OPINION:
Dear Dr. E: I’m a conservative Christian, and I voted Republican across the board in this last election for reasons that I consider obvious. However, I am getting a lot of pushback right now from family and friends over President-elect Trump’s cabinet appointments. Some are saying I’m turning a blind eye to White supremacy. They cite Pete Hegseth’s nomination to be Secretary of Defense and his tattoos as evidence of their concern. One relative said, “You know God isn’t in the U.S. government chain of command. Giving control of the military to someone who has a cross symbolizing theocracy tattooed on his body is scary. And don’t you know that ’Deus Vult’ was used in the Crusades to justify wars against another religion?” Can you advise me how to respond? — GETTING BEAT UP FOR MY BELIEFS IN MICHIGAN
Dear Getting Beat Up: Whenever you get into a debate, whether it be family, friends, or otherwise, it’s important that you define the terms in dispute before you do anything else. In this case, the controversy is about Mr. Hegseth’s tattoos, so you first need to deal with them and make sure that you and your opponent understand what they are.
Here are the facts. Pete Hegseth is a decorated soldier, and as such, he has chosen to get tattoos that represent his patriotism and Christian faith. The three images that have caught media attention are a large Jerusalem Cross on his chest, the Latin phrase “Dues Vult,” on his right bicep, and “We the People” on his right forearm. Before you move on to debate with your friends, be sure to clarify that these are tattoos that they think make Mr. Hegseth objectionable.
Once you have set the parameters for the debate, I would next go for the jugular. Don’t pussyfoot around. State some indisputable facts.
First, the Jerusalem Cross is not about white supremacy; it is a 1,000-year-old symbol of the universal Church. Second, the Latin prayer, Dues Vult, i.e., “God wills it,” is not a call for a theocracy but a 2,000-year-old acknowledgment of God’s sovereignty. Third, “We the people” is not a threat to democracy; My goodness, it’s the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America!
There is a good chance the debate will end right there because most people making these accusations have done little reading and zero research. Frankly, they don’t know what they are talking about. They’re just parroting talking heads from MSNBC and have no other basis for their claims.
But if it does continue, I would be prepared with some rhetorical questions that will expose your opponent’s ignorance, duplicity, and prejudice.
For example, you might ask: “With regard to the Latin phrase, Deus Vult, I hope you realize that all biblical Christians believe in the sovereignty of God. In fact, Jesus Himself modeled this when He prayed, ’Thy kingdom come, thy will be done.’ Why would you suggest that any follower of Christ not do the same? Christians, by definition, believe God is in charge of the affairs of men. Would you deny an American soldier, who is putting his life on the line to protect your freedom, the right to pray for God’s will to be done in his life and in that of the nation?”
Then you might ask: “You do realize, don’t you, that, despite your claims to the contrary, God is in the U.S. government chain of command. How else can you explain the preamble of our Constitution, which explicitly states that all our ’unalienable rights’ prescribed therein are ’endowed to us by our Creator?’”
Or here’s another: “Your concern regarding the Jerusalem Cross seems odd. I’m sure you know this symbol is central to the Christian faith. Why would you object to this Christian image any more than you would a Muslim’s right to display the crescent and star or an atheist’s right to identify with the hammer and sickle? Isn’t your concern exposing just a bit of your religious bigotry?”
And finally, as to the issue of the Crusades, I would ask this one: “I hope you understand that these conflicts were only initiated after about 400 years of Muslims invading, conquering, enslaving, and butchering multiple nations across Europe, the Middle East, and Northern Africa. Pope Urban II called for these defensive wars because the Byzantine Emperor, Alexios I Komnenos, pleaded with him to intervene to stop the slaughter. Arguing that the Crusades were wrong is akin to saying that America was wrong to respond to Winston Churchill’s plea to fight against the Third Reich. I, for one, am glad the Allied Forces joined together to defend the free world against Adolf Hitler. I am equally grateful for the Crusades. We’d all be living under Sharia Law without them.”
If you are seeking guidance in today’s changing world, Higher Ground is there for you. Everett Piper, a Ph.D. and a former university president and radio host, takes your questions in his weekly ’Ask Dr. E’ column. If you have moral or ethical questions for which you’d like an answer, please email askeverett@washingtontimes.com and he may include it in a future column.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.