R Magic Brow

In our essay last month, we proposed that presumed incoming Alabama governor Tommy Tuberville (R) pursue an aggressive and innovative political strategy to stem the growth of Islam in his state. His challenge, however, is no longer confined to the spread of the so-called religion of peace.Since the Hamas attacks of October 7, 2023, what had largely been an implicit alliance between Islamist activists and two predominant elements of American progressivism — gender anarchists and racial idolators — has increasingly declared itself in public.Muslim scriptural and legal traditions often escape the scrutiny applied to Christian texts in progressive circles.Consider the coalition behind Columbia University's Gaza encampment in April 2024. Columbia University Apartheid Divest brought together 116 student organizations, including the Muslim Students Association, Columbia Queer Alliance, Genderev, the Black Student Organization, and White Coats 4 Black Lives. Its members made common cause under the banner of fighting interconnected systems of oppression. That January, the American Muslim Task Force for Palestine, representing organizations including CAIR and the Muslim American Society, partnered with the left-wing ANSWER Coalition to organize a massive demonstration in Washington.Strained bedfellowsThe alliance is mystifying, to say the least. These two progressive wings treat sex as a social construct and race as the master category of politics. Their Islamist allies adhere to religious traditions that condemn the progressives' core sexual beliefs. What holds them together is a common enemy: the Western political and cultural order, whose foundations are deeply indebted to the Bible.Classical liberalism and the freedoms associated with it did not emerge from a vacuum or from secular reason alone. The Declaration of Independence's assertion of unalienable rights endowed by a Creator tracks the Bible's claim that human beings bear the image and likeness of God (Gen. 1:26–27). Equality before the law, the restraint of arbitrary power, and the distinction between divine and human authority draw on the Mosaic law's limits on kings (Deut. 17:14–20) and the New Testament's insistence that Caesar's domain is not total (Matt. 22:21; Rom. 13:1–7).Conscience, proportional justice, the dignity of the individual, and the possibility of ordered liberty under law are human applications, however imperfect, of Old and New Testament teaching. The progressive and Islamist camps challenge this inheritance from very different directions. Progressives increasingly reject biblical moral authority; Islamists seek a political order governed by their interpretation of divine law. Neither has much use for the classical liberal settlement that emerged in the Christian West.No 'queering' the QuranGender idolatry begins by denying the created order stated in Genesis. Male and female are not optional social performances; they are the binary given in the text (Gen. 1:27; 2:18–24). The framework that elevates subjective identity over biological sex treats the Bible's account as an oppressive artifact worthy of dismantling.Here, traditional Islam and Christianity have considerably more in common with each other than either does with contemporary gender ideology. Both uphold a divinely established sexual order. Both condemn homosexual acts. Their theological foundations differ, but their moral prohibitions frequently overlap.Traditional Islamic jurisprudence, however, has gone considerably further in the punishments it prescribes. The Quran condemns the conduct of the people of Lot (7:80–81; 26:165–166; 27:54–55; 29:28–29), while one hadith states: "If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done." Iranian law still prescribes the death penalty for certain acts of sodomy. Hamas' record of repression in Gaza offers little comfort to those whose sexual freedom is celebrated in Western progressive salons.Yet the alliance endures. At New York City's 2024 Pride parade, pro-Palestinian protesters blocked the route beneath a banner proclaiming, "No queer liberation without Palestinian liberation." For these activists, solidarity against a common political adversary evidently outweighs profound differences over sexual morality.'Race' to conquestRacial idolatry performs parallel work. The New Testament's declaration that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free (Gal. 3:28) supplies an important theological root of the classical liberal rejection of inherited status as the basis of rights. Rights attach to the individual, not to the bloodline, race, or social strata a person is born into. Intersectionality, as developed by Kimberlé Crenshaw in her 1989 essay "Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex," examines overlapping systems of discrimination associated with race, sex, and other categories. In contemporary progressive politics, this framework is frequently enlisted to sort political conflicts into hierarchies of oppressor and oppressed. Muslims, once treated as outsiders to the Western political order, now occupy a prominent place in the progressive hierarchy of victimhood.Muslim scriptural and legal traditions often escape the scrutiny applied to Christian texts in progressive circles. Historical Islamic expansionism and the dhimmi (second-class citizen) system are viewed through the lens of Western imperialism rather than subjected to the same criticism directed at Christianity's historical entanglements with political power. This produces a selective hierarchy of harms and victims: Islamic religious claims may receive deference even as the Bible's moral authority is rejected.RELATED: Is ‘Islamophobia’ irrational? Daniel Gnap/NurPhoto/Getty ImagesA common enemyThe gender and racial wings, therefore, share an enemy with Islamism that is more precise than "conservatism." Their respective doctrines may be incompatible, but both challenge the Western liberal order, which places limits on the claims of political and religious authority over the individual. Consider Judith Butler's description of the October 7 attacks on Israeli civilians as "armed resistance" rather than terrorism. Butler acknowledged that the attacks were terrible but insisted that they be understood as resistance to oppression. The language makes it possible to place Hamas within a progressive account of political struggle despite the movement's deeply illiberal religious commitments.Anthropologist Philip Carl Salzman has documented the longer "red-green" pattern: leftist and Islamist actors finding common cause against Western institutions and Israel while maintaining incompatible doctrines on sex, apostasy, and religious authority. Historical precedents are hardly encouraging. Secular allies were pushed aside after the Iranian Revolution, demonstrating how quickly a revolutionary coalition can dissolve once the question of who will govern has been settled. History may not repeat, but it does rhyme, and there is no reason to assume the next stanza will end differently.American progressives appear confident that the alliance can be sustained indefinitely through the shared vocabulary of equity, anti-imperialism, and opposition to patriarchal power. Islamists, meanwhile, have learned to employ that vocabulary in Western academic and media institutions without abandoning their own religious commitments concerning women, homosexuals, or nonbelievers.The net result is that the classical liberal inheritance, rooted in the Bible's promises about the dignity of the individual and the limits of coercive state or ethnic power, remains their common obstacle. Our proposal that Alabama initiate a constitutional debate, insisting that the state's history and tradition are not interchangeable with Islamic teaching, is one political means of defending that inheritance.Progressives will always default to acting as though the obstacle is invisible as long as there are constituents who can claim status as victims. Thus, they hope that a shared basket of purported miseries will be sufficient to sustain what is otherwise a shallow alliance of convenience. The progressives will discover, too late, that the doctrines they dismantled in the name of anarchy and equity were all that stood between them and the caliphate's scimitar. They will also learn that a fungible hierarchy of victimization offers no sanctuary once the victors decide to rewrite the list.

The new trailer for Greta Gerwig’s “Narnia: The Magician’s Nephew” promises a dazzling sight: a world coming into being. Fans of C.S. Lewis will be watching Aslan and the White Witch. I’ll be watching Uncle Andrew. He may be the book’s most disturbing character because he teaches himself to deny what he knows.Andrew’s talent for explaining away unwelcome truth raises an uncomfortable question about Gerwig’s adaptation. Will she allow Lewis to tell his Christian story, or will she explain its Christian meaning away?God speaks through his Word, and Uncle Andrew shows how a person can become so skilled at self-defense that he loses the ability to listen.As a philosophy professor and Christian pastor, I recognize the temptation. Education can help us discover truth. It can also equip us with elaborate excuses for resisting it. An impressive vocabulary does not guarantee an honest mind.Lewis introduces Uncle Andrew as a man convinced that intellectual distinction exempts him from ordinary duties. Keeping promises is for lesser people. Andrew knows the secrets of the occult, so he imagines he can send children into dangers he refuses to face himself. He calls his cowardice greatness.The vice is familiar: Exceptional ability supposedly confers exceptional moral privileges. A radical professor who believes his political vision justifies tearing down inherited institutions uses Andrew’s logic. So does the politician who excuses the dangers of communism or socialism because a glorious future allegedly demands sacrifices now. The superior mind claims authority to break rules it imposes on everyone else.Then Uncle Andrew meets Aslan.At first, Andrew hears the Lion’s song as music. It stirs thoughts and feelings he does not want to entertain. He then tells himself that no lion could possibly sing. He must have heard roaring. The longer Aslan sings, the harder Andrew works to believe his own explanation. Eventually he hears only animal noises, even when Aslan speaks.Lewis gives us the verdict: “Now the trouble about trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed.”Notice the order. Andrew recognizes something, resists it, and finally loses the ability to recognize it. His ignorance is learned. What looks like an intellectual limitation begins as a moral refusal.RELATED: The lion, the witch, and the worldview war Gisela Schober/Getty ImagesThat’s why I worry about the film. A director can admire Lewis’s portals, creatures, and cosmic song while rejecting the Creator who gives them meaning. She can retain the scenery and rewrite the moral order. The result may look like Narnia without being Lewis’ Narnia.A story has more than recognizable characters and scenes. It tells us what is good, what has gone wrong, and what would make things right. For Lewis, creation has a good and authoritative Creator. Sin requires repentance. Redemption answers a need human beings cannot overcome by declaring themselves enlightened.Could a filmmaker present that vision faithfully without sharing Lewis’ faith? Certainly. But she must first let the author challenge her own assumptions. If Gerwig turns his Christian account of creation into a comfortable endorsement of modern cultural priorities, she will have made Uncle Andrew’s mistake: hearing the song and