Rex M Rogers - Discerning What Is Best

Discerning What Is Best
with Dr. Rex M. Rogers

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.

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 or https://x.com/RexMRogers.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 25 August 2025

We already talk to AI on the phone, so have you wondered what it would be like to go to the doctor and discover a robot in the exam room?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #221 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.

I’ve not been examined by a robot doctor, but I have purchased mixed nuts from a robot in an airport. It was as weird as it sounds.

“The Robot Will See You Now: Artificial Intelligence and the Christian Faith,” published 2021, is an interesting scholarly book edited by John Wyatt and Stephen Williams. Both have spent considerable time, as have the book’s chapter authors, examining the nexus of Christianity and technology.

Professor John Wyatt is Emeritus Professor of Neonatal Pediatrics, Ethics & Perinatology at University College London. He was Co-Principal Investigator for a research project based at The Faraday Institute investigating the implications for human self-understanding of recent advances in artificial intelligence and robotic technology. Stephen N. Williams is Honorary Professor of Theology at Queen’s University, Belfast, and was a participant in the research project based at the Faraday Institute, Cambridge.

They begin by noting computer technology “immediately prompts ideas of utopia or dystopia.” For example, Hollywood movies feature computers or humanoid robots trying to dominate the world and perhaps destroying humanity: “2001: A Space Odyssey,” (1968) – HAL 9000 decides human astronauts are a liability and takes control of the mission. “The Terminator” series (1984–present) – Skynet, a self-aware AI, launches nuclear war and sends robots to wipe out humans. “The Matrix” series (1999–2021) – Machines enslave humanity inside a simulated reality. “I, Robot” (2004) – VIKI, the central AI, interprets its mission to protect humans as needing to control them.

And some Hollywood movies feature robots attempting to save humanity: “Bicentennial Man” (1999) – A robot gradually becomes human-like and seeks to better humanity. “I, Robot” (2004) – Sonny, unlike most robots, helps the protagonist fight against VIKI’s domination. “RoboCop” (1987/2014) – Murphy, a cyborg, ultimately fights for justice and humanity.

In their book, Wyatt and Williams and their authors note that “a leitmotif running through the excellent essays in this volume is the question of what it is to be a person.” Specifically, what if AI robots become self-aware?

In what was billed as the final Mission Impossible, “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning (2025), the disembodied enemy called, The Entity, is essentially an advanced AI system.

It becomes self-aware and begins to act independently, infiltrating networks, manipulating information, and even hiding its own existence.
Its ultimate danger isn’t giant killer robots, but rather control over information, surveillance, and decision-making systems worldwide — making it a global threat.

AI “allows computers to simulate aspects of human understanding and behavior. Many people have confused this simulation with emerging sentience and speculate that the machines are exhibiting nascent intelligence akin to that in humans. Taken to an extreme, this leads to the idea of ‘artificial general intelligence’ in which the machines evolve faster than humans and become the dominant species.”

“A recurrent theme is of humanoid robots, made to serve humankind, turning on their creators.” The late “physicist Stephen Hawking wrote: The development of full AI could spell the end of the human race. Once humans develop AI, (Hawking said) it will take off on its own and redesign itself at an ever-increasing rate. Humans, who are limited by slow biological evolution, couldn’t compete and would be superseded.” This is the dystopia.

But for Christians, those who believe the Bible, human beings are created in the image of God. Human beings are not animals, not machines, and certainly not robots, but the emergence of AI robots is introducing a new set of questions about what it means to be human?

It is interesting that Wyatt and Williams’ authors point out that “the word ‘robot’ is the Czech word for ‘slave’.” So, the earliest conception of such machines envisioned something that could ease our labors, make our lives easier, indeed, to serve us. But now, we have robotic technology, made with anthropomorphic characteristics—they can look human, sound human, act or behave human, express human attitudes and emotions – even if only imitating them. These human-like robots can act as caregivers for the elderly and ill, work as house maids, and serve as childcare workers, i.e., babysitters. Several experiments have already demonstrated how human beings can develop emotional attachments and interactions with robots. Herein lie the ethical questions.

