What has caused the rise in political violence in the United States that culminated with the January 6 insurrection? In part, our government’s uneven and counterproductive responses to jihad terrorism.

After 9/11, U.S. policy was disproportionately harsh toward Muslims while being comparatively lenient toward violence committed by far-right actors. This imbalance, according to our guest, Laura Dugan, Ph.D., professor of sociology at The Ohio State University, created both backlash and blind spots.

On one hand, aggressive policies—mass detentions and heightened surveillance—fueled resentment and contributed to the global spread of extremist movements. On the other, the failure to consistently label as “terrorism” acts of violence committed by white perpetrators and punish them signaled a degree of tolerance, or at least inconsistency, in law enforcement. This disparity helped normalize far-right extremism and allowed it to grow largely unchecked.

Terrorism should be defined by behavior, not identity. Using a widely accepted definition—violence or the threat of violence for political purposes—Dr. Dugan argues that parts of the January 6 attack clearly meet the threshold for terrorism, particularly the organized efforts to disrupt the certification of a presidential election. At the same time, she distinguishes between the planners of the event and the individuals who may have been swept up in the moment without intent to commit terrorism.

Far-right extremism has deep historical roots, dating back decades through movements like the Ku Klux Klan and anti-government militias. These groups have long promoted an “us versus them” worldview, often fueled by perceived existential threats. Political rhetoric that reinforces these fears—especially language that “others” specific groups—can amplify and legitimize extremist beliefs.

Focusing only on behavior, without understanding underlying grievances and ideologies, limits the ability to intervene early. Effective policy requires proportional responses, consistent accountability, and leadership that avoids dehumanizing language and instead encourages dialogue across divisions.

Today, we look into the world of conservative political commentary and focus on Ben Shapiro. At the heart of Shapiro’s approach to messaging is a bent for spouting more fiction than fact and more emotion than reason.

We listened to a Shapiro podcast in which he explains why he doesn’t regret voting for President Donald Trump. After hearing Shapiro, we have to wonder if he aligned himself with Trump, not out of conviction, but because doing so yields financial or other rewards.

There’s a big difference between fact‑based analysis and persuasive advocacy, and much of today’s political commentary—like Shapiro’s—prioritizes emotion, identity and culture‑war framing over evidence and nuance. His fast‑paced delivery, confident tone and simplified “either/or” narratives create the appearance of logic, but he often leaves out crucial context, competing facts or constitutional concerns.

Shapiro unapologetically defends Trump, particularly on issues like immigration, Iran and foreign policy. Shapiro avoids serious issues, such as human rights abuses, government overreach and the long‑term consequences the nation will suffer because of the Trump administration. He also employs fear‑based rhetoric—nuclear weapons and the border chaos—in place of thoughtful debate.

That fact that Shapiro has a large audience shows that many people accept political narratives without questioning them. Shapiro capitalizes on human nature. As we see it, many people—on both sides of the aisle—suffer from confirmation bias, emotional attachment, identity protection and prefer “comfortable untruths” over “uncomfortable truths.” And once you capture peoples’ attention based on some emotional tug, it’s hard for them to change their attitudes.

Shapiro and those like him rely on an absence of critical thinking and the reluctance by many to challenge what they hear. Of course, to challenge what you hear requires curiosity and effort, and that requires time and effort, and that’s not where many Americans are.

We’re joined by Reverend Derrick Holmes, pastor of the Union Grove Baptist Church in Columbus, Ohio, to explore the intersection of faith, justice and civic responsibility in one of the most divided moments in modern American life.

Reverend Holmes compares today’s political and social climate with the civil rights era of the 1960s, arguing that the moral urgency of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s time is very much alive today. Drawing on the Black prophetic tradition, he challenges the idea that pastors should remain silent on political or civic issues, insisting that Christianity—when studied seriously—demands engaging with difficult subjects like oppression, equity and truth‑telling.

Our conversation with Reverend Holmes dives into themes of Christian nationalism, the misuse of scripture for political power, and the difference between partisan politics and civic accountability. Reverend Holmes explains why he does not endorse candidates yet feels a deep obligation to hold leaders accountable through community forums, town halls and public dialogue. For him, the role of the church is not to chase popularity but to stand firmly on what is “right before God.”

We also explore liberation theology, the importance of reading the Bible from the perspective of the oppressed rather than the empire, and the dangers of shallow interpretations in an era of intellectual decline. Reverend Holmes reflects on his own journey—from growing up in liberation‑oriented churches in Harlem and the Bronx, to pastoring in rural Ohio—and how those experiences shaped a ministry rooted in activism, community organizing, and moral courage.

The episode closes with a moving discussion of “revolutionary love”—a disruptive, transformative love that refuses fear, confronts injustice, and believes deeply in the power of faith to change communities and lives.

Thought‑provoking, challenging, and deeply human, this episode invites listeners to reconsider what it truly means to live out faith in public life.