What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable
object? The answer to this question is more complicated than it looks or
sounds. That's because time is a big factor in what happens, and that is almost
never fully deciphered.
Nevertheless, what is known to happen is that in order to
maintain their postures, both sides use the energy they have in reserve. The
immovable object spends its energy to hold on to its inertia, whereas the
irresistible force spends its energy to keep intact its potential for momentum.
What happens next is that the side which exhausts its reserves first, yields to
the will of the other. Either the immovable object begins to move or the
irresistible force becomes easier to resist.
When we seek to understand why something in life happens the
way it does, we discover that all things are subject to the interplay between
inertia and the forces of momentum; between the status quo and the winds of
change. This has been true in every society since before we became human, and
is true today however civilized we may have become. But the difference between
us, human beings and the other species is that every one of us represents both
the object that resists change, and the force that seeks to change the others.
Those realities have been at the forefront of America 's
struggle to forge a societal covenant that's acceptable to every group in the
land. And nowhere is that clearer than in the arena of race and cultural
relations. In the racial arena, America
had a civil war, and the side that sought to abolish slavery won, forcing the
other side to go underground from where it is waging a quiet civil war. As to
the cultural arena, America
was spared a brutal fight because its founding fathers declared freedom of
worship to be a fundamental principle early on. But things are slowly beginning
to change, and the potential exists for a quiet or maybe even a brutal civil
war to be fought in this arena.
What tells you this possibility is real and potentially in
the offing is that the forces are lined up on a multitude of fronts, each
defending its turf while sniping at the others. The most visible part of the
struggle involves the relationship between the Christians who seek to maintain
the status quo while doing very little proselytizing, and the Jews who
constantly proselytize, not to convert others to their religion but to convert
them to the idea of Jewish ethno-religious supremacy – whatever that entails.
Moreover, the Jews are trying to draw the Muslims into the
mayhem because they believe they already won the war against the Christians.
And so, they set-up a colonial style master/subject relationship with them, and
used this construct to enlist the Christians into mercenary legions formed to
wage war against the Muslims.
You can see all that in two articles that appeared the same
day, January 29, 2018 on the pages of the same publication, the Washington
Times. One article came under the title: “The growing friendship of
evangelicals and Jews,” written by Wesley Pruden. The other article came under
the title: “A message for the evangelicals,” written by Cal Thomas.
The Wesley Pruden article shows how easily the older
Christian Americans surrendered to the aggressive Jews despite the winds of
change that were blowing against this sort of trends. The Christians also let
themselves be drafted into the Jewish legions which are fighting against the
Muslims. Here, in brief, are the passages that reveal those realities:
“The Jews are comfortable with Christians without a lot of
'Jesus stuff' … President Trump was persuaded by evangelicals to recognize
Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and sent Vice President Pence there … The
trip stands against the reality of polls that suggest young American Christians
are not devoted to Israel as their parents were … There's concern that the
relationship needs a revival among the young. The Israeli education minister
says he is 'very happy' with the evangelicals; adding that their influence with
Trump created opportunities for the Jews … Israel is now looking to
evangelicals to build support in Central America”.
As to Cal Thomas, he seems to have moderated his religious
fanaticism enough to see merit in the saying that goes: “Render unto Caesar the
things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's”.
The result is that Thomas now counsels his fellow
evangelicals to give more weight to the issue oriented positions of the
political candidates they consider voting for rather than judge them by their personal
beliefs.