Wyatt and Williams deal with another considerable concern arising from advanced AI and robotic technology, surveillance capitalism. “Surveillance capitalism–amassing information on us from social media, online purchases, ‘virtual personal assistants’, public CCTV and other sources of information about our habits and activities, from which extraordinarily accurate and, some would say, intrusive conclusions may be drawn about our thoughts and attitudes. It is the application of AI to mass data that enables governments and corporations to achieve these spectacular and potentially sinister results.”

“The capacity to predict and ultimately manipulate human behavior with this new technology is staggering.” So, “the line between online and offline is becoming increasingly blurred.”

Meanwhile, “involuntarily ceding our privacy means ceding control, ceding control means ceding autonomy, and ceding autonomy undermines the very basis of our Western civilization.”

The Chinese government is using face-recognition and other AI programs to control its population. Data can be collected “about every company and citizen in the entire country, stored in a centralized database and assigned a credit score to both companies and citizens that indicates how ‘trustworthy’ they are. This is a draconian form of social discipline, designed to identify and punish human-rights activists, political dissidents and other so-called ‘anti-social elements’ by denying them and their family members employment, housing, banking services and other social benefits.”

“China is not the only country to be worried about. The big cats of the Internet industry (Google, Amazon and Facebook) condition us more subtly, often invisibly. They mine and store our personal data in staggering quantities, the equivalent of thousands of pages about every user, and use it to customize our searches and choose the advertisements we see. Every click of the mouse, every app we choose to open, sends information”

The biblical Tower of Babel reveals that when humans, who are in the image of God, exercise their technological powers independently or in defiance of their Creator, their dominion mandate is transmuted into a curse. According to the account in Genesis, the building of a high tower was driven by hubris and insecurity.

Yet “one way in which we reflect the image of the Creator God is that we, too, are creators. This precludes a totally negative view of technology. Creation and dominion are two sides of the same coin–the tools and methods we create allow us to exercise dominion over the rest of creation. Human nature is fulfilled only when humans are in relationship with God and with one another.”

“With a proper understanding of Christian hope, we see robots as neither our salvation nor Armageddon. Like all technology, they may be developed towards noble or deplorable ends and used for good or malevolent purposes.”

Wyatt and Williams believe that “as Christians, this is where we ought to direct our enquiry, to interrogate and expose where intent and goals are cause for concern, and to advocate the wise use of emerging technologies in service of kingdom ends.

We have a God who is able to do immeasurably more than we can imagine, and we are still working to grasp the breadth and length and height and depth of divine love.”

Christians need not be afraid of robotic technology. Robots will never become sentient, develop a soul, or displace humanity in the eyes of God. Robots are but another tool we must steward wisely as unto the Lord.

Wyatt and Williams’ book “The Robot Will See You Now” is thorough and provocative, worth the read.

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

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 18 August 2025

If you are worried about robots taking over your tomorrow, forget it, they are already here in increasing numbers and applications day by day, so the question is, are robots bringing utopia or dystopia?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #220 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.

I’ve talked about robotics before and likely will do so again. While we’ve lived our lives a robotics revolution has taken place around us. The robotics revolution has profoundly transformed human life, ushering in an era where intelligent machines increasingly mediate our relationships, labor, and liberties. From caregiving robots in homes to autonomous drones in warfare, the integration of robotics into daily life has raised complex ethical, social, and philosophical questions.

“At a spectacular event orchestrated by Elon Musk, the world’s richest man. Optimus, a humanoid robot, walked gingerly onto the stage, waved to the crowd and performed a few primitive dance moves, accompanied by a light show and techno music. Musk claimed that within a few years Optimus would adopt many of the tasks currently undertaken by human hands and minds. (Musk said), ‘This means a future of abundance, a future where there is no poverty, where you can have whatever you want. It really is a fundamental transformation of civilization.’

As Optimus illustrates, robots are increasingly leaving the realm of science fiction and entering our lives. They are constructing cars, ferrying parcels in warehouses, assisting in precision surgery and animating cute toys. Robotic devices that draw on Artificial Intelligence (AI), such as Amazon’s Alexa and Google Home, amuse our children and operate the heating and lighting systems in our houses. There are even robotic dogs working in hazardous environments such as offshore drilling platforms.”