insisting it is merely roaring.The trailer cannot settle that question, and I will judge the finished film when it arrives. My concern is what Hollywood so often does to stories whose moral claims it finds inconvenient. An adaptation should not become an exercise in correcting the author.RELATED: Netflix ‘adapts’ Steinbeck’s ‘East of Eden’ — and Satan gets a sympathetic makeover Emilio Madrid/Getty ImagesChristians, however, should not congratulate themselves too quickly. Uncle Andrew is more than a stand-in for a leftist professor, a politician, or a Hollywood director. Lewis’ warning reaches the church as well.In Romans 1, Paul writes of people who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. God reveals himself through creation, but human beings refuse to honor him or give thanks. Their reasoning becomes futile, and their hearts grow dark. They claim wisdom as they become fools.Paul does not describe every unbeliever as someone who merely lacks information. Our desires shape what we are willing to admit. We can demand more evidence while insulating ourselves from the implications of evidence already before us.Christians can do this, too. We acknowledge God’s revelation in creation, then find reasons to disregard it. We know a biblical command, then use our intelligence to argue that our circumstances make us the exception. We defend Christian books without accepting their correction. Praising Lewis’ theology is easier than submitting to the God he confessed.That is why Uncle Andrew belongs in a Christian reflection rather than merely a debate over a Netflix film. We should ask whether our explanations clarify the truth or protect us from it. Can we admit that our clever argument was an excuse? Will we confess when God’s Word confronts something we want to keep?Christ offers forgiveness to sinners who have spent years defending their sins. His grace frees us to abandon our excuses instead of perfecting them.I hope Gerwig gives Lewis a faithful hearing. The finished film will show us whether she has. Meanwhile, our own hearing deserves examination. God speaks through his Word, and Uncle Andrew shows how a person can become so skilled at defending himself that he loses the ability to listen.

On October 14, Chick-fil-A CEO Andrew Cathy sat down for an interview on NBC’s "Today" show with Craig Melvin.Melvin pressed Cathy on the company’s past stance regarding LGBTQ issues. In 2012, Dan Cathy, Andrew’s father and former CEO, publicly supported the biblical definition of marriage, which triggered protests, boycotts, and controversy.The company also faced criticism over past donations from its foundation to Christian groups, such as the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and Salvation Army, that some criticized as opposing LGBTQ rights. In 2019, Chick-fil-A redirected its charitable giving toward education, homelessness, and hunger.When Melvin asked what Cathy would say to people who protested or boycotted because they felt Chick-fil-A didn’t “stand with the LGBTQ+ community,” Cathy said, “Well, for anybody that hadn't tried us, we'd love for you to come try and have our great-tasting food and the hospitality that we're known for. I think that everybody that will be willing to walk in the door, they'll see that they're welcome to come eat with us.”When Melvin followed up by insinuating that Cathy “[didn’t] want to talk about that chapter in Chick-fil-A's history,” Cathy replied that the company was “focused on serving everybody that come in and eat with us.”Melvin then asked for “the company's official position on equal rights.”“We're focused on hospitality, serving great-tasting food and great service,” Cathy replied.LGBTQ advocates, progressive outlets, and even some celebrities criticized Cathy for what they interpreted as dodging the questions to avoid explicitly supporting the LGBTQ+ community.BlazeTV host Steve Deace has the same complaint but for the opposite reason. On this episode of the “Steve Deace show,” he rips into Cathy for selling out to the secular culture, despite the company’s increasing profitability. “Last year, Chick-fil-A made almost $24 billion in revenue … up 5% from their revenue in 2024,” he says.He shares these numbers to prove that Cathy’s evasive answer was not financially motivated.“Whatever PR firm that convinced him that this was the right way, can that be publicized so I can make sure that everybody I know in the Christian conservative space or any media space at all never hires them ever again?” says Deace.The entire interview, he argues, “accomplished nothing [and] was unnecessary.”“Nobody asked for this. There was no moment that required it. There was no tension whatsoever,” he says.Deace believes that Cathy agreed to this seemingly random interview with NBC because “a PR firm told him to do [it].”“What good is it to gain the whole world but lose your soul in the entire process?” he asks. “Well, apparently $24 billion was worth baring your soul and having it stomped on and humiliated and put through a Soviet struggle session on the "Today" show.”“That might be the most pathetic video I've seen in the year of our Lord 2026 right there. And I'm offended at it. I’m angry at it.”Cathy’s cowardice, he argues, indicates that he’s “going to the spirit of the age for repentance and absolution.”“You're making $24 billion a year and you're actually a business who's increased in value while many other people can't afford much else, so you called up Devil HQ and said, ‘Hey, do you mind if we come in and take a lashing?’” Deace rails.“If you're going to do that, then open up on Sundays. Your Sunday thing's not legit then. It's a crock. It's performance. It's virtue-signaling.”To hear more of Deace’s scathing commentary, watch the episode above.Want more from Steve Deace?To enjoy more of Steve's take on national politics, Christian worldview, and principled conservatism with a snarky twist, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

