme Leader who was the avowed enemy of the United States of America. You know a part of he looks at this and says how in the world can we be in this predicament? How in the world can this be a reality? How in the world can the Washington Post run a piece like this with documented statements from this democratic candidate and still you have mainstream Democrats campaigning with him and saying he is a model of the future of the Democratic Party. Theson goes on mentioning his ties to Hassan Piker and others quote here's very crucial words al-Saheed also has not condemned the Muslim Brotherhood branches of which have been designated terror organizations by the United States. In 2011 he wrote an op-ed in the Huffington Post dismissing fears that a Muslim Brotherhood takeover in Egypt would usher in a homostyle islamist dictatorship as foolish. And then Theson writes quote when Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt leader Muhammad Morsi became President he sidelined the judiciary a mass authoritarian powers cracked down on the press cited up to Iran and Hamas prompting a popular uprising against the regime. Okay so the Muslim Brotherhood came up just a few days ago on an episode of meat the press and here we are told he was asked twice al-Saheed was asked twice whether he or his family has any ties to the Muslim Brotherhood he said no twice but then the Washington Post article says this quote but his half sister a university of Chicago professor said on X in 2012 that their family has quote long been imbi is in Muslim Brotherhood and a year later noted that some relatives have been jailed in Egypt for activism in the group. Okay so I said there are two articles there's a second article this is the one with a headline just three days later al-Saheeds exchange over Muslim Brotherhood stirs inspiration condemnation Aaron Cox is the reporter listen to this quote at a Senate campaign event in a red leaning Michigan county this weekend a young man asked Democrat Abdul al-Saheed if he would disavow the Muslim Brotherhood yeah sure absolutely he replied why are you asking the question end quote well what I just said before from an article that ran three days earlier in the same newspaper explains why he's being asked the question and why quite frankly dismissing it as he did is another sign of huge huge trouble. The Theson piece also goes further pointing out that al-Saheeds father-in-law quote serves on the founders committee of the Islamic Society of North America a group that former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy wrote in 2010 have been named by the Muslim Brotherhood as a partner in his grand jihad and had a joint bank account that was used to funnel money to Hamas again I say had a joint bank account that was used to funnel money to Hamas that's just astounding these and goes on quote in 2009 a federal judge ruled that there was ample evidence of an association between this group and Hamas and then you also have just further documentation here of what is called this this Marxist and Islamist alliance quote al-Saheeds says he's not a socialist but he campaigns with senator Bernie Sanders and the other prominent democratic socialist and has been endorsed by every member of the socialist squad. So he says he's not identifying as a socialist but the socialist or identifying him as one of them. Okay I just want to point out again theology matters it always matters and when you're talking about Islamic theology and you're talking about its its concentration in what is known as Islamism and you see these ties let's just say there is something and only be described as shall we say an understatement I won't say a cover up but let's just say there is a lack of adequate attention to where this candidate is on these issues and I find this to be a very dangerous sign of things for the future and we just talked about the unrest in France and quite frankly you look at France and you look at other European countries with very significant Islamic populations and often concentrations of those populations in certain neighborhoods things like this not only become politically plausible they become rather politically normal or normative but you would think the United States is not there but we're talking about the US Senate race for the state of Michigan. This is an astounding development. I think it is a reminder to us that in a secularizing age theology doesn't disappear no it's not going to disappear. It appears in different forms that's exactly what this is it is a theological challenge to the very constitutional basis of Western civilization the US Constitution and more. I think you're going to discover that fewer and fewer people are willing to say that it's important that we recognize when someone says it out loud and I think this piece that ran on the 16th and the Washington Post the fact that it ran on the 16th at the Washington Post I think that's really significant. I hope an adequate number of Americans pay attention to it before and not after the election. Okay now I'm going to talk about a piece that was recently written by Richard Dawkins one of the famous four horsemen of the new atheism and it's his book The God Delusion that's now marking something of a 20th anniversary. So it's now 20 years ago since the book came out and of course it did make big splashes it was a New York Times bestseller and it was at that time about 20 years ago that the movement that was then dubbed the new atheism was coming out in a very big way and Richard