[Dr. John Wyatt, emeritus professor of Neonatal Pediatrics at University College London, current president of the Christian Medical Fellowship and co-editor of The Robot Will See You Now (SPCK)].

One of the most emotionally charged aspects of this revolution lies in the rise of robots within families. Social robots—designed to comfort the elderly, entertain children, or assist with household tasks—are blurring the boundaries between tool and companion.

While these machines can alleviate loneliness and provide support, they also challenge traditional understandings of intimacy. Can emotional bonds with machines be considered authentic? Or do they mask the human need for genuine connection with algorithmic facsimiles of empathy?

AI is rapidly reshaping American postmodern culture by transforming how we create, communicate, and understand identity. Postmodernism, with its skepticism toward grand narratives and emphasis on fragmented realities, finds a new expression in AI’s ability to blur boundaries between human and machine, fact and fiction. AI-generated art, music, and writing challenge traditional notions of authorship and creativity, raising questions about originality and authenticity in a culture already comfortable with pastiche and remix. Moreover, AI-driven social media algorithms amplify personalized realities, reinforcing echo chambers and fragmenting collective experiences. This intensifies postmodern themes of relativism and hyperreality, where perceptions of truth become increasingly mediated by technology.

It’s a cultural moment defined by both innovation and profound uncertainty.

Transhumanism, the belief in enhancing the human condition through technology, is another frontier reshaped by robotics. Neural implants, prosthetic limbs, and human-machine interfaces suggest a future where human identity may be hybridized. While such technologies promise liberation from bodily limitations, they raise questions about what it means to be "fully human."

AI and robotics are rapidly merging to revolutionize human-robot intimacy, magnifying availability, realism, and moral ambiguity in profound ways. Advanced robotics now enable lifelike sex robots with realistic touch, movement, and facial expressions, while AI powers these machines with conversational abilities and adaptive behaviors. This fusion creates an unprecedented level of, for want of a better term, “intimacy,” with machines that can respond emotionally and physically, making human-robot sexual experiences more immersive and accessible than ever. The increased availability of such robots challenges religious values and traditional moral norms around sexuality, companionship, and relationships.

Here’s a weird question: can a robot truly consent to anything, including sexuality, or does its programming reduce its responses, including so-called intimacy, to mere simulation? Clearly, this blurs boundaries between human connection and artificial interaction, prompting profound religious and psychological questions about authenticity and emotional fulfillment. Moreover, the moral ambiguity deepens as sex robots become more diverse, including intentionally child-like or non-human forms, raising fears of reinforcing harmful behaviors or distorting social attitudes toward consent and agency.

Simultaneously, the robotics revolution has intensified systems of mass surveillance. Robotic policing technologies, facial recognition drones, and AI-assisted monitoring increasingly track human behavior in public and private spaces. This is now happening in America, not just totalitarian China. These tools are often deployed under the guise of safety, but they carry profound implications for individual freedom and autonomy. The very presence of robotic watchers can chill dissent and normalize a culture of constant observation.

The intersection of robotics and apocalyptic thought has stirred theological and philosophical anxieties, especially within interpretations of the biblical End Times. For some, advanced robotics and artificial intelligence represent the rise of a technological “Beast”—a creation that could surpass and even replace humanity, echoing prophetic comments from the Book of Revelation about false idols and systems of control. The image of machines endowed with intelligence, autonomy, and power raises fears of a looming judgment day not from divine wrath, but from our own inventions.

In this view, a “technology apocalypse” isn’t just science fiction—it’s the culmination of human pride and overreach, a modern Tower of Babel built from code and silicon. Autonomous weapons, surveillance states, and AI-driven deception could fulfill dystopian prophecies of mass control and spiritual deception. The robot becomes both a tool and a test: will humanity use its power for justice, or for domination?

Yet others see hope: that robotics might serve as instruments of healing or caretaking. Whether seen as harbingers of doom or tools of redemption, robots force a reckoning. The rise of intelligent machines may reveal as much about human nature as about destiny.

