Opinion - Opinion: When Americans use faith as a weapon
Faith is an integral part of millions of Americans' daily lives. 'One Nation Under God' is committed to reflecting America's voices, values and communities covering stories of faith and religion, from the latest headlines to stories of hope. Subscribe here.
(NewsNation) — How did Americans allow faith to be used as a weapon?
As former President Joe Biden announced Sunday that he had an aggressive form of prostate cancer, well wishes and prayers began to pour in from all sides, including from his fiercest political enemies.
President Donald Trump said he and first lady Melania Trump were saddened to hear the news.
'We extend our warmest and best wishes to Jill and the family, and we wish Joe a fast and successful recovery,' he said on Truth Social.
'I'm sorry to see this news,' said Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., who has been a biting critic of Biden, on X. 'Prayers for Joe Biden and his family.'
Biden on prostate cancer diagnosis: 'Cancer touches us all'
But one Christian commentator had a different type of message for Biden, who is a lifelong Catholic. 'Pray that Joe Biden would know Christ before his time comes,' Allie Beth Stuckey posted on X. The New York Times best-selling author has over 500,000 followers and a popular conservative podcast.
The X post has received nearly five thousand likes and hundreds of comments, mostly positive. And on Instagram, the post got nearly thirteen thousand likes.
Whether or not you agree or disagree with Stuckey's theology is not the point (many Protestants believe Catholics are heretics and do not understand Jesus or the Bible correctly). The question is, how did Americans allow religion and faith, our most personal and deeply held beliefs, to be weaponized? And more importantly, when are we going to put a stop to it?
If Stuckey wants to win people over and turn them into Christians, this nastiness is sure to turn them off.
No matter what you think of President Joe Biden or his faith at this moment in history when he's exiting the stage, publicly criticizing his personally-held beliefs when he is ill is a blow to civility, public discourse and to religion.
Trump, others react to Biden's prostate cancer diagnosis
Even though the decline of Christianity appears to have leveled off, according to the Pew Research Center, there still exists much prejudice against religion in American society. And while serious theological differences exist among Christians, sparring over differences at a time of personal suffering is not attractive or effective.
What attracts the wider public to faith is creating authentic dialogue despite differences. Highlighting common ground. And remembering that we are all human beings with the same weaknesses and that humanity is what knits us together.
So say a prayer for President Biden tonight. Whether you're a Christian, Muslim or Buddhist. Or a nonbeliever. Close your eyes and take a leap of faith to ask the creator of the universe to heal a fellow human who is on the same journey.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily of NewsNation.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
9 minutes ago
- USA Today
Republicans, be so for real. This embarrassing government is what you wanted?
Republicans, be so for real. This embarrassing government is what you wanted? | Opinion Is this really what Republicans still want? Are they so scared of trans people having rights or undocumented immigrants receiving due process they chose a government that won't stand up to tyranny? Show Caption Hide Caption Six takeaways from the President Donald Trump, Elon Musk feud From disappointment to threats, here are six takeaways from the public spat between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Anyone could have predicted that President Donald Trump's second term was going to be an absolute disaster. I doubt even Republicans realized it would be this bad. Amid Trump's feud with Elon Musk, our tanking economy and our dysfunctional Congress, it seems that the next three and a half years are going to be rough on the country. I have to imagine that some Republican voters have buyer's remorse but would never admit it. I also realize that, for many Republican voters, a chaotic government is better than one that's run by a Democrat. They would rather watch our country become an international laughingstock than vote for someone who would run a stable, albeit more liberal, government. They would rather have millions lose health care than have a Democrats in power. I'll be the first to admit that Kamala Harris wasn't a perfect presidential candidate, but she was competent. She was energetic. She could ensure the country stayed on its course and continued to be a place where people felt secure. We could have had that. And Republicans in Congress would have done their job. Instead, we have this. So, this far into