Rex M Rogers - Discerning What Is Best

Discerning What Is Best
with Dr. Rex M. Rogers

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 29 September 2025

How do we maintain freedom of speech in an era of hate speech and ideologically unacceptable views?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #227 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.

For the past several years, the so-called cancel culture and political correctness movements put pressure on organizations, especially universities, to silence or fire people who shared or even held "unacceptable views." Somehow, freedom of speech was willingly sacrificed in the name of ideology.

Then, Charlie Kirk was murdered as he exercised his free speech on a university campus.

Following this horrific nonsensical crime, conservatives, who earlier vigorously decried how liberals and the Left worked to curtail freedom of speech via cancel culture, now cheered people being fired, or they call for them to be called out or doxxed for expressing negative views on air or online about Kirk or his politics.

Now in the interests of accuracy, we should note that many of the conservative reactions to anti-Kirk comments are pointing to those comments that endorse or call for political violence. In other words, some anti-Kirk comments celebrated his death, or called for, even named, others to be killed.

But, still, there’s a problem here. However disgusting or insensitive anti-Kirk comments may be, aren’t even these anti-Kirk media comments just “sticks and stones,” and aren’t these comments, even if ugly, still protected speech under the First Amendment?

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified 1791, states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

American freedom of speech case law allows for distasteful even despicable comments, as long as they don’t call for violence, directly threaten, or become what in the past thirty years or so come to be called “hate speech.”

One common definition of hate speech is “any form of expression through which speakers intend to vilify, humiliate or incite hatred against a group or a class of persons on the basis of race, religion, skin color, sexual identity, gender identity, ethnicity, disability or national origin.” U.S. courts have ruled that restrictions on hate speech would conflict with the First Amendment’s protection of the freedom of expression.

So, free speech in the U.S. includes not only support for popular views but also the expression of unpopular, offensive, or controversial opinions. Remember the old maxim attributed to Voltaire? “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

An American core ideal, this protection extends to commentary on public figures, including after their deaths, again, as long as it does not cross legal lines such as defamation, threats, targeted harassment, or calls for political violence.

Maintaining a commitment to free speech gets difficult in highly emotional times like the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination—and it was an assassination, killed with deliberate premeditation using a long-range, high-powered hunting rifle.

Recently, it’s been liberals or the Left arguing they are being suppressed or silenced. Note the fooforaw regarding what late night host Jimmy Kimmel said about the Charlie Kirk assassination, his network ownership, ABC and Disney, suspending his show, then barely a week later restoring it on most ABC outlets. Kimmel advocates are screaming “Free speech violation,” yet the government had nothing to do with this decision.

And on the conservative side of things, here’s another example of free speech controversy. On a recent Fox program, host Brian Kilmeade and his cohost were discussing the unprovoked horrible murder of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska by a knife-wielding, homeless man. The cohost said if such individuals refuse mental health assistance should be sent to jail. Kilmeade responded, "Or involuntary lethal injection, or something. Just kill 'em." He later apologized, saying he made an “extremely callous” remark. Conservative Kilmeade advocates are defending him, saying it was a foolish slip-up. Liberals are arguing if Kimmel could be suspended, why not Kilmeade? Kilmeade’s comment was certainly more than callous, more than a slip-up—he called for summary execution of undesirables—he has to-date not been fired.

The tension in these situations highlight a societal confusion around free speech. For years, many conservatives criticized “cancel culture,” arguing that people were being punished socially or professionally for expressing views that deviated from progressive norms. Their concerns were warranted, for as Google just admitted, responding to pressure from the Biden Administration, the corporation suppressed conservative viewpoints on its platform and YouTube app.

So, suppression of free speech has indeed taken place. But whether suspending Kimmel or Kilmeade qualifies as a free speech matter is debatable. The First Amendment restricts government censorship, not private consequences. Employers, especially in at-will employment states, often have broad discretion to fire employees for speech that could damage the company’s image or workplace environment. So, while Kimmel’s insensitive Kirk comments and Kilmeade’s insensitive Zarutska murder comments are likely legally protected, they are not immune to social or professional backlash or consequences.

For the record, while I strongly defend and support the First Amendment and thus citizens’ right to freedom of speech, I don’t consider either the Kimmel or Kilmeade incident a bona fide free speech matter. I’d maintain Kimmel’s suspension because he is losing the network money, and I’d fire Kilmeade for his crude remarks calling for the execution of people he considers unworthy.

In essence, while hateful or bigoted speech is often deeply offensive, it remains protected unless it is directly linked to violence, threats, or illegal conduct. The U.S. legal system emphasizes protecting even “disturbing” speech to preserve the broader principle of free expression.

If we value free expression, we must be consistent—even when the speech offends us or targets someone we respect. If we argue that people shouldn’t lose jobs over political views, that principle ought to apply universally. Otherwise, “free speech” becomes a partisan tool rather than a shared democratic value. Defending only the speech we agree with is not defending free speech at all.

