“What are your pronouns?” Such a seemingly innocuous question actually manifests the fanatical nature of radical gender ideology. As evolutionary biologist Colin Wright demonstrates, “pronouns are now frequently displayed prominently in social-media bios, email signatures and conference name tags . . . there are singular ‘they/them’ pronouns used by ‘nonbinary’ people who identify as neither male nor female, as well as a growing list of bespoke ‘neopronouns’ such as ‘ze/zir’ or ‘fae/faer’ and the even stranger ‘nounself’ neoprouns like ‘bun/bunself’ which, according to the New York Times, are identities that can encompass animals and fantasy characters.” Wright goes on to argue that “Proponents of gender ideology have completely decoupled the terms ‘man,’ ‘woman,’ ‘boy,’ and ‘girl’ from biological sex.

President Biden has used the term “genocide” to describe Vladimir Putin’s barbarism in Ukraine: civilians being slaughtered, mass graves and the deliberate, intentionally ruthless bombing of civilians. Is this an accurate term to use? Is Putin guilty of war crimes similar to those of Hitler and Stalin?

As the world moved past the devastation of World War II in the 1950s and 1960s, and as the Cold War ended in 1991, the assumption was that the world, especially Europe, had learned some important lessons of history. But Putin’s brutal invasion of Ukraine harks back to the 19th century, when big powers crushed small powers at will. Columnist Frank Bruni writes, “What I see on the faces and hear in the voices of so many of the people around me is sheer disbelief about Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and a brutal war in Europe: Aren’t we supposed to be past this? Didn’t history move on?

Business leaders who employ college graduates; employers who are looking for qualified high school graduates; and political leaders who are objectively analyzing the return on the investment of the trillions of dollars spent on American education at all levels agree that the American educational system is in crisis. In this Perspective, I delve into two aspects of this crisis—Mitch Daniels’s observation about accountability in education and the perverted strategies centered on DEI.

I became a Christian in 1972 and began a focused, committed walk with Jesus in 1973. As my wife and I surrounded ourselves with Christian friends, we studied the Word of God, sang worship choruses and prayed together. One of the worship songs we sang was “We are One in the Spirit” by Peter Scholtes: “We are one in the Spirit, we are one in the Lord”. . . “We will work with each other” . . . and “We will walk with each other.” The chorus proclaimed, “And they’ll know we are Christians by our love, by our love.” I doubt that anyone would seriously declare that this chorus reflects evangelicalism in 2022. Evangelicalism is a fractured movement at war with itself; a movement often reflects bitterness, recrimination, discord and division—not love.

Compassion is an important biblical term that means having pity on or showing mercy to someone. It is a character trait of God. The Old Testament speaks of having compassion on the “orphan, the widow and the stranger” (Deuteronomy 10:18) and on the “poor and afflicted” (Micah 6:8; Psalm 141:9). Compassion is used by Jesus at several critical moments in His ministry (e.g., Luke 15 of the father of the prodigal son; the Good Samaritan in Luke 10). One should not necessarily expect to see the virtue of compassion among unbelievers, but it is reasonable that one would see it powerfully among believers; among those who name Christ’s name.

Anti-Semitism has an ugly history. It was central to the plans of Pharaoh Ahmose who enslaved the Hebrews (see Exodus 1). It was a key element in Pharaoh Amenhotep I’s policy of genocide recorded in Exodus 1:15-22—to kill all Hebrew boys at birth. It was the driving force in Haman’s motivation to ask the Persian emperor Xerxes in 474 BC to issue a decree annihilating all Jews in the Persian Empire (see the book of Esther). In the 20th century the genocidal policies of the Nazi movement in Germany reached its apex with two monumental strategies

It is nothing short of astonishing that a few ultra-conservatives still regard Vladimir Putin as a messianic, heroic figure. For such people, in the early decades of the 21st century, Putin is a valuable ally because he seeks to replace the multiracial, multilingual global order with strong nation-states. Putin’s ideologist, Alexander Dugin, writes: “We must create strategic alliances to overthrow the present order of things, of which the core could be described as human rights, anti-hierarchy and political correctness, everything that is the face of the Beast, the Antichrist.” Right-wing ideologist, Steve Bannon, concludes that “We, the Judeo-Christian West, really have to look at what [Putin] is talking about as far as traditionalism goes, particularly the sense of where it supports the underpinnings of nationalism.”

The war in Ukraine has upset the world order resulting in the rethinking of past assumptions and perceptions. To provide the context for this observation, let’s go back to the opening of the Chinese Winter Olympics in early February: Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping held a high-profile summit meeting in which they pledged friendship and solidarity. At the end of their meeting, they issued a joint manifesto.

The dreadful war in Ukraine launched by the brutal and aggressive designs of the criminal Vladimir Putin has changed perceptions, assumptions and priorities. As Aaron Rhodes, President to the Forum for Religious Freedom—Europe, has argued, “[This war] is a war of conquest by a statist regime against a society seeking democracy and peace. Mr. Putin’s attack on Ukraine is emblematic of a world-wide conflict between democratic and hegemonic powers. It thus offers an opportunity for moral clarity, which will be crucial in the years and decades ahead.” It is indeed a chance to rediscover the principles of freedom and democracy, eroded by illiberal intellectual fads. This brutal war requires a change in the thinking of the United States about its future, its relationship with NATO and its military and diplomatic strategies.