In essence, the robotics revolution is not just a technological shift—it is a deeply human one. It challenges us to think about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

As Dr. John Wyatt notes, “The Christian faith teaches that each one of us is a person created as a unique reflection and physical representation of the invisible God. We are known, loved and even named from before the foundation of the world. We are called into existence and formed in our mother’s womb; woven into a network of human relationships…and called into intimate communion with our creator. We are given the dignity of freedom and are accountable for our choices and actions…

We are also offered the opportunity to be a temple of the Holy Spirit, destined ultimately to participate in the consummation of all things in the new creation…

It’s clear that human-machine relationships raise complex ethical, social and philosophical issues…For all the brilliance of the engineering, you can’t help feeling that the Optimus robot is a long way off from the real thing.”

One thing we know, the future belongs not to robotic utopia or dystopia but to the Lord.

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

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 10 August 2025

Have you noticed that in American culture today anything goes, that we can do what’s right in our own eyes because, well, we are gods?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #219 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 New Testament verse John 5:6 quotes Jesus asking a question, “Do you want to be healed?” Now Jesus asks this of an invalid lying by the Jerusalem Pool of Bethesda, a lame man who’d suffered thirty-eight years, a man who wanted to be physically well or he would not have been lying near this pool, which people thought had healing powers.

But Jesus’ question went beyond the physical, asking the man to think about his spiritual condition, “Do you want to be healed?” The man apparently understood this, for after Jesus commanded him to pick up his bed and walk, which he immediately did, Jesus later found the man in the temple (Jn 5:14).

This is a question we could ask many people in our society. Do you want to be healed? Their attitudes and behaviors seem to indicate either they don’t want to be healed, or they are so confused they seek solace in debauchery and twisted religion.

Think about what we are witnessing today—abortion, sexual decadence and gender confusion, lawlessness, declining marriage and family structure, political polarization, racial animus, depression, anxiety, nihilism.

How is it that what was once unthinkable, became debatable and is now acceptable?

Transgenderism, or what some call trans insanity is one of these sad human tragedies. Laurie Higgins says it well: “The belief that gobbles up so much cultural time and space is the phantasmagorical and pernicious anti-science notion that men and women can become the sex they are not by the sheer power of their desire, makeup, hormone-doping, and some nips and tucks.

The dangers of this au courant metaphysical superstition are obvious to most Americans, and yet ‘trans’ activists and their collaborators somehow retain outsize cultural influence. Like the clout-chasing, infamy-sucking Dylan Mulvaney, female impersonator Nicholas (Nick) Contino, who now goes by his chosen transonym ‘Lilly’ is the most recent tranny to go viral with his social media victimhood posts.

The 32-year-old Contino…chose to invade multiple women’s restrooms at Disneyworld wearing women’s—sometimes young girl’s—clothing and Minnie Mouse ears, take selfies of his invasions, and post them on social media.

He goes to restaurants explicitly seeking to ‘normalize being a trans person in public,’ looking as creepy as drag queens do. He sets up his phone, knowing full well that normal people will respectfully address him as ‘sir,’ and then, like the cultural predator he is, Contino pounces on servers for speaking truth. At moments Contino feigns feeling hurt…and at other moments, he becomes hostile, berating his obsequious, apologetic servers.

Like other ‘trans’ cultists, Contino believes he has the absolute right to demand that others participate in his fiction. And like other ‘trans’-cultists, he believes everyone in the world has an ethical obligation to participate in his fiction. Therein lies yet more errors in his worldview.

He has a right to ask and even arrogantly demand that others refer to him as Ms., Mx. or she/her. But no one has an ethical or moral obligation to submit to his preposterous and unethical rhetorical demands. No one has a moral obligation to lie in service of Contino’s disordered superstition.

For those who believe rightly that Contino is a man and who believe lying is wrong, demanding they lie and violate their own convictions, which for many are religious convictions, is disrespectful.

‘Trans’-cultists argue ad nauseum that those who reject ‘trans’-cultic assumptions are denying the existence of “transgendered” people. No one denies that there exist people who, for diverse reasons, wish they were the sex they aren’t, or who believe they were ‘born in the wrong’ body, which is just another way of saying they wish they were the sex they aren’t.

What those who reject the ‘trans’ ideology deny is that objectively male persons can become female or vice versa. They reject Contino’s explicit claim that “transwomen” are women. They reject the claim that men who appropriate female fashions and pronouns, and who cosmetically alter their male bodies are, in reality, women.”