Trump's chaotic reign, I have to ask. Is this really what Republicans wanted? President Donald Trump vs. Elon Musk. Really? In case you missed it, Trump and Musk have gone from inseparable to enemies in a matter of hours. Musk, who was previously charged with leading the Department of Government Efficiency, has gone on X (previously Twitter) to allege that Trump was included in the Jeffrey Epstein files and whine that the Republicans would have lost the election without him. Trump, in response, has threatened to cancel all of Musk's contracts with the federal government. It's almost entertaining, in the way high school drama is entertaining. If only the entire country weren't on the verge of suffering because of it. Opinion: Musk erupts, claims Trump is in the Epstein files. Who could've seen this coming? If Harris had been elected, I doubt she would have made a narcissistic man-child one of her closest advisers in the first place – not just because Musk endorsed Trump, but because he was and continues to be a liability. She wouldn't have created DOGE and then allowed it to be a threat to Americans. Republicans, however, were unwilling to acknowledge the baggage that came with having Musk on their side. Now we have the president of the United States embroiled in a childish social media battle with the world's richest man. Think about how stupid that makes the country look. Is this what Republicans wanted? Is that what they still want? Surely they knew that the Trump-Musk partnership, like many of Trump's alliances, was going to implode. They are so scared of progressivism that they would rather have pettiness and vindictiveness in the White House. The American economy is not doing well. You wanted this? Trump, ever the businessman, has decided that making everything more expensive is what will make our country great again. His tariffs are expected to cost the average family $4,000 this year, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I thought Republicans were the party of the working class. I thought they were supposed to care about grocery prices and the cost of living. But with the insanity of Trump's tariffs, a cooling job market and tax cuts that protect the wealthy, it seems like nothing is actually getting better for the average American. Our economy actually shrank. Opinion: Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me. Again, Republicans, you really wanted this? You were so scared of a government that was slightly more liberal that you would let everything get more expensive for working families? What were you afraid of – taxing billionaires? Helping first-time homebuyers? Harris' 'opportunity economy'? It seems like none of you thought this through. Or, worse, you did. The Republican Congress is a joke Another element of Trumpism is the fact that Republicans in Congress seem to be fine with the way he is completely dismantling the United States government. They don't care that his One Big Beautiful Bill Act is going to add to the deficit, so long as it's a Republican putting us further into debt. Some of them, like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, failed to even read the bill before voting for it. Their lack of interest is so substantial that she just admitted it openly. Opinion: Why can't Democrats take advantage of all this obvious Republican failure? If Harris had been elected, there would be no need for Congress to monitor her every move (even if they're failing to do that with Trump). Instead, we may have seen a legislature that, while divided, was able to function. We would have had checks and balances and likely significantly fewer executive orders, none of which would have tried to rewrite the U.S. Constitution. Once again – is this really what Republicans still want? Are they so scared of the possibility of trans people having rights or undocumented immigrants receiving due process that they would choose a government that won't stand up to tyranny? Would they really elect a tyrant in the first place? They did, so I suppose they must be OK with all of it. I can't get over the fact that Republicans willingly chose chaos over stability. They would rather say they won than have a functioning government or a stable economy. They would rather see our country suffer than admit that Trump is a raging lunatic. That isn't patriotism – it's partisanship. They would rather give Musk billions in federal contracts than help Americans in any way. This is what nearly half the country chose for the rest of us. And it doesn't seem like anyone is embarrassed about it. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Donald Trump Boasts of ‘Big Win' Over ‘Fake News' AP After Court Rules White House Can Ban News Outlet's Access Over Its Refusal to Cite ‘Gulf of America'
