Scriptural Justifications can be revealing

Pete Hegseth, the U.S. Secretary of War, made news headlines when — at a Pentagon worship service — he prayed for violence against enemies “who deserve no mercy.” While unsettling, the call to destroy one’s foes without compassion is expressed in the Bible (Deuteronomy 7). On another occasion, after returning from a dignified transfer of soldiers killed in action, the Secretary of War again quoted a passage from the Bible in prayer: “Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle.” (Psalm 144)

Pope Leo XIV, the spiritual leader of 1.4 billion Catholics, made news headlines when — at a Palm Sunday service — he quoted the Bible and said that God “does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them, saying: ‘Even though you make many prayers, I will not listen: your hands are full of blood.’” (Isaiah 1)

Some may wonder how two people of the same faith can quote from the same sacred text to draw opposing moral conclusions on violence and war. The problem extends beyond this single example, though. On nearly any social issue — abortion, gun rights, capital punishment, immigration, LGBTQ+ rights, etc. — people on opposite sides routinely cite scripture in support of their positions.

The question can be expanded further still, to ask how is it that those who are loving, accepting and compassionate can find support in scripture for their cause; while those who are just the opposite can also appeal to scripture in support of their hateful views?

One explanation is that people don’t only get their values from their faith — it goes the other way around, as well. In other words, religions don’t only shape our values; they are also shaped by them.

For example, do we really think that people in antiquity believed lying and adultery were considered noble acts until the various religious laws forbade it? I have yet to meet a person who says, “You know, I used to believe in stealing and murder, but then I read the Ten Commandments and it changed my mind.” More likely, people utilized religion to justify the morals/ethics they already valued.

From this perspective, religion satisfies the psychological needs of people who harbor a range of feelings — from kindness and love to hostility and prejudice — and offers the language and structure to express such attitudes. One’s personality traits may remain constant even as their focus shifts and are conveyed in new ways.

The apostle Paul, for instance, was by his own account zealous for his Jewish faith before his conversion to Christianity. After his conversion experience, Paul was zealous for Christ. Before and after his conversion, he was zealous; the target of his zeal had simply changed. Likewise, several years ago a student on the first day of the semester in one of my religion courses declared to the entire class that he was no longer addicted to drugs, but to Christ instead. His addiction had found a new focus.

Religion can thus draw out what already dwells within each person. If you are hateful and angry, your god will be, too. If you are loving and kind, you’ll likely see god in this way. Political and cultural inclinations often follow the same pattern, as people tend to join religious groups that affirm and nurture what they already hold dear. This in turn further shapes those traditions and communities. Good people tend to produce good religion; bad people produce bad ones — and vice versa.

Therefore, when someone quotes scripture to justify a position on an issue, listen carefully. They may be revealing as much about themselves as about their religion.

Copyright (c) 2026 MidWeek, Edition 5/13/2026

Misfit Spirit Jay Sakashita