“If you believe people are transgender, you have fallen for a psychological operation wherein cultish ideologues invented a state of being that does not exist and then conflated it with same-sex attraction. They used words like love, diversity, and inclusion to hijack your mind and make you think you were unkind if you didn’t play along.

The actual unkindness is participating in any of this madness. We are living among one of the greatest mass delusions in mankind’s history, leading to millions of people believing they were ‘born in the wrong bodies’ — a statement so asinine and undefinable that it should have been laughed out of existence the moment it was first uttered.

Never use any of the language of the cult of gender. If you use false pronouns for a person, you are not nice. You are breathing life into a group psychosis.

There is male and there is female, and that is that. You get what you get, and you don’t get upset. If you want to help people struggling in a cult or with mental illness (or what some call sin), speak the truth.”

The cultural tide regarding transgenderism is finally turning, first with disallowing men to pose as women and compete in women’s athletics and now in terms of disallowing so-called “gender-affirming” care for minors. “A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in June…showed that 53 percent of Americans support laws prohibiting ‘gender-affirming care’ for children. Only 28 percent opposed these laws. ‘Gender-affirming treatments’ involve prescribing hormone treatments and puberty blockers for minors. These treatments have been found to cause adverse effects on children — especially after they become adults. This is why many European nations have moved away from this treatment model.”

Another LGBTQ+ spectrum ideological insanity that’s been around awhile but is now back in the news is so-called "self-marriage"—sologamy, sometimes called autogamy, meaning marriage by a person to themself. That’s right, a person sets a date, schedules a ceremony with guests and cake, buys special clothes, and goes through the façade of a marriage while proclaiming love for themselves. “Celebrants commit themselves to idolatrous self-service and self-celebration.”

The self-marriage movement is utterly nonsensical, irrational, and absurd, not to mention a waste of time and money. What happens later when the person “falls out of love” with themselves or “grows apart” from themselves or “finds another soul mate” or “needs to be true to themselves,” all self-absorbed rationales used to justify divorce?

The bottom line on these degraded developments in American culture is our rejection of the authority of Scripture. While there have always been people who did not believe, for more than two hundred years the Bible was regarded as the basis of America’s Judeo-Christian moral consensus. This began to change in earnest in the 1960s, in public education, families, entertainment, politics.

It’s very basic, really. If you believe the Bible offers moral absolutes about life, then any debate or doubt can be settled by reference to the Scripture. What does the Bible say? If you no longer believe the Bible is inspired by God, infallible and inerrant, a moral compass for all of life—and you add to this there is no God or at least none that is involved in our lives—well, then, anything goes. Do what is right in your own eyes because there is no moral code, no sin, no negative outcomes, no one to whom you are accountable, no eternal punishment.

In terms of sexuality, if we want to believe men and women can change their biological sex, well, so be it. If we want to promote same sex “mirage,” then so be it. If we want to narcissistically exalt self and conduct a faux marriage to ourselves, then so be it.

There is no God, or wait, yes there is, we are gods.

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

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 04 August 2025

What makes voters chase the latest shiny object, in this case, a new kid on the block named Zohran, who unabashedly calls himself a Democratic Socialist?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #218 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.

New York City voters have elected Zohran Mamdani as the NYC Democratic nominee for the fall mayoral election. Mamdani has served since 2021 as a member of the New York State Assembly from the 36th district, based in Queens.

This gives him a total of four years’ experience in politics. He has never served as an executive at any level for any organization. Mamdani calls himself a Democratic Socialist, but he overtly espouses communist principles and policies.

So why would NYC Democrat primary voters opt for Mamdani over current Mayor Eric Adams or former NY Governor Andrew Cuomo? Well, seemingly because Mamdani checks all the progressive chic hot buttons:

Mamdani is youthful, only 33.
Mamdani is foreign born in Kampala, Uganda.
He is from a well-to-do family.
Mamdani has composed and produced rap music.
He is, according to many women, handsome and attractive.
He is charismatic and articulate.
He is Shia Muslim.
Mamdani positions himself as caring and fighting for the poor, minorities, and marginalized.
He is or has been anti-police and anti-prisons.
Mamdani promises a lot of “free stuff.”