A federal appeals court ruled that the White House has the latitude to exclude any journalists it chooses from the Oval Office and other 'restricted areas' — including on the basis of a news outlet's 'viewpoint.' The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in a 2-1 decision Friday, ruled against the AP, which had sued three Trump administration officials in February over a ban on the news organization's access to presidential events as part of the White House press pool. The White House blocked the AP after the outlet continued referring to the body of water on the southeastern periphery of the North America as the Gulf of Mexico, after Trump decreed on Jan. 20 that henceforth it should be known as the 'Gulf of America.' More from Variety Seth Meyers Roasts Elon Musk for Waiting Until Now to Allege 'That Trump Might Be a Pedophile': 'You Already Knew That and It Wasn't a Dealbreaker' Elon Musk Claims Donald Trump 'Is in the Epstein Files': 'That Is the Real Reason They Haven't Been Made Public' Donald Trump Says Elon Musk Has 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' as Rift Grows: 'I Don't Know If We Will' Have a 'Great Relationship' Anymore The development was welcomed by President Trump. 'Big WIN over AP today. They refused to state the facts or the Truth on the GULF OF AMERICA. FAKE NEWS!!!' Trump posted on his Truth Social account Friday. The Gulf of Mexico has been known by that name since at least the late 16th century, according to Encyclopaedia Britannica. The appeals court issued a stay, pending appeal, on a lower court's preliminary injunction holding that the Trump administration cannot discriminate against the AP over the Gulf of Mexico/Gulf of America issue. Under the First Amendment, Judge Trevor McFadden wrote in the April decision, 'if the Government opens its doors to some journalists — be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere — it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints.' In the ruling Friday, the appeals court disagreed. 'Restricted presidential spaces' such as the Oval Office and Air Force One 'are not First Amendment fora opened for private speech and discussion,' Judge Neomi Rao wrote in the ruling, joined by Judge Gregory Katsas. 'The White House therefore retains discretion to determine, including on the basis of viewpoint, which journalists will be admitted.' Both of the judges are Trump appointees. 'If the president sits down for an interview with [Fox News host] Laura Ingraham, he is not required to do the same with [MSNBC's] Rachel Maddow,' Rao wrote in the opinion. 'The First Amendment does not control the president's discretion in choosing with whom to speak or to whom to provide special access.' The two judges added that without a stay, 'the government will suffer irreparable harm because the injunction impinges on the President's independence and control over his private workspaces.' In a dissenting opinion, Judge Cornelia Pillard of the D.C. Court of Appeals, an Obama appointee, wrote that 'my colleagues assert a novel and unsupported exception to the First Amendment's prohibition of viewpoint-based restrictions of private speech — one that not even the government itself advanced.' She said that 'if the White House were privileged to exclude journalists based on viewpoint, each and every member of the White House press corps would hesitate to publish anything an incumbent administration might dislike.' The Associated Press indicated that it will continue its legal fight in the matter. 'We are disappointed in the court's decision and are reviewing our options,' AP spokesman Patrick Maks said in a statement Friday. According to the AP's report on the ruling, one possibility is that the news organization will seek an expedited review of the full case on its merits. The AP's lawsuit names White House chief of staff Susan Wiles, deputy chief of staff Taylor Budowich and press secretary Karoline Leavitt as defendants. On Friday, Leavitt trumpeted the appeals court decision. 'VICTORY!' she wrote in a post on X. 'As we've said all along, the Associated Press is not guaranteed special access to cover President Trump in the Oval Office, aboard Air Force One, and in other sensitive locations. Thousands of other journalists have never been afforded the opportunity to cover the President in these privileged spaces.' Leavitt continued, 'Moving forward, we will continue to expand access to new media so that more people can cover the most transparent President in American history rather than just the failing legacy media. And by the way @AP, it's still the Gulf of America.' She ended the post with a smiley-face emoji and the U.S. flag. Best of Variety 25 Hollywood Legends Who Deserve an Honorary Oscar New Movies Out Now in Theaters: What to See This Week Emmy Predictions: Animated Program — Can Netflix Score Big With 'Arcane,' 'Devil May Cry' and the Final Season of 'Big Mouth?'
Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
Americans are questioning the value of a college degree. Trump is joining the debate.
