RSS
The Bishop Who Confronted Trump: When Clergy Put Progressive Politics Above Their Sacred Duty

Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde speaks as US President Donald Trump, first lady Melania, and US Vice President JD Vance with second lady Usha attend the National Day of Prayer Service at the Washington National Cathedral in Washington, DC, Jan. 21, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde isn’t just any church leader. She’s the Episcopal Bishop of Washington, DC, overseeing 86 congregations, ten Episcopal schools, and — most notably — the Washington National Cathedral. In other words, she’s the face of Christianity in the US capital, with a pulpit perfectly positioned to inspire people of faith.
And to be clear, the National Cathedral isn’t just some grand old church. It’s the nation’s most prominent Christian place of worship — America’s cathedral, serving as an iconic backdrop for state funerals, presidential prayer services, and moments of national reflection.
Teddy Roosevelt laid the foundation stone. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. preached his last Sunday sermon there. Reagan, Ford, Bush 41, and just a couple of weeks ago, Jimmy Carter, had their funerals under its towering arches. If there’s one place where national unity is supposed to take precedence over political point-scoring, it’s here.
Which brings us back to Bishop Budde. This week, she had one job. A simple one, really. Stand at the lectern, offer a prayer, bless the moment, and step aside. That’s what clergy are supposed to do at national events — bring a touch of solemnity, a moment of reflection, and maybe even a bit of spiritual elevation. But Budde? She just couldn’t help herself.
Budde has a history of using her religious platform for political commentary. During the George Floyd protests in June 2020, she was one of the loudest voices condemning President Donald Trump’s visit to St. John’s Episcopal Church in Washington, DC, which took place after law enforcement cleared protesters from Lafayette Square, a routine security measure when a sitting president moves through an area.
But rather than acknowledging the practical realities, Budde framed the visit as a cynical political maneuver, accusing Trump of exploiting religious imagery for his own ends.
This week was no different — except this time, President Trump was sitting just a few feet away as Budde launched into a politically charged critique at his expense. Rather than honoring the occasion with dignity, she hijacked the post-inaugural prayer service, turning it into a political spectacle.
Her pulpit became a platform for protest instead of prayer. The US presidential inauguration — what should have been a unifying moment, regardless of political affiliation — descended into yet another tiresome lecture, chastising Trump for carrying out the mandate given to him by the American electorate.

US President Donald Trump stands near Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde as he attends the National Day of Prayer Service at the Washington National Cathedral in Washington, DC, Jan. 21, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
Of course, Bishop Budde is entitled to her opinions. But taking what should have been a celebration of democracy and twisting it into a sermon scolding the president was tasteless at best, manipulative at worst. Then again, should anyone really be surprised?
In the modern Episcopal Church, the religious leader’s primary job — namely, to guide souls, offer comfort, and teach faith in God — has been replaced by something else entirely. Increasingly, its clergy seem more interested in being political activists than spiritual shepherds.
And the rot runs deep. For decades, the Episcopal Church has been a haven for “progressive” clergy who see religion as little more than a vehicle for their ideological crusades.
Some have gone even further — questioning, reinterpreting, and in some cases outright rejecting the very faith they were ordained to uphold. Take Bishop John Shelby Spong, who led the Episcopal Diocese of Newark from 1979 to 2000. He famously declared that “theism is dead” and dismissed the very idea of talking about God as meaningless.
Then there was William Montgomery Brown, the Episcopal Bishop of Arkansas, who began his career preaching the Gospel and ended it preaching communism — before abandoning even that and embracing full-blown atheism, proudly referring to himself as a “Christian atheist,” whatever that is meant to mean.
Brown holds the dubious distinction of being the first Protestant bishop to be tried for heresy since the Reformation and the first of any creed in America to be officially deposed for heretical teachings. Yes, an Episcopal bishop who, in the end, didn’t believe in God at all. You can’t make this stuff up.
And it doesn’t stop there. The Episcopal Church has long been at the forefront of anti-Israel activism, always cloaked in the noble language of “humanitarian concern.” The Episcopal Peace Fellowship Palestine Israel Network eagerly parrots the same tired narratives as the pro-Palestinian woke mob, dismissing Israel’s security concerns and opposing the designation of six Palestinian NGOs as terrorist organizations — even when clear evidence linked them to terror groups. It’s as if they believe launching rockets at civilians or intimidating Jewish students on college campuses is some kind of moral high ground.
Meanwhile, Episcopalian activists have been among the loudest voices pushing for divestment from Israel, all while conveniently turning a blind eye to far worse human rights abuses across the Middle East and beyond.