In the United States, the First Amendment protects a wide range of speech, including controversial, offensive, and unpopular ideas. But not all speech is protected.

Hate speech is protected under the First Amendment unless it falls into specific, narrowly defined exceptions established by the courts.

Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action: Speech that is intended to incite or produce immediate illegal acts and is likely to do so is not protected.
True Threats or Fighting Words: Speech that communicates a serious intent to commit violence against a specific individual or group is not protected.
Harassment or Targeted Hate Crimes: Speech that is part of criminal conduct, such as stalking or hate crimes, involving intimidation or harassment.

Meanwhile, there is growing concern among free‑speech advocates that some Western democracies in Europe have increasingly curtailed online expression — particularly around topics like immigration, gender, religion, or protests — sometimes through arrests, prosecutions, or fines.

In Germany, authorities carried out raids and prosecuted individuals accused of spreading hate speech online.
Sweden: a prosecution of a 70‑year‑old woman for what was deemed a "disparaging view of refugees" on Facebook.
Poland and Germany: flagged cases where anti‑immigration content was removed.

Vice President J.D. Vance, making his first major speech in Europe, challenged leaders to show consistency: do they truly defend democratic values — including free expression — or are the limitations being applied selectively?

There is a fear that laws against hate speech, defamation, or “offensive” commentary could become tools for political control. When citizens are arrested, sanctioned, or punished not for credible threats or incitement of violence, but for expressing unpopular or harsh views (even insensitive or inflammatory ones), critics view this as a slippery slope that chills debate.

Freedom of speech, enshrined in the First Amendment, sits at the core of the American creed, as famously articulated by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. It is not hyperbole to say this freedom is quintessentially American, and no one, liberal/the Left or conservatives should play fast and loose with this ideal.

Well, we’ll see you again soon. This podcast is about Discerning What Is Best. If you find this thought-provoking and helpful, follow us on your favorite podcast platform. For more Christian commentary, see my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s rexmrogers.com, or check my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers.

And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.

*This podcast blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/ or my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 22 September 2025

On social media, have you been hearing on about the revivals taking place at public universities, many via football teams?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #226 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.

Revivals, or spiritual awakenings if you wish, are taking place across the country, primarily on public university campuses. I talked about this before, first the Christian College Revivals–Asbury University and More phenomenon, then Spiritual Awakening in the American University.

In those earlier podcasts, I noted that to discern wisely, we needed to ask questions:

Is this revival consistent with the Word of God?
Is Jesus Christ exalted?
Does this revival involve confession and repentance, obedience, salvation by faith in Christ, open confession of love for Christ?
Will God move this revival to public universities?

Asking these questions is not a masquerade for doubting God or being skeptical for the sake of skepticism but a careful stewardship of what we are hearing, determining what is true and trustworthy. In those earlier reviews of college revivals, I concluded God indeed seemed to be working and that I hoped the movement would continue.

I also noted that students coming of age in America have been sold a bill of goods. Our culture has taught youth to reject God, absolute truth, morality, even biological science. Instead, they’ve been taught cynicism, that nothing deserves their faith, that nothing and no one is worthy of their trust.

Youth are taught in school, in their music, in their celebrity worship, in their sexual confusion that nothing matters, that there is no purpose, just uncertainty, angst, disquietude.

And nothing has been put in place of this deconstruction of timeless verities. All young people have is nihilism – the idea life is absurd and meaningless. Is it any wonder that there is an epidemic of mental health issues among America’s young people?

Think about this. If you truly believed life was hollow, inconsequential, that your own life was pointless, that it had no purpose, you have no value or worth, why wouldn’t you seek escape in hedonism, lust or substance abuse? Who cares?

And if your life has no value or worth, certainly other human beings have no value or worth. If we believe this hopelessness, what’s left?

It is in this academic context that I prayed the Lord would send his Spirit upon the land beginning perhaps with the most spiritually bereft of places in America, the college and university campus. Now it appears God is doing exactly that.

While there’s no official count, a number of organizations, student ministries, media, and Christian commentators have documented dozens of events, across both public and private schools, where students gather for extended worship, prayer, confession, baptisms, and renewed commitment to faith.

Over 1,000 college students reputedly accepted Jesus this week at West Virginia University. Carson-Newman University experienced public professions of faith and baptisms of football players.

Ohio State University football players led “An Invitation to Jesus” night of praise inviting students to Christ with many coming forward to profess faith. Over 2,000 people gathered. About 50 students were baptized.

“Against the backdrop of anti-Israel protests, violence, and death chants at college and university campuses recently, some GenZers are choosing instead to uplift Jesus Christ. (Some) 8,000 students gathered on the campus of the University of Tennessee to praise His Name alone.”

Auburn University: A revival event there drew 5,000 students, resulting in over 200 baptisms. Florida State University: Another Christian service saw 4,500 students attend, with around 350 baptisms. Nebraska University and University of Cincinnati football players united in prayer after the game. The University of Alabama quarterback Ty Simpson recently shared his faith in Christ with media. Pennsylvania State University players prayed in endzone before the game. A UniteUS event at the University of Oklahoma drew nearly 9,000 students in early September 2025 to worship, pray, and hear evangelistic preaching.

