Rex M Rogers - Discerning What Is Best

Discerning What Is Best
with Dr. Rex M. Rogers

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).

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: 21 July 2025

Are you scared of the weather? The climate change activists want you to be.

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #216 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.

Climate change is the now an all-purpose explanation for every weather event. Hurricane? Climate change. Flood? Climate change. Earthquake? Climate change. Fires, failing crops, migration—what’s now called “climate refugees.” Climate change is now said to exacerbate existing gender inequalities and vulnerabilities, and to create something called environmental racism. Everything, it seems, is due to climate change.

On several occasions, President Joe Biden called climate change “an existential threat to human existence as we know it." Can’t get much stronger than that. Yet for all the focus on climate change, this perceived threat has not been mitigated, or for that matter amounted to much.

Global warming was a bugaboo for a time, but “climate change” became the preferred phrase when global warming predictions didn’t pan out. In the past 100 years, earth’s temperature has increased about 2 degrees Fahrenheit. Supposedly, this temperature increase is largely driven by human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, and industrial agriculture. But is it really?

Media tries to pump up climate change because fear sells. But the problem with climate change catastrophe hysteria is that it cannot be proven, and the emotion cannot be sustained.

Certain eternalities get in the way. Human beings cannot predict the climate years hence. Human beings cannot control the weather. Human beings can affect the environment, but they cannot change or destroy it. Weather events always were, are, and always will be.

Being real: the global energy “crisis” is manmade. Insofar as there are problems related to climate they track back not to the weather anomalies but to climate change policies—poor human choices, bad management, politics.

And the argued solution for climate change – so called green technology – does not deliver. Wind turbines and solar panels are unreliable—they require wind and sun that is not always present—and they’re built from nonrenewable materials—iron ore, concrete, plastic. Green technology is more costly, more material intensive, less efficient.

And for all the media or environmental lobby excitement, wind and solar supply less than 3% of the world’s energy. Fossil fuels—oil, coal, and natural gas—supply 84% of the world’s energy. Oil is the source of 97% of global transportation energy. Replacing fossil fuels is economically and practically infeasible.

Wind and solar do more harm than good, killing eagles, hawks, falcons, owls, bats, insects. When wind turbines reach the end of their productive life, the financial and environmental cost of disposing of the enormous blades is prohibitive. Such blades are made of fiberglass, contain toxic materials, must be cut up—which takes time and money and energy—and then buried in landfills where they’ll never biodegrade.

Solar heat farms require vast acres of forest and farmland to be cleared, encumbered, and made unavailable for green growth. Solar farms give off an amount of heat that kills flora and fauna within its range.

Wind and solar only produce about 10% of global electric needs, so the overall impact of wind and solar is environmental degradation.

Meanwhile, fossil fuels—oil, coal, natural gas—that media and the environmental lobby argue are threatening to the environment is a source comes enormous economic, social, and practical benefits, particularly cost-efficient energy needed for economic empowerment. Fossil fuels make possible our healthcare and longer life expectancy. They make possible an economy that reduces poverty. Fossil fuels help protect us from the vagaries of climate disasters, thus save lives. Compared to how people lived throughout human history, even society’s poor live today in relative well-being if not luxury.

“Take fossil fuels away, and you don’t solve climate change—you spark a global humanitarian crisis.

- No tractors = no food

- No trucks = no medicine

- No heat = cold deaths

- No A/C = heatstroke

- No power = hospitals go dark.”

“But that’s not the scary fantasy the Left sells you in their dystopian climate documentaries. Instead, they promise a mythical green utopia where solar panels power skyscrapers, Teslas line the highways, and no one ever gets their hands dirty digging anything out of the ground. It's a delusion, wrapped in privilege, sold with fear.”

Remove fossil fuels and remove energy. Remove energy and in a blink, we are back to little house on the prairie.

Big Environment activist groups, the environmental protection lobby, are more about raising funds, stopping progress, and reducing America’s economic opportunities, than about saving nature. “You'd think they were poor and desperate. But they're rich. They get richer by peddling deceit. ‘Polar bears face extinction and bees are dying off!’ It's not true. Polar bear and bee populations are increasing. ‘These scares drive donations,’ says science writer Jon Entine. ‘They feel that the only way they can talk about environmental issues is to frame it with hysteria, crisis…They also recognize that hysteria generates donations. The oxygen for these organizations is money donated by people who think they're doing good.’ So, you give them billions.”