My aunt recently passed away after a long, grueling battle with cancer. An incredibly decent woman, she spent her final years insisting that time is our only non-renewable asset and that the hands on the clock move faster every year you stay alive.When I was younger, I dismissed this as little more than garden-variety elder sentimentality. Standing at her grave on a rainy Sunday morning, I finally understood what she meant.We built the effortless paradise our ancestors could only dream of, only to discover that it can make life feel like one long weekend.In the 19th century, a French philosopher named Paul Janet offered a mathematical explanation for the subjective acceleration of time. He argued that each passing year feels proportionally shorter for a very specific reason. To a 2-year-old child, twelve months equals 50% of all known reality. By the time a person hits 50, that same year accounts for a rather pathetic 2% of their personal timeline. Janet's arithmetic offers an elegant explanation for why the years seem to shrink, though it doesn't tell us much about what is happening inside our skulls.Reeling in the yearsA study published earlier this year offers a more complicated explanation. Researchers have long suggested that time seems to accelerate as we age because adulthood lacks the novelty of childhood and adolescence. When every day resembles the last, we have fewer distinctive memories to look back on, making entire years seem to disappear.Researchers examined 120 adults, ranging in age from 20 to 91, and found no significant relationship between how quickly participants felt the previous decade had passed and either the number of personal memories they recalled or the importance they attached to those memories. Instead, the sensation of accelerating time was associated with poorer cognitive performance, particularly on a test of delayed memory recall.The findings suggest that our ability to form new memories may help explain why time seems to speed up as we age. They also raise an uncomfortable question about how much of our lives we actually remember.Wasted on the wayConsider the difference between stepping onto an airport shuttle in a strange city and making your daily commute to work. In the unfamiliar city, you notice everything: the smell of diesel, the strange angle of the streetlights, the driver's odd accent, and the dodgy-looking individual eyeing your wallet. Decades later, you may still remember that seven-minute ride.Contrast that with your daily commute. You have driven that specific stretch of road thousands of times. The route is so familiar that you barely need to think about it. You arrive at your desk with 40 minutes missing from your conscious existence, unable to recall much of what happened between your driveway and the office.Smartphones have given us another remarkably efficient way to make hours disappear. Tens, perhaps hundreds, of millions around the world spend their afternoons tapping on glass screens, watching short videos of strangers selling snake oil or arguing over trivial issues. The ultimate joke of the digital age involves paying hefty sums for a device that competes so relentlessly for our attention that we barely notice our own lives passing.Even our attempts to preserve memories can interfere with forming them. In a 2014 study, psychologist Linda Henkel found that people who photographed objects during a museum tour subsequently remembered fewer details about them than people who simply observed them. The effect wasn't universal — taking more focused photographs produced different results — but the finding raises an interesting possibility. A parent filming a child's piano recital might come away with a beautiful MP4 file and surprisingly little memory of the performance itself.RELATED: The Ireland I grew up in is gone SOPA Images/Getty ImagesWhere the time goesFamily life has its own peculiar relationship with time. Raising kids feels like an endless march through tedious chores — changing diapers, insisting that Legos not be put in one's mouth, packing lunch boxes, folding laundry, and driving to soccer practice. Yet parents, from Boston to Brisbane, are shocked by how quickly their toddlers turn into college freshmen.Kids force constant novelty into a household through broken bones, lost teeth, spontaneous questions about death, and the unexpected introduction of garden creatures into the living area. Individual days can feel agonizingly long because every hour requires attention, yet the years somehow fly by in retrospect.Modern society has, in many ways, made convenience the guiding principle of daily life. We tap an icon to order takeout. We stream movies dictated by predictive algorithms. We substitute memes and text messages for actual human voices. We built the effortless paradise our ancestors could only dream of, only to discover that it can make life feel like one long weekend.And yet some of our most enduring memories come from doing the same things over and over again. Repeating specific holiday meals or annual camping trips may seem like a mindless, even pointless, routine to an outsider. It is not. Those moments become lasting markers in our memories. No one remembers a random Tuesday from six years ago, but everyone remembers the Thanksgiving when the oven exploded or the road trip when the radiator burst and Dad used some colorful language to convey his thoughts. Traditions give us memorable moments to return to as time moves on.Now that my aunt is gone, I keep thinking about those Sundays at her house. I think of the roast dinners, the endless slices of cake, the hot tea, and her constant reminders to do something useful with my life.At the time, I thought those Sundays would go on forever.