A young atheist creator recently posted a video reacting to a response from William Lane Craig, one of the best-known Christian apologists alive. She had asked a simple question: if God proved to her that he was real, why would that take away her free will? Christians kept telling her that God stays hidden to protect our freedom. She didn’t buy it. In no other part of life, she said, does gaining information destroy your ability to choose.

Craig answered on his podcast in about two minutes. He pushed back on her claim that information never takes away freedom, since you can’t freely believe you don’t have a heart once you know you do. Then he conceded something important. Even if God gave evidence so compelling that everyone believed he existed, he said, people would still have to choose whether to love and worship him. Finally, he suggested that God’s hiddenness might stir up a deeper longing for him, and might produce more love than clear proof would.

Her reaction to that concession was essentially: yes, that’s my whole point. If proof doesn’t remove the choice, why withhold the proof?

A recent Holy Post episode discussed an Atlantic piece by Elizabeth Bruenig on what she calls a growing “anti-empathy” movement on the right. It started with Joe Rigney’s The Sin of Empathy and Allie Beth Stuckey’s Toxic Empathy. It has now reached Gad Saad’s “suicidal empathy,” the claim that compassion for outsiders will be the death of Western civilization.

Bruenig’s argument, and the hosts’ agreement with it, is that these books work as permission slips. They help conservatives quiet a conscience that feels uneasy about cutting food aid or deporting people to countries they’ve never lived in. The rebuttal from the other side is just as familiar: the left uses emotional images to push policies that don’t hold up to “sober analysis.”

So one side says, you’d agree with me if you had a heart. The other side says, you’d agree with me if you used your head. Nobody in the conversation is doing the obvious Christian thing, which is to ask what the text actually says.

Last week, RealClearPolicy ran an op-ed by Chris Abbott, the CEO of Pivot Bio, a company that sells microbial nitrogen to corn and wheat farmers. The headline was “Farm Families Plan in Decades,” and the pitch was warm: farmers think generationally, so the companies that serve them should too. His company’s way of doing that is a grant program that deposits $1,000 to $5,000 a year into Trump Accounts for the children of employees and qualifying farmer customers.

The line that stuck with me was this one: eighteen investments of $1,000 can grow to over $4 million by age 65.

That number is technically possible. It’s also the kind of number that only works if you don’t look at it too closely. So let’s look at it closely.

A note before we start: everything described below about the night in question comes from a civil complaint. None of it has been proven in court. At least one of the accused men denies it through his attorney. I’m going to be careful about that, because part of the point of this piece is how hard it is to know what happened after the fact.

At 1:42 in the morning on October 20, 2024, according to a lawsuit filed this month, a member of Cornell’s Chi Phi fraternity posted a message to a Snapchat group called “Chi Phi Actives.” It told his brothers there was “free pussy” upstairs.

Upstairs, according to the complaint, was a 20-year-old student. She had arrived at the house visibly drunk after a sorority event, and two members had pressured her into snorting what they told her was ketamine. She alleges that she was sexually assaulted by multiple men over several hours, until around 5:45 a.m.

Kendall Kotzmacher lost a softball game, and she was heartbroken. Then she wrote a story about why. The story says one player beat her. The scoreboard says something a little different.

On September 27, Fox News ran an opinion piece by Kendall Kotzmacher, now a softball player at Colorado Christian University. In 2025 she was a senior at White Bear Lake High School in Minnesota. Her team made the state tournament and lost in the semifinals to Champlin Park, a team with a transgender pitcher. Champlin Park went on to win the state title.

Her essay says her season ended because of that pitcher. It is a sincere piece, and her tears were real. But “why did we lose?” is a question with an answer written down in numbers. So let’s read those numbers slowly and simply, one turn at a time, the way you’d walk a kid through a game from the bleachers.

A question has been making the rounds on Facebook: how do you prove AI “art” doesn’t involve mindfulness to someone who thinks prompting is mindful?

You can’t. That’s the honest answer. Mindfulness happens inside a person, and you can’t audit someone else’s attention from the outside. You can’t prove a painter wasn’t daydreaming about lunch while laying down a sky, either.

Somebody can type a prompt with total focus. Somebody else can paint on autopilot. The activity doesn’t tell you what was going on in the head.

I recently watched a video from a working artist who sells paintings at art fairs. She’d just come off a show that went badly, and then she scrolled through social media and saw post after post from other artists at the same show thanking the organizers, the volunteers, the wonderful patrons. Best weekend ever. Can’t wait for next year.

That wasn’t what she saw from her booth.

She gave real numbers, which I respect. For the two previous years she’d made about $5,100 to $5,200 at this show. This year she made $3,600, down about 30 percent. Booth fees ran from $500 to just under $700. She was paying an assistant by the hour. Some vendors had hotel bills on top of that. It was 95 degrees with a heat index of 102, and she and her assistant took turns going to a nearby Barnes & Noble to cool off because they were getting dizzy. On Saturday afternoon, which should be the busiest stretch of the whole weekend, the aisles were close to empty. The show had also been scheduled on the same weekend as the zoo’s biggest fundraiser and the opening of the Kansas State Fair.