President Donald Trump wants to tweak a traditionalfeature of the American dream: a college degree. Trump has continued to escalate his battle with Harvard University, threatening to cut off the Ivy League school from federal funding if it does not meet the administration's demands, which include eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and cracking down on campus activism. The latest threat against Harvard, however, floated shifting funding to trade schools, an alternative path to a four-year college degree. "I am considering taking Three Billion Dollars of Grant Money away from a very antisemitic Harvard, and giving it to TRADE SCHOOLS all across our land," Trump wrote in a May 26 post on Truth Social. "What a great investment that would be for the USA, and so badly needed!!!" The White House's press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, added onto the president's comments in an interview with Fox News: "Apprenticeships, electricians, plumbers, we need more of those in our country, and less LGBTQ graduate majors from Harvard University. And that's what this administration's position is." Over the past few years, a growing number of Americans have started to question the value of a college degree due to high costs and a tough labor market, making trade schools and apprenticeships a favorable alternative. It marks a shift in the standard American dream, in which a four-year college degree had been viewed as a step to middle-class success. However, Jon Fansmith, assistant vice president of government relations at the American Council on Education, told Business Insider that taking funding away from Harvard and other research institutions isn't the answer to boosting investment in trade schools. "The money that he is talking about withholding from Harvard is money that Congress provided to research agencies to perform advanced scientific and biomedical research," Fansmith said, adding that Harvard earned grant money because "they had the best researchers, the best laboratory facilities, the best understanding of how to advance that science," he continued. "You can't simply take that money and use it for another purpose." Madi Biedermann, deputy assistant secretary for communications at the Department of Education, told BI that "American universities that are committed to their academic mission, protect students on campus, and follow all federal laws will have no problem accessing generous taxpayer support for their programs." 'Two very separate stories' Higher education doesn't have the same draw that it once did. Some Gen Zers previously told BI that despite being taught that college was the primary path to success, they felt they could make a living by directly entering the workforce or going to trade school. Please help BI improve our Business, Tech, and Innovation coverage by sharing a bit about your role — it will help us tailor content that matters most to people like you. What is your job title? (1 of 2) Entry level position Project manager Management Senior management Executive management Student Self-employed Retired Other Continue By providing this information, you agree that Business Insider may use this data to improve your site experience and for targeted advertising. By continuing you agree that you accept the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy . That's why Trump's push to invest more in trade schools is important, Fansmith said — they help Americans get a stable career to support themselves and their families, and the federal government can help support those schools by asking Congress to approve more funding, not redirecting the funding unilaterally. "There are two stories here. One is this administration's attack on Harvard, and the other is, what is the role of trade schools, and is there a need for more support for trade schools? And as much as the president's trying to conflate the two, those are two very separate stories," Fansmith said. While Trump's big spending bill proposes some provisions to expand Pell grant eligibility to short-term programs, it does not detail a significant funding increase for trade schools. The Trump administration's rhetorical focus on trade schools isn't new. Before he won the 2024 election, Linda McMahon, now Trump's education secretary, wrote an opinion piece in The Hill advocating for the expansion of Pell Grant eligibility to workforce training programs. "Our educational system must offer clear and viable pathways to the American Dream aside from four-year degrees," she wrote. Trump also signed an executive order on April 23 to strengthen and expand workforce development and apprenticeships programs, which McMahon called a "significant step in ensuring every American can live their American Dream." Congress' role in rethinking education For years, Democratic lawmakers have been pushing for greater access to postsecondary education options, like free community college, and there has been bipartisan agreement on the need to boost apprenticeships and workforce programs without redirecting funding from higher education institutions. Amid the heightened focus on alternatives to a four-year college degree, the New York Federal Reserve said in a recent report that college still pays off; the median worker with a college degree earns about $80,000 a year, compared to $47,000 for a worker with just a high school diploma. Trump hasn't yet implemented his idea to redirect Harvard's federal funding to trade schools, and it's unclear how, or if, he will attempt to follow through. While he has already withheld billions of dollars from Harvard and other schools across the country for failing to meet his administration's political demands, the moves have been met with lawsuits, and Fansmith said it's likely more legal action would ensue should Trump attempt to move around funding without congressional approval. "We're talking about spending money that Congress said would go to support really critically needed research into things like cancer and Alzheimer's and diabetes, and other things that impact everyday Americans' lives, and give it to trade schools," Fansmith said. "Trade schools are great schools. They have lots of benefits. They deserve a lot of federal support, but not just to make a political point at the expense of Harvard." Jason Altmire, president and CEO of Career Education Colleges and Universities — a group that represents for-profit colleges — said in a statement that Trump's focus on trade schools "is an investment in America's workforce." "The best way to support trade schools is to reduce the regulatory burden facing private career schools while increasing funding that allows students interested in the trades to choose the highest quality school," Altmire said.
