In theory, yes, legal interpretation should be independent of outcomes. But the immunity ruling already broke that standard. SCOTUS didn’t just interpret law; it constructed a political reality: an executive shielded from accountability. Once the Court created that imbalance, it stopped being a clean separation-of-powers question.

So while we should be able to talk about tariffs and trade law in the abstract, the Court itself blurred the line.

Interesting timing, I’ve been digging into how American religiosity gets leveraged politically, especially in the South where these maps always light up the darkest.

If you’re curious, I wrote up what I’ve been uncovering here: #1279528

It’s about how certain political networks have spent decades shaping what “religious” messaging means, and why it tracks so tightly with specific states today.

No. I’ll leave this part of the conversation with this:

When it comes to the church of YHWH Saves, the Messiah, the Anointed One, I’m reminded that our struggle is not against flesh and blood, or any of the groups people try to turn into enemies.

That’s where I stand.

I’ve written more here for anyone who wants the deeper context: #1261531

I appreciate your thoughts and your engagement in good faith. God speed.

I hear you pushing back on the connection, and that’s the exact challenge: the rebranding works because the new terms sound unobjectionable. No one announces ‘we’re preserving racial hierarchy.’ They say ‘we’re protecting family values’ or ‘defending our heritage.’ The ideology gets laundered through respectable-sounding language. My point isn’t to adjudicate which version of ‘American values’ is correct. It’s to document how a specific ideological project—traceable through organizations, funding, and messaging—has moved from explicit racial language to coded cultural language, and how that shows up in religious spaces. The gospel is ‘come as you are.’ But when churches start preaching that demographic change is spiritual warfare, we’re seeing that pipeline at work.

The Pioneer Fund’s idea of “purity” originally meant racial purity: keeping America’s bloodline white. Over the decades, that language was rebranded inside the New Right as “moral purity,” “family values,” and “protecting heritage.” It’s the same underlying instinct to preserve a certain kind of American identity, just rewritten in spiritual terms.

I’m not defending the left, and to be clear, I’m concerned when any political alignment mistakes its platform for the gospel itself. I’m recognizing a 90-year pipeline — starting with the Pioneer Fund in the 1930s — that pushed scientific racism into the New Right and eventually into parts of white evangelical political messaging. What I’m seeing today isn’t random; it’s the result of that long process finally surfacing.

And for what it’s worth, the borders of the Kingdom of God don’t look anything like the borders of earthly nations. The Kingdom welcomes the helpless, the homeless, the immigrant, the poor, the downtrodden, the sinner, and people of every nation. That’s its border policy.

Not at all, Dearborn isn’t a “problem” to me. What I’m unpacking is how certain Christian-Right networks train people to interpret any demographic shift as a spiritual threat.

I recently left a church after realizing its election message wasn’t organic. The pastor openly said he leaned on two national figures plugged into the modern Christian-Right political machine — one a Family Research Council/TPUSA Faith partner fined for partisan preaching, the other invited to the Trump White House and known for telling Christians they “can’t vote left.” That’s when the language clicked.

The rhetoric wasn’t coming from scripture; it was coming from a well-developed political-theology pipeline that began decades ago. The same pipeline seeded by groups like the Pioneer Fund, which turned racial hierarchy → moral hierarchy → “spiritual warfare.” That’s where fear narratives about places like Dearborn get manufactured.

And the irony is, the Founders already answered this whole debate. Article 11 of the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli: “The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

That was unanimously approved by the Senate and signed by President John Adams.

My focus isn’t left vs right. It's tracing how modern political messaging gets repackaged as gospel.

Learn about the Baal / False Prophet / Beast (Anti Christ) / Bablyon framework here: #1225360