Thought for the Day, 27th March 2026

Donald Trump likes to say he’s a Christian. I don’t know how much of a Christian he really is as I can’t see inside his head. All I can do is watch what he does and compare those actions to those of what I expect a good Christian would do.

To be blunt though, I don’t believe he really is a Christian, after all, he wouldn’t have acted the way he had in business, with workers, women, young girls, the population of the United States of America, his support base etc. if he really followed Christian principles.

And then there’s Benjamin Netanyahu. He’s Jewish. And if we’re asking about Donald Trump, who uses Christianity as some sort of facade, and his faith, then what about Benny? I don’t know enough about Judaism to measure his level of faith against his actions, but I suspect he’s more Jewish than Donald Trump is Christian.

And then there are the targets of this Judo-Christian war. The Muslims. Iran is the main focus of this war but the second front is The Lebanon. We have a supposedly secular country, the USA, aligning with a Jewish state to attack a Muslim state and take side swipes at another Muslim state. This smacks of a “holy war”.

The notion of America’s separation of church and state is broken because it’s leader’s self-professed “Christian values” seem at odds with the bible, and there were overt religious comments in talks to troops at the beginning of this forsaken war.

So rather than ask “what would Jesus do?” ask “what would the pagans do?” because those with a wider and more open mindset would have not gone in to this ridiculous conflict, not because it goes against “Christian values” or “Jewish values”, whatever they are, but, more importantly it goes against HUMAN values, even the values of nature, the world, the planet, and the delicate equilibrium we may have had prior to this “Operation Epic Fury” nonsense.

As a pagan myself, I don’t have any dogma or scripture to “follow”, only an inherent natural affinity with people and the planet. There is not only far too much human suffering, directly from the bombing of people primarily in Iran and Lebanon, but all the other Gulf states and even Israel itself.

And it’s not just the direct destruction of homes, shops, police stations, and other public infrastructure, but the collateral damage to neighbourhood cohesion, national psyche, and the world’s weariness of warfare. The global economy is only just feeling the initial tremors of this shock, as I suspect there is more to come. Even if Trump stops “his” war, will the Israelis continue theirs? Is this a land-grab in disguise? Is that their distraction whilst Trump’s is that you don’t mention the Epstein files?

But back to war, the new thing you’re supposed to be looking at, what will the region look like this time next year, in five years, ten years, a century? What about the rest of the world?

The mindset that “obliteration” of Iran’s high command will leave a power vacuum that ordinary Iranians will fill the void of is naive. Iran murdered thousands when they last started an uprising. And now, just because “the head of the snake” has been cut off, doesn’t mean it won’t grow a new one.

Ordinary Iranians have been shot at and murdered by their own religious state, and now another pair of religious states are raining down destruction upon them.  Where do people turn to? Where is safe? What is best? Because the state of the nation now is dangerous, whichever way you look at it.

So stop all this monotheist chest-beating and think of the wider picture – how are people and the planet doing? Because all this “my god’s better than your god” rubbish is so tiring.

Are You a Lover or a Fighter?

Have you ever been asked that question? Are you a lover or a fighter?

From my own perspective, it’s one of those black & white questions, a binary on or off, a yes or a no, a lover or a fighter. It’s a logical fallacy that’s just far too simplistic.

Now I know it’s often asked as an innocent question, maybe on dates, where one party needs to know whether someone is willing to reconcile or not, a great way to “sus someone out” before going further. It can help filter “swipe lefts” from “swipe rights”. But in my world view, it’s perfectly acceptable to be capable of both. In fact I’d recommend it.

Love and reconciliation are defaults in my pagan world view. The biblical “love thy neighbour” is true. But seeing as Christianity is a modern religion and has taken from earlier traditions, pagan forerunners had such foundations.

The Lover

In ancient Egypt, the concept of Ma’at was a mix of truth, balance, and cosmic order. In 1200 BCE “The Instruction of Amenemope” contained a passage along the lines of:

“Do not build a trap against a person… do not refuse your neighbour.”

That’s a very kind “love thy neighbour” respect.

The Egyptian “Book of the Dead” or “Spells for Coming Forth by Day” was another tome extoling virtue. Whilst it’s often seen as some sort of manual for the afterlife, an ancient “How to Win Friends and Influence People” in some ways, if you read Dale Carnegie’s book, it’s very clear about sincerity.

And besides, reading a manual and acting positively is never as good as being genuinely righteous.

There are similar virtues in Ancient Greek Xenia and Stoicism, in Mesopotamia’s “Code of Hammurabi”, and rules of reciprocity in Norse and Celtic traditions too.

The Fighter

Our innocent dating question posits that if you’re not a lover, then you must be fighter. So is it hinting that if you don’t love your neighbour then you’re hostile and warlike?

That may be the simplistic takeaway. But nothing’s ever as simple as it may seem is it?

Again, from, my own pagan and logical perspective, to take up the sword is a last resort. By default we are all, and all should be, lovers. But, if love does not work and if all avenues have been exhausted, then  surely being a fighter is a genuine and perfectly acceptable role, right?

Think about Private Joker in Stanley Kubrik’s “Full Metal Jacket” – at one point in the film he quips about “the duality of man” all the while being stationed in a land steeped in the tradition of Yin and Yang for aeons.

Taking stock of Eastern philosophy, you aren’t either/or, you are both a lover and a fighter.

In the “Tao Te Ching”, it also frames the fighter as a philosophy of last resort. Check this out:

“Weapons are tools of ill omen, not the tools of the gentleman. He uses them only when he has no other choice. Peace and quiet are what he prizes. Victory is not a cause for rejoicing.”

That offers the perfect balance.

Cognitive Bias and Dissonance?

I didn’t go looking for examples to back up my theory, they were already there. They’d been in place for thousands of years, over many generations of human existence. So any cognitive bias was not sought nor is haughtily proven.

Being a lover and a fighter is a huge part of being human. You have to be able to be both. Therefore, what can potentially be framed as cognitive dissonance is also a moot point – you can and you should be able to hold both values in your heart and your head.

Going back to Private Joker, the irony is on full view, even on the DVD cover and film poster – His GI issue helmet has both “Born to Kill” graffiti’d onto it and “peace” symbol, the famous CND pin badge (I have many myself). The movie is a journey of his struggle to come to terms with his situation over the course of his tour of Vietnam, and find balance for his own cognitive dissonance. Is he a lover or a fighter?

Final Thought

As a westerner, we have god and devil, good and evil; coincidence, huh? Yet I’ve broken out of my own 1970s junior school CofE upbringing and found my own truth many years ago.

What and who we were, pre-Christianity, is just as, if not, more valuable than the Western and Christian traditions we seem to believe and cling on to. We are older than that. Deeper than that. More than that.

So, when asked if you are a lover or a fighter, you are unlikely to be neither but far more likely to be both. Afterall, are you a lover who fights, or a fighter who loves?

One of my own favourite quotes is from Robert Heinlein’s 1973 sci-fi novel “Time Enough for Love” where he states:

“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyse a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialisation is for insects.”

Specialisation is being the lover or the fighter. As humans, we have the unique capacity top be both.