Many universities experiencing revivals. Arizona State Georgia Bulldogs, Auburn Tigers, Miami Hurricanes, Boise State, and others have been doing this for years but not to this extent.

Earlier in 2025, at University of Kentucky, UniteUS held a large revival: ~8,000 students in attendance, ~2,000 responded to the gospel message. At Ohio State in spring, ~6,500 students gathered, nearly 2,000 made first‑time commitments, many baptisms were conducted even in severe cold. Purdue University had a revival‐style event; about 4,500 attended and hundreds responded. Baylor University also hosted a “72‑hour prayer tent” event, continuous prayer and worship, part of the UniteUS / campus ministries outreach.

The UniteUS movement is a major organizer behind many of these events. These revivals often combine: worship music, evangelistic preaching, altar calls/decision points for Christ, baptisms (sometimes spontaneous, even outdoors or in unconventional setups like tubs or trucks). Student‐athletes are increasingly visible participants. There seems to be momentum early in the fall semester with “kickoff” events, likely because new students and returning students are gathering, and events are timed to the start of term. OSU’s “Fall Kickoff” is a case in point.

Before college football kickoff, Tim Tebow led a stadium of 100,000 in prayer, sharing the Gospel plainly and pointedly, praying people would respond. His prayer elicited an ovation and cheers.

UniteUS began, September 12, 2023, when “thousands of college students gathered at Auburn University’s Neville Arena with one singular focus–to lift the name of Jesus. What began in Auburn, Alabama has continued to grow into a movement reaching college campuses across the nation. Unite exists to see college students gathered to lift the name of Jesus. Every Unite gathering has three main objectives:

SALVATION
For non-believers to hear a clear presentation of the Gospel in a welcoming environment. Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9
FREEDOM
For believers to know and experience true freedom from sin and burdens on their hearts. Galatians 5:1
COMMUNITY
For students to find community and discipleship through connection to local ministries and the local church. Ephesians 4:1-6.”

UniteUs is itself a phenomenon, founded by Tonya Prewett, in a little more than two years it has become a national force in the Christian evangelism of Gen Z. To assure fidelity to the Word and avoidance of faddish religion or easy-believism, the questions we asked of earlier of Christian college revivals should continue to be asked of UniteUs revivals: Are these revivals consistent with the Word of God?

Is Jesus Christ exalted? Do these revivals involve confession and repentance, obedience, salvation by faith in Christ alone, and open confession of love for Christ? At this point, early and continuing testimonials are consistently affirmative.

“Despite the fact the events are held on secular college campuses, every place UniteUS goes they're finding thousands of students desperate to know Jesus and eagerly jumping into fountains, lakes, and the backs of pickup trucks in order to be baptized. One of the keys to the UniteUS events is their partnership with local churches that help disciple the students who come to the events and dedicate their lives to Jesus.” One pastoral supporter of UniteUS said, “Universities are pregnant with revival.”

Several public universities experienced revival sessions during 2024, and when I say “several” I mean a lot, and it appears this is continuing in 2025. Some are saying, “Aside from what we have been seeing take place on social media, there is undeniable evidence that the Holy Spirit is moving in this place. Gen Z is hungry for truth, seeking an anchor to put their hope in, and ready to give their lives to the one person who can set them free.”

Clearly, Christian revivals on American university campuses are being reported with increasing frequency, and many if not most of these events are cited on social media. They are driven by a mix of spiritual craving, societal stresses, desire for meaning, and, I believe, the Lord’s Spirit choosing to work in the lives of young people.

If you want something positive to pray about, pray for more genuine Christian spiritual revivals or awakenings specifically on American university campuses.

And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 15 September 2025

When people say, “Our thoughts and prayers are with you,” do they mean it?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #224 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.

When someone passes or suffers some tragedy it’s become common in American culture to say, “Our thoughts and prayers are with you.” This conventional phrase has become a socially accepted expression of sympathy.

There is nothing wrong with this phrase as such, especially if the person saying it really means it. Will they really think about the person experiencing grief? Will they actually pray for them? If they do not follow through, thinking and praying for the aggrieved, then this statement is little more than a ritualized expression, what linguists call a phatic expression—language meant more for social bonding than for literal meaning.

I’ve wondered about this phrase along the way, even catching myself when I was thinking of saying it. Do I mean it or is this a polite throw-away phrase that gets me past an uncomfortable moment?

Or maybe you’ve been the recipient of this sentiment during your time of trial. Did you believe the person saying it, or did it not matter what they said as much as they bothered to be there and express some sympathy for your feelings?

“Thoughts and prayers” made national news in the aftermath of the tragic mass shooting in Minneapolis wherein a shooter ruthlessly shot at children through the stained-glass windows of a Catholic Church while the students and their teachers held a beginning of the year chapel. He killed two innocent children and injured twenty-one others.