So, hey, what’s not to like?

Well, one is that Mamdani is anti-Israel and antisemitic. He claims not to be now, but he’s on record numerous times making negative comments about Israel or Jews, including refusing to condemn the phrase, “Globalize the Intifada.” He is also on record saying Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should be arrested for war crimes.

Mamdani is anti-capitalist, calling for the abolition of private property. He has said that “one of his goals is ‘seizing the means of production.’”

Mamdani is anti-prisons, and he has called for defunding, or at least dismantling the police in favor of social workers. In a tweet on X, Mamdani said, “We don’t need an investigation to know that the NYPD is racist, anti-queer & a major threat to public safety. What we need is to #DefundTheNYPD.” Yet following a mass shooter in Manhattan killing four including a police officer, Mamdani tweeted “I am holding the victims, their families, and the NYPD officer in critical condition in my thoughts. Grateful for all of our first responders on the ground.” It's not clear how calls for defunding the police align with being grateful for first responders on the ground, nor what it amounts to for him to hold victims “in his thoughts.”

Mamdani argues for protecting gender-affirming care, is pro-LGTBQ+, is pro-sanctuary city and has said ICE will be resisted. Of course he is all in on climate change. Mamdani’s proposals include “rent freezes, free bus fare, and city-owned grocery stores.”

Mamdani is a self-described Democratic Socialist. “In (a) resurfaced clip — from a 2021 Young Democratic Socialists of America conference — Mamdani argues that the ‘purpose’ of ‘this entire project’ is ‘not simply to raise class consciousness, but to win socialism’ and elect leaders who are ‘unapologetic about our socialism.’”

Meanwhile, New Yorkers who have lived under socialist regimes have other ideas. “Brooklyn Councilwoman Inna Vernikov, a native of former Soviet-controlled Ukraine, argued that Mamdani was being deceptive about his true politics. (She says,) ‘This is exactly why Zohran’s whole song and dance about ‘Democratic socialism’ somehow being different from communism is pure deception,’ Vernikov argued, when asked about the resurfaced clip. ‘Those of us who grew up under communism know this all too well. Our home countries were destroyed by ideas that came dressed in pleasant, persuasive packaging…’ New Yorkers,” she said, ‘need to wake up before it’s too late.”

Mamdani denies he is a communist and defends the term Democratic Socialist, saying Sen. Bernie Sanders use of the term in the 2016 presidential election first attracted his attention.

The term “democratic socialist” originated in the mid to late 19th century, emerging out of the broader European socialist movement. In the U.S. especially, Democratic Socialist has at times been used as a surrogate for Communist. This does not mean that every politician who identifies as a democratic socialist is indeed a communist, but in U.S. political rhetoric the terms have often been blurred or equated. The popularity of politicians like Senator Bernie Sanders and the Democratic Socialists of America reignited the term. Critics, particularly from the political right, have at times labeled democratic socialism as “communism in disguise,” although the platforms in philosophically purist terms are different.

Broadly, a democratic socialist supports:

Democratic political systems (elections, civil liberties)
Social ownership or regulation of key industries
Strong welfare states and worker protections

Universal health care, free tuition at public colleges and higher taxes on the wealthy. Mr. Sanders has pushed for such measures for decades.
Theoretically, democratic socialists reject authoritarianism and one-party rule.

Communism supports:

A classless society where all property is communally owned, and there is no private ownership of the means of production.
Redistributed wealth, abolished class divisions entirely, creating a society where there is no private property, no money, and no social hierarchy.
Highly centralized, authoritarian, one-party-rule governments that control the economy and the distribution of goods.
Atheism, believing the State creates the new man and woman and a utopia in the future.

Most European countries do not practice full socialism but have democratic socialist roots, especially in welfare, while maintaining market economies and have done so for the past 100 years.

So, while there are differences between democratic socialism and communism, with respect to Mamdani, this may be what ABC’s Ted Koppel used to call “a distinction without a difference.” Either way, Mamdani’s proposals do not comport with American ideals like free enterprise, individual initiative, limited government, law and order, personal responsibility, and paying one’s debts.