And now, Budde has used her national platform not to offer a message of hope or faith, but to take cheap political shots under the guise of religious solemnity. Strangely enough, for anyone familiar with biblical narrative, this all feels eerily familiar. In Parshat Va’era, we get to know Pharaoh — the vain, self-absorbed ruler of Egypt who considered himself a god.
To Pharaoh, religion wasn’t about truth or faith — and it certainly wasn’t about God. It was a tool, a convenient means to impose his version of right and wrong on everyone around him. He cloaked himself in divine authority, much like Budde drapes herself in a bishop’s red and white vestments. But he didn’t use his role to bring people closer to God. He used it to push his own warped agenda — one that ultimately brought misery to everyone around him.
Pharaoh didn’t serve truth. He didn’t serve God. He served only himself.
Like Pharaoh, Budde is using her religious authority to push a distinctly liberal political agenda. She wraps it in piety, but the goal isn’t faith. Instead, it’s about using a sacred moment to make a partisan point.
In the biblical narrative, Pharaoh thought he could control reality, bending it to his will. But in the end, he learned the hard way that there are forces beyond his grasp. Those who twist faith to fit their own agendas — whether in ancient Egypt or in modern America — eventually find that it doesn’t end well.
Religious leaders have every right to their personal convictions. I’m a religious leader, and I have strong views on just about every subject imaginable. But when we step up to the pulpit, our job is to lead people to God — not to the latest round of progressive talking points.
If clergy want to be politicians, they should run for office. If they want to be shepherds of faith — whether in churches, synagogues, or mosques — they should stop weaponizing the pulpit and turning sacred spaces into platforms for political grandstanding.
Because when faith leaders act more like politicians and protest campaigners, they don’t just lose credibility — they risk losing the very soul of the institution they claim to represent.
The post The Bishop Who Confronted Trump: When Clergy Put Progressive Politics Above Their Sacred Duty first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Iran and Terrorism: Empty Gestures or Genuine Change?

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi speaks during a meeting with foreign ambassadors in Tehran, Iran, July 12, 2025. Photo: Hamid Forootan/Iranian Foreign Ministry/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS
In a world grappling with persistent threats of terrorism and financial crimes, the international community must not be swayed by superficial gestures.
While Tehran’s recent ratification of the Palermo Convention against transnational organized crime may seem like a step in the right direction on the surface, it is likely a calculated move designed to distract from the regime’s continued and unwavering support for global terrorism.
The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) reportedly plans to meet with Tehran’s bureaucrats to review whether the Islamic Republic of Iran has complied with its action plan to be removed from its blacklist.
However, the global financial watchdog must resist the temptation to remove Tehran from the list, because the Islamic Republic fundamentally remains committed to funding terrorism and engaging in illicit financing. To remove Tehran would be to ignore a mountain of evidence that supports this unequivocal fact.
In fact, removing Iran would endanger the integrity of the international financial system.
For years, the Islamic Republic has been a leading state sponsor of terrorism. No single treaty that Iran may ratify can disguise this fact.
The regime’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has a long and bloody history of plotting assassinations on American soil and overseas, targeting high-profile figures like President Donald Trump, journalists, dissidents, and ordinary citizens. This is not the conduct of a state genuinely committed to combating organized crime. It is the action of a rogue regime that uses terror as a primary tool of its foreign policy.
The recent move by Iran’s Expediency Discernment Council to ratify the United Nations’ Palermo Convention — after years of refusing to do so — is a classic example of Tehran’s diplomatic gamesmanship.
Tehran understands its presence on the FATF blacklist has crippled its economy, It is desperate for a reprieve. However, the regime has refused to ratify the most crucial of the FATF-required treaties: the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (CFT).
By refusing to do so, Tehran is signaling its intention to continue funding terrorist proxies including Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. Nor has Iran abandoned the facilitation network it has provided to Al-Qaeda. While Tehran may one day feel compelled to ratify the CFT for economic reasons, removing it from the blacklist should take place only if commensurate conduct changes on the terrorism front — and that change is sustained.
The international community has already witnessed the devastating consequences of Iran’s terror financing. The Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, was inspired, funded, and enabled by Tehran. The regime’s support for the Houthis in Yemen has destabilized the region and disrupted global trade, costing the United States and its allies billions of dollars. Tehran’s backing of Hezbollah in Lebanon threatens the security of Israel and the stability of the entire Middle East. Iran should not be welcomed back into the global financial fold until it changes its conduct, not merely purports to agree to an item on a technical checklist.