Following this horrific bloodbath, in what is usual and expected fashion, various political leaders made public statements. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey told media, “Don't just say this is about thoughts and prayers right now. These kids were literally praying."

On CNN, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobachar said, "Forget about thoughts and prayers. These kids were literally praying when they were murdered through a church window.” On her X account, MSNBC host Jen Psaki caused the most stir when she rather vehemently posted, “Prayer is not freaking enough. Prayers do not end school shootings. Prayers do not make parents feel safe sending their kids to school. Prayer does not bring these kids back. Enough with the thoughts and prayers.”

Other notables weighed in with similar statements, but for the most part their comments were not really about thoughts and prayers but about gun control.

Gov. Gavin Newsom put it bluntly in his post on X: “They were in their church praying when this happened. What they need is gun control.”

Now there are various ways we could analyze this. We could focus upon gun control versus other ways to stop mass shootings. But that debate is not my interest here. I’m more intrigued by what these and others mean, including me, when we say, “our thoughts and prayers are with you.”

I cannot speak for what’s in the heart of those who seemed to dismiss the efficacy of prayer, but I can point to other things they believe that could be at the root of their views on prayer.

Take for example Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine’s comments last week about the source of human rights and law. While considering an administration appointee during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting, Sen. Kaine responded to the candidate’s assertion that “all men are created equal because our rights come from God, our creator; not from our laws, not from our governments.” To this, Sen. Kaine said, “The notion that rights don't come from laws, and don't come from the government, but come from the Creator...That's what the Iranian government believes. It’s a theocratic regime that bases its rule on Shia law and targets Sunnis, Bahá’ís, Jews, Christians, and other religious minorities. They do it because they believe that they understand what natural rights are from their Creator. So, the statement that our rights do not come from our laws or our government is extremely troubling.”

I’d say the fact what’s extremely troubling is that Sen. Kaine thinks the idea our rights come from our Creator is extremely troubling. It’s ironic indeed that Sen Kaine represents Virginia, the home of the man, Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the first draft of the Declaration of Independence wherein he said, and the Second Continental Congress ratified, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

You’ve heard the expression, “He said the quiet part out loud.” This is what Sen. Kaine just did. He is admitting that he does not believe our unalienable rights come from our Creator and he argues instead that government is the source of our rights. This is telling and scary to say the least. It is also un-American.

Now back to “thoughts and prayers.” As I said, I do not know these peoples’ hearts, but I do think that anyone who discounts prayers in such a snarky manner – Remember, Psaki said “Prayers are not freaking enough,” using an f-word substitute that everyone recognizes. But if a person does not comprehend the purpose, power, and efficacy of prayer, then it suggests what is in their heart, and what’s in their heart is likely what Sen. Kaine said out loud: God is not sovereign.

The secularizing trend of America’s political and social and academic elite has been evident for some time, at least to the 1960s and perhaps back to WWII.

Calling into question a public leader’s statements about God still doesn’t tell us what exactly the attitude and belief is of his or her heart, Democrat or Republican. We know this. But one can say they believe in God, and probably Sen Kaine does, while simultaneously living and working like what I call a practical agnostic.

The person may believe in God or a god, yet believe we cannot know God, and then live accordingly, i.e., live as if God is not there, is not engaged, and is not one to whom we are accountable. In that view, one is free to do what is right in their own eyes. This description might describe most leaders in much of the USA and Europe.

The real impact of this beginning presupposition is at the next level. If there is no God that we can know who is involved in our lives, then there is no definition for righteousness and sin, good and evil. Men and women are not inclined to sin but basically good at heart, thus the real culprit causing our social problems is not individual moral choices but society, systemic “out there” forces that do us in.

Bad behaving human beings are not, therefore, irresponsibly making immoral choices but just unlucky victims of the system. So, working to change the moral framework of youthful upbringing, reinforcing the positive values of a family with Dad and Mom guiding kids’ lives, or if young adults still make wrong choices, holding them accountable—these remedies are not considered, only endless conversations about the need for mental health programs or more stringent gun control.

If the shooter is trans, which several mass shooters have been, then don’t talk about it, for to recognize this evidence from the crime scene is to somehow demonize all trans individuals. If the shooter is an illegal immigrant and the victim is white, then don’t acknowledge this because it doesn’t fit the preferred ideological narrative. If the killer uses a gun, talk about that, not the innocent victims, but by all means talk about mental health.

“Of course mental illness is real. But not every evil act can be swept into the category of ‘disease.’ Some people do wicked things because they are wicked.

And leaders who refuse to acknowledge evil allow it to fester. Delayed justice encourages more injustice. Refusing to punish wrongdoing breeds more wrongdoing. That’s not just common sense; it’s biblical wisdom.”

Ecc. 8:11 says, “Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed speedily, the heart of the children of man is fully set to do evil.”