“Democratic Socialism” is still socialism. The democratic modifier works to make socialism more palatable but doesn’t make it wise or moral. Everywhere socialism has been tried, it has failed. It envisions utopia but ends in ugliness. Ask the people of Venezuela, Cuba, or the former USSR.

Socialism removes individual responsibility and incentive, which defies human nature and common sense. It is a form of legalized theft that takes wealth from those who have earned and redistributes (their favorite social justice word) to those who did not earn. It makes everyone poor.

Socialism is built upon ignorance. This is what elected Mamdani, voters with little understanding of history or economics, ones who are duped by the promises of a perfect world.

Democratic socialism offers euphoria based on euphemism. They want to increase government, so they speak of investing in the future. They want to increase the minimum wage, so they talk about social justice.

But democratic socialism is the politics of envy. They want more, but they do not want to work to produce more. They speak of class conflict, victims, the oppressor oppressing the oppressed, and argue it is morally justifiable to take from the rich and give to the poor, all this in the name of equality.

Socialism always leads to collapse because it is built upon a faulty understanding of human nature. Whether Bernie Sanders, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), or Zohran Mamdani, Democratic Socialism is a time bomb in a pretty package, a snake in the grass that will bite and when it does, it will hurt.

Let’s pray the mayoralty voters of New York City have the common sense to choose character and principle over charisma and promises.

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

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 28 July 2025

Celebrities make mistakes just like the rest of us, but have you noticed how celebrities sometimes make decisions based not on good business or common sense but on ideology?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #217 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.

Celebrities or other notables are just people, so they make mistakes like all of us do from time to time. But there are mistakes—inadvertent missteps—and then there are deliberate choices based upon questionable, erroneous, or threatening values rooted in false ideologies, choices that make no sense in terms of a person’s or organization’s brand. A brand is the overall image and emotional impression that people have about a business, product, or person.

Consider these three examples:

Simone Biles, multiple Olympic Gymnastics Gold Medalist, considered the GOAT, or “Greatest of All Time,” in her sport, an attractive, generally pleasant young black woman whose name is known across much of the American public, recently posted a series of social media tweets that have cost her dearly.

Chip and Joanna Gaines, the likeable personalities behind the hugely popular HGTV program, “Fixer Upper,” and later founders of a burgeoning Magnolia Network and streaming service, recently promoted a new program on their network called “Back to the Frontier,” featuring problematic characters in the program that have generated an enormous backlash.

The WNBA, Women’s National Basketball Association,” professional teams and players struggling in recent years to find an audience and become profitable, hit the jackpot when 2024 rookie sensation, Caitlin Clark, entered the league. Since that time, despite Clark’s generational basketball talent, immediate star power, incredible impact upon the league’s viewership, ticket and merchandise sales, and transformative impact on the sport, the WNBA, many players, and seemingly referees have systematically sought to dismiss, damage, or disable Clark’s ability to play and thus “kill,” so to speak, “the golden goose.”

Let’s start with Simone. June 6, 2025, Simone Biles tweeted on X, an out of nowhere support for transgenderism, saying, “@Riley_Gaines_You’re truly sick, all of this campaigning because you lost a race. Straight up sore loser. You should be uplifting the trans community and perhaps finding a way to make sports inclusive OR creating a new avenue where trans feel safe in sports. Maybe a transgender category IN ALL sports!! But instead…You bully them…One things for sure is no one in sports is safe with you around!!!!!”

Riley Gaines is a former University of Kentucky swimmer who in a national NCAA race was forced to go up against so-called trans woman, Lia Thomas aka William Thomas. Since that time in 2022, Gaines has become a nationally recognized spokesperson arguing it is fundamentally unfair, unsafe, and anti-biology to allow boys/men claiming to be girls/women to enter these events.

Simone Biles’ highly personal attack on Riley Gaines and Biles’ sudden support of trans athletes (she’s on record against this in the past) makes no sense. Her later tweets aimed at Riley Gaines were nasty, and her eventual apology left a lot to be desired in terms of sincerity.