The FATF has a clear mandate: to protect the global financial system from money laundering and terrorist financing. To fulfill this mandate, it must hold Iran to the same standard as every other nation. This means insisting on full and unconditional compliance with all FATF requirements, including the ratification of the CFT and demonstrable adherence to its principles. There can be no exceptions, carve-outs, or special treatment for a regime that has blatantly and repeatedly violated international law and circumvented sanctions.
Tehran’s diplomatic overtures are nothing but a smokescreen. As long as the regime continues to fund terrorism, plot assassinations, and destabilize the Middle East, it must remain on the FATF blacklist. The security of the United States and its allies, and the integrity of the global financial system, depend on it. The message to Tehran must be clear: words are not enough. Its actions and malign conduct must change.
Saeed Ghasseminejad is a senior advisor at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD). Toby Dershowitz is managing director at FDD Action, FDD is a Washington, DC-based, nonpartisan research institute focused on national security and foreign policy. FDD Action is a non-partisan 501(c)(4) organization established to advocate for effective policies to promote US national security and defend free nations. Follow the authors on X @SGhasseminejad and @tobydersh.
RSS
From Sacred to Strategic: Hamas Turns Civilian Infrastructure Into Targets

Palestinian Hamas terrorists stand guard on the day of the handover of hostages held in Gaza since the deadly Oct. 7, 2023, attack, as part of a ceasefire and a hostages-prisoners swap deal between Hamas and Israel, in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip, Feb. 22, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Hatem Khaled
Two weeks ago, the IDF revealed a chilling incident: Hamas operatives posed as World Central Kitchen aid workers, wearing yellow vests and using WCK-branded vehicles. WCK swiftly confirmed that the imposters had no affiliation — that this was terrorism hiding in humanitarian garb.
Then, earlier this week, Israel struck Nasser Hospital in Southern Gaza — not randomly, cruelly or without reason, but because Hamas was using the hospital to operate surveillance cameras to track IDF movements.
A tragic battlefield misstep occurred when tank fire was used to disable those cameras instead of drones, killing 6 Hamas terrorists who were either operating or near the targeted cameras, but also resulting in unintended civilian casualties. This outcome was tragic — but sadly predictable.
This is the logic of Hamas’ strategy: weaponize Gaza’s hospitals, schools, mosques, and aid centers, force civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure, and then broadcast them as evidence of Israeli atrocity.
Hospitals: Protected — Until Abused
International Humanitarian Law (IHL) stands firm: during a war, hospitals may not be targeted — unless they are being used for military purposes. Hamas’ use of these sites as command or surveillance posts nullifies their protection.
Mosques and Schools: Sacred — Until Militarized
Houses of worship and schools are also granted special status under IHL. But that protection dissolves once they are used for military advantage — a tactic Hamas consistently employs, turning places of worship into weapons depots and schools into hideouts.
Humanitarian Aid: Safe — Until Exploited
Under IHL, even aid workers can become legitimate targets when Hamas impersonates them. The WCK incident not only endangered genuine aid efforts, but it also weaponized the trust people place in humanitarian organizations, and eroding that trust endangers aid workers everywhere in Gaza.
This Is Calculated — Not Casual
These are not random errors — they are deliberate Hamas strategies: embed fighters and military and tactical equipment in civilian infrastructure, provoke strikes, and unleash graphic narratives. The recent hospital strike and the WCK impersonation reflect this grim choreography.
A Double Standard with Deadly Consequences
When US or UK forces faced civilian casualties in Mosul or Aleppo, the world understood the moral complexity caused by ISIS embedding itself among civilians and fighting in civilian clothes.
But when Israel confronts Hamas — whose tunnel networks under hospitals and all other civilian infrastructure in Gaza rival entire urban subway systems — the narrative is nearly monolithic: Israel is the villain.
This is the double standard defined in the IHRA working definition of antisemitism.
No Safe Haven for Gaza Civilians
Hamas’ cynical human shield strategy and its use of Gaza’s civilian infrastructure as cover is enhanced as a tactical tool by the actions of Gaza’s Arab neighbors.
In Syria and Ukraine, civilians fled across borders to safety in Jordan, Poland, Turkey.
In fact, in every war in modern history, civilians have left combat zones to go to neighboring non-hostile countries.
But after October 7, Egypt and Jordan closed their borders, citing political fears. That leaves Gaza civilians trapped — forced to rely on limited “humanitarian zones” Israel sets up — zones Hamas routinely targets and even tries to stop Gazans from entering.