You think you are saving the bees, but your donation is really going to attorneys hired to badger whatever cause attracts media, like “use electric cars or destroy nature.”

“The Sierra Club brags: ‘Our legal team has stopped thousands of miles of fossil fuel pipelines and dozens of large power plants.’ But pipelines are better for the earth than shipping oil by truck. America needs power plants to power our future, including nuclear plants. But last year, Friends of the Earth sued to shut down Diablo Canyon, California's last nuclear plant.” Meanwhile, nuclear energy remains the best option for producing more clean, efficient, cheaper, abundant, safe energy for the future. But so far, the Climate Change Catastrophe crowd and the Environmental Justice lobby have fought against nuclear for largely political reasons.

Nuclear energy offers many positives: low greenhouse gas emissions; high energy density, meaning a small amount of nuclear fuel produces a massive amount of energy compared to coal, gas, or renewables; unlike solar and wind, nuclear doesn’t depend on weather; and nuclear energy reduces dependence on fossil fuel imports.

Environmental opposition to nuclear energy is due to a combination of risk perception, environmental values, and strategic priorities: Nuclear accidents: Three Mile Island (1979), Chernobyl (1986), Fukushima (2011) are seen as proof that nuclear power carries catastrophic risks; radioactive waste; high costs and delays; and a renewables first philosophy, meaning many environmentalists believe the future lies in 100% renewables + storage, viewing nuclear as unnecessary, risky, and a distraction from proven clean technologies.

Trash, by the way, or garbage is another source of renewable energy, if the fanatical environmental lobby and states attempting to provide what they call “climate leadership” would get out of the way.

“Both garbage and electricity challenges by using natural gas to power waste-to-energy (WTE) generating plants that burn trash, thereby reducing the need to landfill or export garbage, while increasing recycling, producing reliable, affordable, much-needed electricity, and reducing blackout risks that are climbing every year.”

“More WTE plants could help solve garbage, energy, landfill and pollution problems in metropolitan areas across the country (and worldwide).”

Both the resources and the science exist to make possible a bright future in energy production for the U.S.A., which means a productive economy and a hopeful future for citizens. But the challenge is political – climate change doomsday frenzy, anti-nuclear energy anxiety, and leftist globalists whose goal is not climate change or conservation but totalitarian control of the masses.

Development of fossil fuels, encouragement of entrepreneurial research and innovation, launching a plan to build more nuclear power plants all should be embraced.

God gave us creation and empowered us to steward and develop it. The wilderness is there for us to cultivate for the flourishing of humanity and the glory of God.

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

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 14 July 2025

If you’re older, you remember a time when something called polite society existed—decorum, manners, self-restraint, civility mattered—but it may be gone forever.

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #215 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.

It does not take much to illustrate Western civilization is on the edge. This thing we called organized society is not so organized. People of all ages, but perhaps more so the young, seem to believe they can do anything anytime to anyone any way they wish.

Language is crude and lewd. I began watching a movie recently on a cable channel and was not 30 minutes into it before I realized the producers were enamored with the F-word. Not just the thugs but the cops, not just men but women, not just the antagonists but the protagonist, everybody dropped F-bombs as an all-purpose means of conveying their toughness or frustration or anger. What this said to me is that the writers were not very good. They did not possess the creativity or intellectual depth to write dialogue or access a vocabulary capable of sharing wide ranging emotions without falling back on a vulgar term. Apparently, they think this level of crudeness is how the American populace talks. Maybe it is, but thankfully not folks around me. And by the way, I switched the channel.

On another front, the Left, or so-called progressive politicians, many Democrats to be frank about it, are recording short videos in which they use profanity, supposedly to reach the young American male, but which actually makes them sound juvenile and coarse.

National politicians are getting more aggressive not only in their language but at times behavior, showing up unannounced and challenging security like California Sen. Alex Padilla recently did at a Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem press conference, or like New Jersey Rep. LaMonica McIver did at an ICE detention facility. House minority leader NY Rep Hakeem Jeffries posed with a baseball bat supposedly to demonstrate his tough approach to legislation. Others scream and otherwise disrupt congressional sessions.