Dawkins was a big part of that the Charles Simone professor of the public understanding of science at Oxford University at the time author of some very interesting books you know offering his biological theories he came out and said it's absolutely implausible it's a delusion to believe in God. Now he got a lot of attention because after all he was the Charles Simone professor of the public understanding of science at Oxford University. He was one of the most famous biologists of the time but he also was really going outside his field in writing about atheism. The God delusion nonetheless became the bestseller okay so 20 years later he's written a piece here's his title 20 years since I wrote the book The God Delusion Won't Die Ha ha we get the pun. All right so in this article he really comes out swinging and he's really arguing for the fact that his atheism should just be the standard fare just the normal way of looking at the world. It's still in his mind religious believers who are just way out of line and so he wrote this piece was published in the telegraph that's a major basically conservative British newspaper he says quote the delusion of God will not lie down partly because it serves as a comfort blanket for those whose idea of logic takes the form life would be intolerable without X therefore X must exist then there's the great Stalin syllogism Stalin was an atheist Stalin was a horrible man therefore got exists the variant that begins Hitler was an atheist is equally illogical and therefore untouched by the fact that he wasn't end quote I just want to point out this is an absolute evasion of a serious argument he's saying okay there bad arguments against atheism but he takes the worst arguments against atheism he completely ignores the best arguments against atheism the test of your theory the test of your thesis is not your test against the weak forms of the opposing worldview but rather the strong forms of the opposing worldview but anyway he says that the new atheism was something he was glad to join with his book the God delusion he points to Darwin 1859 and he calls that you know of course the release of Darwin's major work he says quote to Darwin sword I can only add pinpricks such as the following if God designed cheetahs to be beautifully effective killers of gazelles and if God designed gazelles to be beautifully effective escapers from cheetahs whose side is God on and you know that's an interesting question but only as an illustration of a ridiculous kind of question or at least his pose and that's because he doesn't take seriously the Christian understanding of the existence of God and God is the creator of all things for his glory he doesn't take that seriously at all and he certainly doesn't take seriously the fact that the Christian worldview moves from that to the reality of human sin such that there are distortions and corruptions of creation order all around us and as a matter of fact we're looking forward to a time in the kingdom of Christ well when the lion and the lamb will be able to be together and once not going to eat the other and that's a sign of the perfect piece that is going to come in the meantime what you see is the 20th anniversary of the new atheism and in particular Richard Dawkins book bringing out the really kind of irritating assertive character of his atheism all over again you know he also just comes right out and says evolutionary science and the Christian faith or the Christian understanding of God Christian theism they're absolutely incompatible and you know that's the only point with which I basically am an agreement with him but he takes the theory of evolution and just basically makes that the most basic orthodoxy that tests everything else and so he just posits evolutionary development as the one real thing a get switch everything else has to be judged well you know if you begin there guess what you're going to end there and and thus you see his atheism really taking this very strident form he says there never was a let there be light moment he says what of the cosmology version today our universe began in a singularity some 13.8 billion years ago the let there be light moment when conditions cool enough for electrons to bond with nuclei forming the first new Adam's came about a quarter of a million years later. He says there was a further delay of about nine billion years before the Sun and Earth Came into existence in a triumph of wishful thinking he writes this sequence of events has seen by some as vindication of the book of Genesis Seriously Yeah, seriously. I just want Christians to understand that what he lamppoons is Exactly what we believe and he says that what we believe is intellectually preposterous I'm going to turn the tables and say I think it's what he believes this intellectually preposterous He has to say that something comes out of nothing and what we see now as even the human being is just a biological Accident over a sufficient amount of time. I don't think even the average atheist can look in the mirror and truly believe that The article by the way just goes on and on he tries to take on just a bunch of stuff Later in the article he says that he's something of a cultural Christian Okay, wait wait wait wait wait just a minute You're supposed to be the vociferous opponent of God belief in God in all forms of organized Christianity But you know what he has gotten himself in trouble with some secularists and with some on the left and in particular some feminist and the whole transgender