The result: Israel is held to an impossible standard: avoid civilian casualties even when terrorists hide themselves and their military and tactical infrastructure next to, among, and beneath them, while Gaza’s Arab neighbors are held to no standard of refuge for their fellow Arabs whatsoever.
Casualty Figures — Propaganda Masquerading as Data
To make matters worse, most media outlets parrot casualty numbers from Hamas’ so-called “Health Ministry.”
The Gaza Health Ministry’s numbers lump together civilians, combatants, natural deaths, and even those killed by Hamas’ own misfired rockets. For years before October 7th, between 5,000 and 7,000 people in Gaza died from natural causes. Meanwhile, at least 15% to 25% of Hamas and Islamic Jihad’s rockets fall short, killing Gazans.
And Hamas routinely kills Gazans it decides are “collaborators” with Israel. All these deaths — along with the death of Hamas fighters — are aggregated in Hamas’s “death tolls” for the October 7th war it started.
Yet the narrative advanced by major media outlets and on social media paint every death as of a civilian killed by Israel. This is propaganda masquerading as data.
Conclusion: Accountability, Not Convenient Narratives
Hamas will continue to weaponize its own civilians — and civilian spaces — if excuses remain for its behavior. Only when the global dialogue refuses to blame Israel for the foreseeable results of Hamas’ human-shield warfare can moral clarity return.
The responsibility lies — with Hamas, not Israel — to stop turning Gaza’s hospitals, schools, and civilian infrastructure generally into strategic targets. Let’s call this what it is: terrorism hiding behind civilian facades. Until the world stops tolerating and even rewarding Hamas’ cynical human shield tactics, they will continue.
Micha Danzig is a current attorney, former IDF soldier & NYPD police officer. He currently writes for numerous publications on matters related to Israel, antisemitism & Jewish identity & is the immediate past President of StandWithUs in San Diego and a national board member of Herut.
RSS
What Is the Future for Russian-Speaking Jews in America?

Morris Abram (left), chairman of National Conference on Soviet Jewry, with Ed Koch, former Mayor of New York City, and Natan Sharansky, former Prisoner of Conscience. Photo: Center for Jewish History via Flickr.
The Russian-speaking Jewish community (RSJ) has traveled a long road to America.
From pogroms and World Wars to Soviet repression, our families fled in search of freedom and opportunity. New immigration to the US has slowed, and today, the future of the community rests with the children of those who arrived decades ago. What will their identity look like?
To find out, the American Russian-Speaking Jews Alliance (ARSJA) surveyed RSJ parents and received over 250 responses summarized in a new report.
The findings show a community deeply committed to raising Jewish children — even if traditional religious observance is not at the center.
Although 54 percent of the respondents do not keep kosher and only 3 percent attend synagogue daily, 89 percent of parents expect their children will have a “Very strong” or “Somewhat strong” Jewish identity.
Community life seems to be more popular than ritual. More than half of those surveyed attend RSJ gatherings or Israel-related events, and 67 percent go to synagogue on the High Holidays.
Shaul Kelner, professor of Jewish Studies and Sociology at Vanderbilt University, reminded us that, “American Jews are a diverse population, and there is no one-size-fits-all approach. It’s important that organizations like ARSJA are working to identify and respond to the specific needs of the Russian-speaking Jewish community.”
The “Russian-speaking” part of the identity is more complicated.
Most parents (58 percent) want their children to speak Russian mainly to communicate with grandparents.
Grandparents (75 percent) and parents (70 percent) are the people children use Russian with most often.
Yet only 60 percent of parents believe their children will maintain a strong RSJ identity. For some, the label recalls a painful past. One respondent said that they “see [their] Russian-speaking identity as really more of being raised in the former USSR, a totalitarian regime, the type of which we hope our children will never experience.”
Still, the community is finding new expressions of identity. Judi Garrett, COO at Jewish Relief Network Ukraine, points out that RSJs have played an active role in fundraising efforts. She noted that American-born RSJs organized campaigns that raised significant support for humanitarian aid in Ukraine. Philanthropy may become one of the ways that the next generation expresses who they are.
Parents also voiced deeper concerns. When asked what they worried about most regarding their children’s Jewish identity, the most common answers were antisemitism and assimilation. These anxieties echo across the wider American Jewish community and underscore how forces outside the family shape identity.
The survey does not provide simple answers. It does, however, spark an important conversation. For RSJs in America, the challenge is not only how to preserve their heritage, but how to pass down a Jewish identity rooted in belonging, pride, and purpose.
Mariella Favel leads data analysis at ARSJA, as well as research into how various communal and national organizations are influencing civic discourse.