It took me longer than I’d like to admit to figure out that a rice cooker isn’t just for rice.

I’m not talking about the old kind, the pot with a glass lid, a hole in it, and a single switch that clicks off when the water runs out. I mean the small “portable” models: a sealed, hinged lid with a gasket, a carry handle, a locking latch, and a little computer chip that manages the heat in stages. They run around $40. They are not pressure cookers, whatever the lid makes you think, but the sealed lid holds heat and moisture far better than the old style, and the chip keeps things from scorching or drying out.

Once you realize what goes in them, it’s hard to go back. And once you own more than one, something even better happens: your kitchen starts working like the counter at a burrito-bowl chain.

On September 24, Fox News ran an opinion piece by Horace Cooper, a legal commentator and former counsel to House Majority Leader Dick Armey, arguing that “lawsuit abuse” has become an affordability crisis. The hook is the Supreme Court’s new term, which opens October 5 with Suncor Energy v. Boulder County, a case over whether federal law blocks local governments from suing oil companies for climate damages. From there Cooper widens the lens: nuclear verdicts, antitrust suits against fire-truck makers, mass torts over ultra-processed food and infant formula. His conclusion is that America’s tort system imposes a hidden “tort tax” on every household, and that reform is overdue.

I checked his numbers. Most of them are real. The problem is what they’re counting.

Cooper’s central statistic is that U.S. tort costs hit $529 billion in 2022, about 2.1% of GDP, and could approach $1 trillion by 2030. Those figures are accurate. He doesn’t say where they come from: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform, the business lobby’s tort-reform arm. That doesn’t make them false, but readers deserve to know the estimate comes from the side that wants the estimate to be big.

Last Friday, Texas state Sen. Angela Paxton spoke to the Texas Federation of Republican Women. Her speech was titled “The Elephant in the Room.”

The elephant was her husband.

Technically, her estranged husband. In July 2025, after 38 years of marriage, she filed for divorce “on biblical grounds.” Her filing alleged that Ken Paxton had committed adultery. In a public statement, she said marriage is “a sacred covenant,” that she had earnestly pursued reconciliation, and that staying in the marriage would not honor God.

Holy Post recently gathered its whole bench for a panel: Phil Vischer, Skye Jethani, Kaitlyn Schiess, and Esau McCaulley. They were responding to two books released on back-to-back weeks. One was Kristin Kobes Du Mez’s follow-up to Jesus and John Wayne. The other was Bonnie Kristian’s defense of evangelicalism. On paper, those books disagree. Du Mez argues the problems are baked into the movement. Kristian argues the problems come from the surrounding culture, and evangelicalism is getting blamed for them.

The best moment in the episode wasn’t about either book. It was about a bookstore.

Skye brought up a passage from Du Mez’s work. In it, a Christian bookstore owner from the 1980s or ‘90s explains the business model: find out what customers want and give it to them. A store that tries to change what its customers want will go bankrupt.

There’s a specific kind of civic monument you find in a lot of American towns: the Carnegie library. The Rockefeller wing of a hospital. The Ford Foundation grant that funded the new playground. Whatever you think of the men behind those names, they left something behind that a community could point to and say: that’s ours, because they were here.

Now ask yourself a harder question. Thousands of American towns have a Walmart. Many of them have had one for thirty years. Walmart is, in a real sense, the economic center of gravity for thousands of small and mid-sized towns — often the largest employer, almost always the largest single collector of local consumer spending. So where’s the Walmart wing of the library? Where are the Walmart-endowed teachers, the Walmart Little League fields, the Walmart scholarship funds that show up with the same regularity as the Christmas bonus checks used to at the old five-and-dime downtown?

Before you accuse me of setting up a straw man: Walmart does give. A lot, in fact. The company reported nearly $2 billion in global cash and in-kind donations last fiscal year, including tens of millions of dollars in local facility grants distributed across the U.S. and Canada through its Spark Good program. That’s real, and it’s fair to say so up front.

In light of the ongoing debate over whether a $7 oat milk latte can derail an entire hiring pipeline, we decided to settle the matter once and for all. Below, a rigorous taxonomy of what your iced coffee order reveals about your character, your work ethic, and — most importantly — your fundamental worthiness to be extended an offer letter by someone who has been doing this for sixteen years and therefore knows things.

1. The plain iced coffee, black.

You respect the meritocracy. You understand that suffering builds character, and that character is what gets you promoted, not, say, your quarterly output. Bold, humorless, correct.

A commenter showed up under a post about women and the church with what he clearly considered a mic drop. The Old Testament, he said, “doesn’t help the cause of women either.” He then gave three examples from the Law and the narratives. He closed by telling anyone who “begs for equality” and treats 1 Timothy 2-3 as the only obstacle in Scripture that they are “sadly mistaken.”

Most of his facts are correct. I’m saying that up front because the lazy reply to a comment like this is to wave it away, and that’s how you lose an argument you didn’t need to lose. The trouble is the leap he makes after the facts. Once you’ve found one real asymmetry, it’s tempting to treat every difference as more evidence, every silence as a verdict, and every “I can’t see the reason” as proof that there isn’t one. Find one specific sexism and you’re licensed to invent more.