movement I've talked about this on the briefing because Richard Dawkins is such a Darwinist fundamentalist I use that term intentionally. He's such a Darwinist fundamentalist that he believes that Transgender identity is not compatible with the Darwinian process. Let's just say based upon reproduction And of course he's right about that But you know he's willing to be an intellectual outlaw on the LGBTQ array But he also wants to identify as a cultural Christian because guess what as came out in one Christmas celebration just a few years ago He uh, he likes the Christmas music Listen, this is one of the paragraphs he writes later in this article quote To be a cultural Christian in the way that I am as leagues away from being a Christian I just want to say he's absolutely right about that quote Christians Don't just know some hymns or think it would be rather nice if people love their neighbors a bit more Christians believe they believe that a man called Jesus died to redeem our sins and walked three days later If like me you reject such Tosh you are not a Christian. Well again, I actually agree with him If you believe those things you are a believer a Christian if you do not believe those things I don't care what church you go to and I don't care what music you like you are not a Christian He says quote I pay God the compliment of taking the hypothesis of his existence seriously if verified God would be the most exciting hypothesis in the entire history of science I'll just say that's a very weird sentence Let's just say if God exists and he does it is the most significant foundational truth about everything I think it's rather astounding that his scientist shows up by saying that if God exists then guess what That's going to be scientifically relevant. He then goes on and writes quote a universe conceived and designed by a superhuman Intelligence would be a totally different kind of universe from the one in which my opinion we actually inhabit in quote Well, that's also astounding for the fact that he's so honest to say it would be a different kind of universe from the one Which in his opinion we actually inhabit Very interesting in his opinion he concludes the article by saying 20 years on I stand by what I wrote in the God illusion It's it's very very interesting. I think it's good for us to look at this and see the clash of worldviews all over again I wrote a book on the new atheism entitled atheism remix back when all of this was current and you know Here's the thing here's an astounding realization to me that means it's about 20 years since I wrote that book because it came out just Just after the Dawkins book you know at the time back then Richard Dawkins was absolutely certain his worldview his his atheist Presuppositions were in ascent and in other words they were about to shape the entire culture But actually the headlines a few years later are not about the disappearance of Christianity But about the persistence of theism and about of all things not Christians going to atheist services But this most famous atheist showing up at Christian services It's also I think relevant to note there's just a few days earlier the same newspaper Just you know about basically a week earlier from the Dawkins piece had run a piece by Stephen Meyer with the headline Science is proving Richard Dawkins and the new atheist wrong Okay, so why the timing is because the 20th anniversary of the God delusion and the point that Stephen Myers making is that over time The argument made by Richard Dawkins is really not gaining ground It isn't adding intellectual credibility. It is not now a New York Times bestseller Of course it was and I'm not taking away from the fact that he has exerted a lot of influence on the people who are well Open to the influence of Richard Dawkins I just want to say that the argument that he thought he and his new atheist colleague settled 20 years ago Of course isn't settled and that is because God is not going to allow that argument to settle At the end of this article Stephen Meyer by the way points out the the proponents Of so many of these atheistic ideas quote are reaching for increasingly exotic ideas to explain evidence The seems otherwise to point straight forwardly to a transcendent and intelligent creator In other words God Into quote I think that's an extremely apt point What we say around us is a very energetic very orchestrated conspiracy of those who want God not to exist To argue that he obviously doesn't exist and they have to keep making this argument again and again In this case 20 years later because of the obvious truth apparent in creation and in the internal witness Of our spiritual nature the very fact is that all around us the world the cosmos is crying out God does exist And it turns out that with Richard Dawkins and the God delusion you can write a New York Times bestseller in 20 years later You still haven't convinced people of the point Oh, and I guess it at the bottom line is just really interesting This is also further evidence of the fact that Richard Dawkins is not giving up even if he does for his own cultural Christian reasons Show up at Christmas services. Thanks for listening to the briefing for more information go to my website at Albertmohler.com You can follow me on x or twitter by going to x.com forward slash Albert Mohler for information on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary go to spts.edu For information on boys college just go to boyscolots.com. I'll meet you again tomorrow for the briefing