Now back again to “thoughts and prayers.” I don’t buy the jettisoning of thoughts and prayers as a political tactic to jump to gun control, but I do acknowledge that saying “our thoughts and prayers are with you” may not be sufficient.

Scripture talks about faith and works, not works to earn faith, for this is not possible, but works because of our faith. What is it that we can do in addition to extending sincere thoughts and prayers? There are many things, e.g., be present and assist in life needs among them. And protect children? Hardening security in schools, training and arming school staff, holding offenders accountable when they commit lesser crimes before they escalate to bigger crimes.

Our country does indeed need our thoughts and prayers. And it needs our actions too.

And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 11 September 2025

What has the recent killings of a young Ukrainian refugee and conservative activist Charlie Kirk taught us?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #225 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.

“Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska looked up at her killer with terror in her eyes after he repeatedly stabbed her with a pocketknife, as no light-rail passengers came immediately to her aid.”

“The Aug. 22 attack on the Lynx Blue Line train in Charlotte, North Carolina, shows the 23-year-old cowering in fear and covering her face with her hands after the shocking, unprovoked attack, allegedly carried out by homeless repeat felon.” The entire horrible violence is available for all to see on train video, including her collapse to the floor and the killer’s aimless walking about the train for several minutes as other passengers simply watch. Only one man eventually tried to help Iryna.

Sept 10, 2025, Charlie “Kirk, the conservative activist and co-founder of Turning Point USA, was giving a presentation at Utah Valley University when he was fatally shot” from long distance with a high-powered rifle. He was sitting under an open-air tent canopy responding to a student question in front of a crowd of some 3,000 students. The entire horrible violence is available on video, including Charlie recoiling from the hit, bleeding, and falling to the ground.

Understandably, these killings, more than others that occur every day, have captured America’s attention. Why is that?

One, because they are on video. This isn’t cinema; it’s real. And two, because both these bloody assaults on human life portray senseless, sad, sick, sinful, unprovoked violence that could happen to any of us.

Iryna was simply riding a commuter train, reading her phone and was attacked from behind. Charlie was a public figure in a public venue.

He was doing what all those anchor people on cable news, celebrities, entertainment figures, and politicians regularly do—speaking into a microphone with nothing between him and a bullet. The news anchors know this, especially the ones on Fox News who knew Charlie well. This could be them. Understandably, you can hear the frustration and fear in their voices. As Bret Baier said on his evening report, “This one feels different.”

It was like that after 9/11, the anniversary of which ironically came the day after Charlie was martyred. I remember watching David Letterman and Dan Rather talking on air a night or two after. Tough-persona Dan was visibly shaken, and prince of goofiness David was uncharacteristically quiet. This was too close. Their world had been shaken. They did not know what to say or do, had no explanations.

This Charlie Kirk tragedy is like that. As Bret said, “This feels different.”

I’ve written and presented two podcasts along the way called “The Death of Discussion” and “Revisiting the Death of Discussion.” In those podcasts, I noted that we now live in a “post-truth culture in which politics and polarization are so pronounced we can no longer communicate, resulting in a virtual inability to discuss, much less debate, any social-political issue without it exploding into defensive partisanship, ideological condemnation, or lack of civility.” And that “the death of discussion is a real and a sad phenomenon, a capitulation to a disappearing understanding among the public of what Freedom of Speech means in a constitutional republic.”

How do we conduct discussions in fear of our lives?

The murder of Iryna Zarutska feels like the death of public safety. The assassination of Charlie Kirk feels like the death of free speech.

Political violence, once the experience of Third World countries, is increasing in the United States.

Shortly after Kirk was shot, former Democratic Rep Gabby Giffords said, “Democratic societies will always have political disagreements, but we must never allow America to become a country that confronts those disagreements with violence.” Giffords herself was shot in the head by a gunman in 2011. In the 14 years since, attacks and threats against political figures have surged. Just three months ago, a masked gunman shot two Minnesota state lawmakers, killing one.

Two months before that, an arsonist set fire to the Pennsylvania governor’s mansion while Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro and his family slept inside…In the heat of the (2020) presidential campaign, (then candidate Donald J.) Trump was twice targeted by serious assassination attempts,” one coming within a centimeter of taking his life.

The murder of “Charlie Kirk marks a watershed moment in a surge of U.S. political violence, one that some experts fear will inflame an already-fractured country and inspire more unrest…In the first six months of the year, the U.S. experienced about 150 politically-motivated attacks — nearly twice as many as over the same period last year…Last year at least 300 cases of political violence across the U.S. between the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and the 2024 presidential election, marking the most significant and sustained surge in such violence since the 1970s.”

As they often do about school shootings, political leaders generally end their comments about these tragic shooting and killing events with the statement, “This has to end.” Agreed. But what is causing it and how do we stop it?

We can point to multiple sources of such crimes: polarization in the American political system, increasingly heated political rhetoric that takes on tones of personal animosity, more people in the US who do not embrace fundamental American values about life and liberty, a growing tendency to hold political viewpoints with a “religious,” i.e., uncompromising, morally superior, zeal, and a philosophy that divides American society into oppressors and the oppressed or victims.