So let’s take his examples one at a time.

Let me introduce you to the Daily Nationalist.

It doesn’t exist. I invented it about ten minutes ago, and I’m already fond of it. The Daily Nationalist has a White House correspondent with a permanent pass, a front-row seat, and one reliable question: “Mr. President, how do you stay so humble?” The president answers at length every time. No one from the Daily Nationalist has ever been asked to leave the room, because no one from the Daily Nationalist has ever given anyone a reason to.

By the standard Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders offered on Friday, the Daily Nationalist is a shining monument to press freedom. Its reporters are standing in the Oval Office, asking questions of the president of the United States. What more could you want?

On September 18, Fox News reported that the University of Texas at Austin will stop enrolling new students in three majors: Women’s and Gender Studies, Mexican American and Latina/o Studies, and African and African Diaspora Studies. Students already in the programs can finish. The comment section did what comment sections do. One reader was glad students would be spared loan debt for a “worthless degree.” Another suggested they might now be steered toward a major with value to them and to society.

Notice how easily those two ideas slid together. Worthless meant low-paying. Valuable to society meant valuable to an employer. That equation is so familiar that we rarely notice it is an assumption. It is the assumption I want to examine.

This piece does three things. It looks at where these majors came from and what they were meant to do. It looks at what their graduates actually do for work, because “worthless” is a factual claim and facts can be checked. And it asks the harder question: even if the paychecks were lower, should a wage be the yardstick for a degree, and what follows if it shouldn’t be?

I watched a response video this week that re-ran an old fight: does the Bible endorse slavery, or only regulate it? One side says regulation is a way of holding on to slavery under God’s supervision. The other points to the humane rules. Both sides argue over a label, so I’d rather ask a narrower question. When the law lists the ways a person can end up serving someone else, who is on the list, and does American slavery fit any entry?

Explaining what a law says isn’t defending it, and reading Leviticus 25 isn’t defending the antebellum South. The reverse also holds: pointing to humane regulations doesn’t make an institution good.

My claim is narrower than “the Bible bans slavery,” and I think that makes it harder to knock down. Leviticus 25:44-46 permits owning foreigners and passing them to your children. It does not say that kidnapping creates lawful title, that buying a kidnapped person cures the kidnapping, or that everyone a foreign market offers may be lawfully kept.

I walked into (well, sat down to research) The Uprising assuming I was about to get a Robin Hood prequel. The marketing certainly wanted me to think that — Focus Features spent the weeks before release quietly rebranding the U.S. release as The Uprising: The Rise of Robin Hood, over the visible irritation of the U.K. distributor, who insisted the film “does not make any reference to Robin Hood.”

Both of those things are true at once, which tells you something about the movie itself: it’s a real historical drama about the 1381 Peasants’ Revolt that also, in its last five minutes, decides to become a Robin Hood movie — built out of a rebel crowd speaking in signifiers borrowed from both sides of America’s current populist divide, in a story that ends up meaning something its own star doesn’t seem to have fully reckoned with.

Paul Greengrass’s film is “inspired by” the Great Rising, England’s first large-scale popular revolt, and for most of its runtime it earns that description. Here’s the real sequence:

There’s a genre of writing that gets a free pass most other genres don’t: the “I visited a bad neighborhood and now I have Opinions” column. Christianity Today just ran a fresh entry from editor-in-chief Marvin Olasky, and it’s worth pulling apart — not because it’s poorly written, but because it’s well written in service of an argument that falls apart the moment you check it against the research the author didn’t bother to cite.

The piece is framed as an indictment of “harm reduction” — the public health approach that includes needle exchanges, naloxone distribution, and tolerance of drug use in public health settings as an alternative to demanding abstinence up front. Olasky’s argument, in short: harm reduction is a euphemism for giving up on people, San Francisco proved it, and the city’s recent political swing toward crackdown policy vindicates the old-school “tough love” model.

It’s a tidy story. It also leaves out almost everything that would complicate it.

Mitch McConnell was elected to a position, not to do anything. No Senate seat comes with a job description that requires consciousness. The position pays whether he shows up or not, whether he casts a vote or not, whether he can perform the ordinary functions of the office or not. There’s no ordinary employment mechanism by which a senator loses the office for taking an extended medical absence — no manager who can decide the job isn’t waiting for him, no clock running out on his right to come back to it.

That’s not really a scandal. It’s a design choice, and a defensible one: the office was built so that no one short of the voters, or the Senate itself, can push a senator out mid-term. Otherwise you’d get senators pressured to resign the moment they got sick, which is its own kind of abuse.

McConnell was hospitalized in mid-June after a fall, treated for pneumonia, and spent weeks in rehabilitation before returning to the Capitol and casting a vote on September 14 — an absence multiple outlets counted at roughly three months, 92 days by one tally. Through all of it, his salary, his seat, his staff, and his committee assignments sat exactly where he left them.