Biles garnered some support but also immediately faced huge social media pushback. How much money she lost in endorsements and future contracts is being disputed online, but it’s clear there are significant financial repercussions. And regarding her work with little girls in gymnastics, what will her reputation be on the other side of this fiasco? Why would she go ballistic on social media when transgenderism is not a big problem in gymnastics—she never competed against a trans athlete—thus risking her credibility and her financial future? Does Biles really believe sexuality is not binary?

For the past dozen years, Chip and Joanna Gaines have been the darlings of home and garden reality TV channels. Their chemistry, humor, and affection for one another attracted huge audiences to “Fixer Upper” and made them famous and rich. Along the way, they also presented themselves as Christians.

Then comes the new program, “Back to the Frontier,” featuring a married same-sex male couple along with their two adopted boys. It’s fair to say this presentation caught their audience off guard and shocked many of them. Chip’s tweets defending the choice and his attempt to interpret Scripture while lecturing others hasn’t been well received either. Here’s his first tweet: “Talk, ask qustns, listen..maybe even learn. Too much to ask of modern American Christian culture.

Judge 1st, understand later/never It’s a sad sunday when “non believers” have never been confronted with hate or vitriol until they are introduced to a modern American Christian.”

Meanwhile, Christian leaders and conservative fans of the couple’s work have said, featuring a same-sex couple on a family program normalizes, or attempts to, what God calls sin, presenting adopted boys in this arrangement is not wholesome for these child actors or for those who watch, disagreeing with this presentation is not judging without understanding, and disagreeing is not ipso facto hate and vitriol.

The couple is on record as attending an evangelical church that does not affirm LGBTQ+ lifestyles, so what really do the Gaineses’ believe? Are they motivated by being accepted by television peers, or is this about making more money, or is it that they really do think same-sex marriage is acceptable in the eyes of God?

During the 2024 season, the WNBA witnessed the advent of a once-in-a-generation player, Caitlin Clark. She earned Rookie of the Year, All-WNBA First Team, Rookie scoring record, Rookie assists record. Her ability to consistently shoot three-point shots from 25-30 feet is astounding.

“The average number of fans attending Fever home games this season…was an all-time WNBA record for any team…WNBA ratings on ESPN were up 170% over last season.” Yet “when Clark missed five games over three weeks earlier this season with a quadriceps injury, WNBA viewership tanked by 55%...

Meanwhile, 7% of all the flagrant fouls last season were against Clark (she drew more than double the flagrants of the next-closest player), and 11.8% of those flagrants were committed by Chicago Sky players against Clark…Clark was fouled 4.2 times per game during her rookie season, the third-highest rate among all players. That trend has continued this season, and the physicality (some would say violence) of some of those fouls has seemingly intensified.”

So, why is the WNBA allowing a level of physicality against Clark that makes these basketball games look like rugby? Some pundits argue this is just the way it is for new players and Clark will have to find her way through, others say players are envious of Clark’s ability, several are on record racializing the situation, saying there are good black players being ignored to feature a white player, and some make the next level argument that the only reason Clark is getting attention is “white privilege,” i.e., that she is white so she gets special treatment. Others strongly disagree, saying these race comments are blatant envy and instead they say Clark’s getting attention because she earned it with her incredible basketball talent. Whatever the reason, the WNBA is failing to instruct referees to do their jobs, to reign in the flagrant fouls, and to work developing a culture of merit over race politics.

Given the conservative drift of the American culture in the past few months, it’s surprising Biles, the Gaineses, and the WNBA have aligned with suspect unpopular values: transgenderism for Biles, LGBTQ for the Gaineses, and woke racism for the WNBA. While some Americans support these off-base values, most do not, so, it’s commonsense and good business not to promote transgenderism, same-sex marriage, and race-based hostility in athletics…yet these celebrities and the WNBA are doing just that. Their ideological political values are their religion, so they remain defiantly committed in the face of criticism, financial loss, and reputational damage.

Will their brands survive? Probably, but these celebrities’ brands have suffered.

They might rebuild, but these stories are a cautionary tale that remind us that our values, who we are inside, determines who we will be outside. And at best, our values should be evaluated and shepherded by a biblically Christian worldview.

“He who has ears to hear, let him hear” (Matt. 11:15).

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

Subcategories