From a Christian perspective, we may conclude that any culture like our own that rejects God and denies the existence of truth, i.e., embraces moral relativism, will begin to fall apart.

Prov. 29:18 says, “Where there is no prophetic vision the people cast off restraint, but blessed is he who keeps the law.” Without a foundation for our public moral consensus, there is no consensus. We’re left with no center, just centripetal forces tearing us apart.

And in recent years, like Europe before us, many American leaders have promoted the weak philosophy of “multiculturalism,” the idea that all cultures, values, and practices, are relative and none can be judged or determined to be wrong, bad, or unhealthy. This along with open borders means we end up with a mish mash of people who hold disjunctive worldviews, some of which are dangerous, even deadly, and, well, there’s not much we can say or do about it.

We just need to tolerate, live and let live.

Problem with this is that some of those cultures do not themselves believe in tolerance, live and let live, and adherents from time to time act out their views in crime and violence. This is what’s happening now in Europe, and this is what’s beginning to happen in the USA.

But this country was founded and flourished upon clearly understood Judeo-Christian values that valued life and liberty, believed in the Ten Commandments and certainly considered murder a reprehensible wrong, believed in accountability and justice, and promoted freedom of speech.

Charlie Kirk believed in these things and in the providence of God gave his life for them.

We need to recover our moral center, for without it there will be more unrest and more violence. God grant America a spiritual great awakening, and a revival of biblical values and civility.

And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 08 September 2025

The NFL started the 2025 season in Philadelphia, broadcasting “Lift Every Voice and Sing,” the so-called Black National Anthem, followed later by “The Star-Spangled Banner.” Is this laudable or unwise?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #223 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.

The NFL opened the 2025 season in Philadelphia with a performance of the so-called Black national anthem, “Lift Every Voice and Sing.” This decision to broadcast this song at NFL games has sparked both support and criticism.

On the positive side, performing the anthem can be seen as an act of recognition and respect for African American history and contributions. The song, written in 1900 and long appreciated within Black communities, carries emotional and cultural significance. Including it alongside “The Star-Spangled Banner” ostensibly highlights the diversity of the American experience and acknowledges struggles for racial equality. For many, this represents progress toward healing and giving voice to communities that have historically been marginalized. The NFL, with its about 70% Black players, hopes to send a symbolic message that it values the heritage and identity of its athletes and fans.

On the other hand, critics argue that playing what amounts to two national anthems risks deepening racial or ethnic divisions rather than promoting unity. The traditional anthem is intended to represent all Americans, not some and not a fractured identity rather than a shared one. Opponents claim this further politicizes sports, introducing controversies into what is meant to be a unifying and entertaining event. Some feel it emphasizes racial differences rather than common citizenship. Additionally, because sports events reach millions, detractors fear the move could alienate certain fans, potentially fueling resentment rather than understanding.

The tradition of playing the national anthem before sporting events in the United States dates back more than a century and is closely tied to moments of national challenge and unity. The earliest widely recorded instance occurred during the 1918 World Series between the Chicago Cubs and Boston Red Sox. With World War I ongoing and the nation in a somber mood, a military band played “The Star-Spangled Banner” during the seventh-inning stretch of Game One. The crowd, players, and soldiers in attendance stood and saluted, creating a powerful moment of shared patriotism. This positive reception encouraged organizers to repeat the practice in subsequent games.

Although at that time, “The Star-Spangled Banner” was not yet the official national anthem—it would be designated as such in 1931—the song grew in popularity at public events throughout the 1920s and 1930s. During World War II, the tradition became firmly established.

“Major League Baseball became the first professional sport to make it a standard to play the national anthem. With the United States of America being in World War II, the NFL joined the MLB in making it a standard to play the national anthem before every NFL game.” The national anthem was first played before NFL games starting in the 1941-1942 NFL season. Since that wartime season, the NFL has made it a tradition to play the national anthem before every game.

At a time when the nation sought unity and morale, playing “The Star-Spangled Banner” before games symbolized collective resolve and national pride. The rise of radio broadcasts also amplified the anthem’s impact, allowing it to be experienced by millions beyond the stadiums.

By the mid-20th century, the practice spread beyond Major League Baseball and the NFL to other professional sports such as basketball and hockey, as well as to college and high school athletics. Over time, it became a standardized part of the pre-game ritual, regardless of whether the country was at war.

Today, the anthem is viewed as both a tradition and a symbolic act that connects sports to national identity. Its origins reflect the role of athletics not only as entertainment but also as a stage for expressions of unity, loyalty, and shared values in times of both crisis and celebration.

The tradition of playing national anthems at sports events is not unique to the United States. While “The Star-Spangled Banner” gained prominence at American games starting in World War I, other nations developed similar customs, often tied to international competitions and moments of national pride.

In Europe, national anthems were first widely used in international soccer (football) matches. The earliest recorded instance dates to 1905, when teams from France and Switzerland played, and “La Marseillaise” was performed.

