Monday Miscellany, 6/8/26

The administration is reportedly dropping its plans for the “Anti-Weaponization” fund, the $1.8 billion settlement from the president’s suit with the IRS that would compensate victims of prosecutor misconduct that we blogged about recently.  This was in response to overwhelming criticism of the concept, including from Trump supporters.

But the settlement’s grant of immunity still stands.  Jacob Sullum, writing for the Libertarian magazine Reason, points out that the immunity agreement that the Department of Justice is signing on to goes beyond IRS claims to include protection against ALL agencies:

The addendum extends beyond the IRS. It says “the United States” is “FOREVER BARRED and PRECLUDED” from pursuing “any and all claims” against Trump or his family regarding “any matters currently pending or that could be pending” before the IRS, the Treasury Department, or “other agencies or departments.” In a May 27 motion urging U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams to reopen Trump v. IRS, 35 former federal judges noted the implications of that restriction: “The plain language of this extremely broad provision sweeps in [IRS] audits of Plaintiffs’ tax returns and all other claims the United States might have against Plaintiffs—extraordinary benefits for which no consideration was provided to the government.”

The addendum, in short, resembles a self-pardon, except that it extends even further, encompassing civil violations as well as criminal offenses.

A judge has halted disbursement of any funds for the settlement.  Lawsuits and congressional inquiry will continue.

To be sure, President Trump still exerts enormous control over the Republican party.  All but one of the candidates he endorsed in the recent primary elections for state, local, and national offices won their races, giving him a record of 118-1.  The sole exception was Zach Lahn’s victory over the Trump-endorsed Randy Feenstra  in the Iowa governor’s race.

By endorsing their victorious opponents, President Trump ousted his Republican critics Sen. John Cornyn (TX), Sen. Bill Cassidy (LA), and Rep. Thomas Massie (KY).

Republicans are now worried that while a Trump connection is vital in party primaries, it may prove toxic in the general election.

Forging Ahead with an Experiment That Could Destroy the Universe

In quantum physics, there’s a state with even less energy than a vacuum, called a true vacuum, which is stable because it has the lowest possible energy. A metastable or “false” vacuum, however, is a hypothetical state that seems stable — but hasn’t actually reached its most stable state yet.

If our universe were in this false vacuum state, researchers fret that a strange chain reaction could trigger what’s called a “false vacuum decay” event, which could result in the abrupt and sudden end of the entire universe around us — a “doomsday”-level threat some physicists claim is entirely possible, albeit exceedingly unlikely.

Now, as detailed in a paper published in the journal Physical Review Letters, physicists in China claim to have simulated false vacuum decay using a lab-based “tabletop” experiment, laying the groundwork for future investigations into whether the universe could be wiped out in an instant.

First of all, the universe is not going to be wiped out by a scientific experiment.  God preserves His creation.

What interests me here is that some scientists think the university might be wiped out by what they are playing around with.  And they are forging ahead anyway!

This is emblematic of the indifference on the part of scientists and engineers to the effects of the Pandora’s boxes that they keep opening.

Christian Energy Drinks

The UK Guardian published an article by Lydia Bugg entitled What would Jesus drink? Welcome to the age of Christian energy beverages.

It tells about four different American brands of Christian-branded caffeinated drinks:  Praise Energy, Agape, 4GVN [“forgiven”], and Yahweh.

The Yahweh drink has a picture of Jesus with a crown of thorns on every can.  The article quotes the entrepreneur behind the product:   “God put it on our hearts to specifically preach the gospel through an energy drink.”

Think about this.  Preaching the gospel not through God’s Word but through an energy drink. Some may reply, “But this can break through to the secularists who don’t go to church!”  But, judging from reporter Lydia Bugg’s commentary, secularists are mocking the whole project.

And think of the implications:  setting up a silver can and calling it “Yahweh.” Is this any different from setting up a golden calf and calling it “Yahweh”?  After Aaron makes the calf, he says, ““This is your god, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt!” (NKJV).

Some translations say “these are your gods,” plural, implying that this is a different deity than the YHWH revealed on Sinai. Others use the singular, so that the calf was thought of as a golden image of YHWH.  At least one translation notes that the language could be taken either way.  See this article, by the Jewish Bible scholar Joel Baden, who argues for the singular and notes that Aaron in the next verse says of the festival to worship the calf, “Tomorrow shall be a feast to the LORD.”  That is how all translations render it, that last word in Hebrew being YHWH.

Whether or not the Yahweh energy drink violates the First Commandment and the prohibition of graven images, it surely violates the commandment against taking the name of the Lord in vain:  “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain” (Exodus 20:7).  “LORD” in all caps is always the rendition of the tetragrammaton, the sacred YHWH.

The Hebrews dared not even pronounce that sacred name for fear of taking it in vain.  To this day, when Jews read from the Hebrew Bible, when they come to YHWH, they do not try to speculate on a pronunciation but render it as Adonai; that is, “Lord,” printed in all caps, a convention followed in the leading Christian translations.

At any rate, the Hebrew says, “You shall not take the name of Yahweh in vain, for Yahweh will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.”  Wouldn’t marketing a Yahweh energy drink qualify?

But maybe we Christians should not take such a narrow Jewish taboo so seriously, as I was once admonished when I had qualms about using “Yahweh” in some curriculum I was editing.

So let’s take a Christian understanding of what it means to take God’s name in vain.  Here is how Luther’s Small Catechism explains it: “We should fear and love God so that we do not curse, swear, use satanic arts, lie, or deceive by His name, but call upon it in every trouble, pray, praise, and give thanks.”

OK, someone selling the Yahweh brand might say, we might use a little deception in marketing this product, implying that consuming this drink has some spiritual benefit, but we aren’t doing the really bad stuff.

But the explanation in Luther’s Large Catechism, a confessional document also binding on Lutherans, does directly apply:  “All misuse of the divine name happens first in worldly business and in matters that concern money, possessions, and honor” (53).

Misusing the divine name in worldly business and in matters that concern money.  Yes, I’d say that applies to the energy drink that goes by the name of Yahweh.