The practice grew as international tournaments expanded, especially after the founding of FIFA in 1904. By the time of the first FIFA World Cup in 1930, national anthems were already standard before matches as a way to honor competing nations.

The Olympic Games also played a major role in spreading anthem traditions worldwide. Beginning in the early 20th century, Olympic ceremonies featured anthems both for medal presentations and for opening and closing events. This global exposure helped normalize anthem performances as symbols of national representation, eventually filtering down into domestic competitions in various countries.

In the United Kingdom, “God Save the King/Queen” was played at major soccer and cricket matches well before World War II, especially during matches involving national teams. Similarly, Canada’s “O Canada” gained prominence during international hockey tournaments in the early 20th century and became customary at both domestic and cross-border games against American teams.

But unlike the U.S., where the anthem became standard at nearly all professional and amateur games, in many countries the practice remains primarily tied to international or representative competition rather than every local or club match. Still, the symbolism is consistent: anthems serve as reminders of unity, pride, and identity, connecting sport to the broader meaning of nationhood.

The United States has long embraced “The Star-Spangled Banner” as its sole national anthem, a unifying song meant to represent all Americans regardless of background. In my view, while I respect the feelings of Black Americans, rather than play a separate song just for them, I’d rather emphasize one nation under God.

Keeping one anthem is important for patriotism because it provides a common symbol around which citizens can rally. At sporting events, where people from varied walks of life gather, the anthem serves as a reminder of shared identity and national pride.

And the national anthem is not just about a song. What it represents is symbolized in the American flag, and this special banner is what American soldiers fought to protect and for which many gave the last full measure of devotion. Honoring the national anthem, and the flag, honors those who made our freedom possible, and that “our” is all of us.

Limiting official ceremonies to a single anthem also reinforces the American motto E Pluribus Unum—“Out of many, one.” The nation is composed of people from countless cultures, faiths, and traditions, yet the historic national anthem offers a moment where those differences are set aside. Standing together for the same song communicates that, despite varied histories and perspectives, despite varied races, citizens are bound by a common commitment to their country.

From a practical standpoint, designating only one anthem also avoids the appearance of favoritism or division. What about all the other races and ethnic and national subgroups in America? If different groups were each represented by separate songs at national events, the effect could unintentionally fragment identity rather than solidify it. Sports work best as unifying experiences where loyalty to team and country should outweigh political or cultural divides. Retaining only “The Star-Spangled Banner” at NFL games and other events reinforces the idea that all citizens are part of one nation with one shared anthem.

America is comprised of the many, but to sustain nationhood and citizenship a melting pot of unity is vital. A single anthem reflects the belief that many voices together form one people. “The Star-Spangled Banner” remains the official national anthem, representing the shared ideals of freedom, resilience, and loyalty to country. Its continued performance ensures that Americans—Black, Yellow, Red, Brown, and White—rally around a common symbol. By upholding “The Star-Spangled Banner” as the anthem for all, the nation affirms its commitment to positive patriotism and to the enduring ideal of E Pluribus Unum.

And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 01 September 2025

Are our problems society’s fault, or are they, our fault?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #222 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.

Political liberals, and even more so those on the political Left, repeatedly tell us that American citizens are victims of one oppressor or another and that the only remedy is more or bigger government—with them in control. They say society caused our problems so society is the only power that can fix our problems.

Political liberals or the Left include the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party, as well as groups like Our Revolution and Democratic Socialists of America, for example, pushing for policies like Medicare for All, abortion on demand, and Green New Deal.

And then there’re grassroots organizations like Indivisible, MoveOn.org, and Working Families Party, labor unions like AFL-CIO and teachers’ unions, then left-leaning issue-focused groups: ACLU, Planned Parenthood, Black Lives Matter, and Human Rights Campaign.

The “we’re-all-victims-of-oppressors” crowd, or if not oppressors as such simply society or America, also include left-leaning media: MSNBC, HuffPost, The Nation, Mother Jones.

And the Left includes many universities and student groups, especially in the humanities and social sciences, think tanks like Center for American Progress, Institute for Policy Studies, Economic Policy Institute, and sadly, certain professional associations: American Association of University Professors, American Public Health Association, and several medical/psychological bodies.

National progressive individual or celebrity leaders include Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Pramila Jayapal, Jamaal Bowman, Cori Bush, and now Socialist NYC Mayor candidate Zohran Mamdani, to name a few, and other prominent cultural figures, e.g., actors like Mark Ruffalo, Jane Fonda, and a long list of business leaders hailing from Silicon Valley.

In sum, every day, the Left in America boldly messages that society or family or America itself causes our problems. The Left argues for more government control and more spending as the panacea for our problems that somehow someone else created. Well, the difficulty with this analysis and with the solution is that neither are true.

But much of what ails American society is not the result of external oppression or structural inevitabilities, but the accumulation of self-inflicted choices. That’s right, self-inflicted, meaning our choices create our own problems. From health to economics to family life, the evidence is overwhelming that individual behaviors, not social influences, are the chief drivers of our trouble. Because the roots lie in culture and personal responsibility, government programs cannot meaningfully correct or ameliorate them.

Consider health outcomes. The Centers for Disease Control has long estimated that 40%—nearly half—of annual deaths in the United States stem from modifiable behaviors, i.e., preventable, behavior-related problems, for example, smoking, poor diet, lack of exercise, alcohol abuse, and drug abuse are leading drivers of heart disease, cancer, strokes, diabetes, and liver disease.

Obesity, diabetes, and opioid overdoses, not genetics alone, make significant negative impacts upon our health. Such choices are not imposed by fate or by society, but by voluntary decisions repeated daily. Meanwhile, no government program can force Americans to eat well, exercise, or resist addictive substances.

The same dynamic is evident in economic life. Many households live paycheck to paycheck not solely because of wages, but because of overspending, lack of savings, and debt, fueled by short-term gratification. Now this does not mean that some families struggle financially for reasons beyond their control, but it does mean that many, if not most, struggle because of choices they have made.

The tools of financial stability are available: budgeting, retirement plans, credit discipline. Yet they are often neglected. Government cannot legislate prudence.

Family and community breakdown further illustrate the problem. Rising crime, violence, poverty cycles, and social fragmentation correlate strongly with decisions about marriage, family formation, childbearing, drug use, and work ethic. Welfare and criminal justice programs have attempted to compensate yet often make matters worse by reducing accountability and incentivizing bad behaviors. There’s something called “third generation welfarism” that’s rooted in welfare policy that encourages dependency rather than responsibility.

Late professor James Q. Wilson stressed that crime is largely a choice, not merely the product of poverty or inequality. His writings emphasized individual responsibility, alongside environment. His “Broken Windows” theory held that tolerating small disorders fosters a culture of irresponsibility.

Economist Thomas Sowell argues that many social problems (poverty, inequality, educational outcomes) are more about cultural and personal decisions than systemic oppression.

In his book, Coming Apart (2012), sociologist Charles Murray frames U.S. social decline (especially among working-class whites) as rooted in personal/family choices. He sees social decline (crime, out-of-wedlock births, poverty) as the product of personal decisions about family, work, and responsibility. His later works argue that working-class communities collapsed not because of oppression but because of abandonment of traditional virtues regarding work, marriage, and community involvement.

Mathematical statistician Nassim Nicholas Taleb has argued that many systemic risks (financial crises, obesity epidemic, healthcare burdens) are the accumulation of bad individual incentives and personal decisions.

The Founding Fathers created a constitutional republic, not a democracy as such, which they believed could only survive and thrive if the people maintained their own morality and virtue. The Founders believed in a limited government that provided room for religious and virtuous citizens to pursue their own interests, care for their families, build a future, and do this within a context of law and order and self-reliance based upon a Judeo-Christian public morality.

A biblically Christian worldview places accountability for behavior upon us as individuals. God grants us freedom of choice, freedom of religion if you will, he gives us scriptural propositions about right and wrong and reality, and he places in our heart and hands the responsibility to live out our lives as stewards unto him.

Insofar as we Americans do not do this, we create our own futures populated by problems of our own making.

Of course, it is true that we live in a fallen world and that disease or other negative externalities can happen to us, that is, we experience trials not of our own making. But it is also true that as reasoning human beings we have enormous liberty to discern what is best.

So, in short, America suffers today not from a lack of government programs but from a decline in self-governance. Problems born of self-inflicted behavior cannot be solved by bureaucratic expansion. Until individuals and communities recover the virtues of restraint, responsibility, morality and work ethic, societal ills will persist regardless of government intervention.

The Left, Progressives, now also Democratic Socialists, want to blame something other than our own volition for our problems. But even if the source of our problems were indeed largely something outside ourselves, the Left still have no solutions that work. They reject God, truth, and morality, then embrace pagan nihilism calling it a “live and let live” freedom, but this gives them no basis to call anything good or better or best. They can’t condemn crime, lying, mutilating minors, drug abuse, sexual perversion, homelessness rooted in drug addiction, nothing. They can’t promote parenthood because they’ve rejected the traditional family or don’t want to be caught passing discerning moral judgment on broken families. They say “trust the science” but deny it when it comes to biology. They can’t define a woman and think a person can change his or her biological sex by preference or hormone doses or surgeries, so they end up defending the irrational, non-scientific, debilitating trans ideology. They have no basis for calling anything immoral or amoral, so, anything goes. This is what we are seeing in declining, decadent American cities.

Our problems are real. More than we’d care to admit, mostly the result of our own choices.

No one is forcing us to eat, drink, and be merry in ways destructive to our health and well-being. No one makes us be haters, or be amoral or immoral, or even be lazy. We possess the capacity to choose. We’ve been given the Word of Truth by the Sovereign God, so we know how or what to choose. We’ve been given life and liberty and responsibility.

And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.

Subcategories