"At town halls in their districts and in one-on-one meetings with constituents and activists," (even) more moderate Democratic House colleagues are "facing a growing thrum of demands to break the rules, fight dirty – and not be afraid to get hurt." Another lawmaker told Axios that constituents say, "civility isn't working" and to get ready for "violence ... to fight to protect our democracy." And another said, "It's like ... the Roman Coliseum. People just want more and more of this spectacle."

“Some Democrats are calling on their elected representatives to engage in violence against policies of the Trump Administration. Militant allies of the progressive Democratic movement are resorting to violence in an effort to obstruct the president's enforcement of federal immigration law.”

Political protest is no longer “mostly peaceful,” nor is it apparently about a controversy. It’s planned, prolonged violence. It’s an excuse to run amok, to throw rocks, or worse, Molotov cocktails. Protest is now more performance outrage, a sampling of anarchy, than it is intelligent expressions of disagreement offering other points of view.

We know this because media sometimes interviews protesters in the streets, asking them what they hope to achieve and they offer no response or an obscene response like flipping the finger, or they just parrot talking points they cannot explain. Then they go back to their feral behavior, damaging or looting businesses in their own communities, destroying cars, or shouting slogans at law enforcement.

Deliberative discussion, and disagreement, have gone out the window. Now, anyone who opposes an open border is called a racist. Support the idea of voter ID or photo identification for national elections or even holding national elections on one day with limited mail-in privileges, and you’re a bigot, you’re anti-minorities, or you’re destroying democracy.

Wish for better science regarding vaccines and you’re a purveyor of misinformation. Support efforts to stop waste, fraud, and abuse in government spending and programs and you’re called cruel, a person who does not care about the poor or needy.

Say you are against abortions, and you’re anti-women, anti-reproductive health care. “Reproductive health care” is an illogical oxymoron anyway because abortions stop reproduction entirely.

Lawlessness is no longer limited and infrequent. Portland struggles with Antifa and other extremist groups. Chicago is once again the nation’s murder capital.

Lawfare, the strategic use of law to damage, delegitimize, or hinder an opponent—often under the guise of a semblance of legality or justice, is now commonplace.

Leftist politicians encouraging or specifically calling for violence against those whose politics they oppose, including law enforcement officials, is now a weekly occurrence.

New York City recently elected a self-professed Democratic Socialist with clear Communist principles as the Democrat candidate for city mayor. He has the audacity to call for the arrest of U.S. ICE agents and Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, and he’s repeatedly on record affirming the slogan, “Globalize the Intifada.” He’s antisemitic, anti-capitalism and free enterprise, and anti-American. This is the best New York City can do?

The Pride movement seems to be in some retreat with corporations announcing they will no longer support or promote Pride events. Finally. But Pride parades are still taking place around the country, as are Drag Queen story hours featuring dissolute, decadent behavior and depraved presentations for kids.

The parades are intentionally structured to be loud and proud, meaning they go for shock value, naked or nearly naked prurient participants, sexually exploitative and erotic accoutrements, debased and debauched dances, men with men and women with women doing things that should not be done at all, let alone in public. No better or I should say worse example of the phrase feral human exists than these Sodom and Gomorrah parades.

Thanks to Riley Gaines and the Trump Administration, men claiming to be trans women dominating girls’ and women’s athletics is now in retreat. Decisions by the University of Pennsylvania and the NCAA evidence a grudging drawback on trans-insanity. I say “grudging” because I think this is being done because the entities believe they will lose money, not because they have found their moral compass.

The University of Pennsylvania says it will apologize to female athletes and is rescinding athletic medals from trans individuals who got them in women’s events. At long last, common sense has returned with the NCAA stating student-athletes assigned male at birth may not compete on NCAA women's teams.

But this trans movement has not gone away, one, because universities still retain their local authority to decide these matters as they wish, two, because thousands of people have been ideologically brainwashed into this social delusion, and three, because hundreds more individuals possess some vested economic interest in maintaining a pro-trans posture.

Add to this, in the US, younger adults are significantly more likely to identify as transgender, or nonbinary compared to older adults. No surprise there. Approximately 5.1% of adults under 30 identify as transgender or nonbinary.

This compares to 1.6% of 30–49-year-olds and 0.3% of those 50 and older. A large percentage of the transgender population, 43%, is between the ages of 13 and 24. For now, Gen Z and Gen Alpha are coming of age in an era when biological reality is set aside for social preference. This big lie is not going away.

We’ve pursued identity politics and licentiousness, creating a spiritual and cultural vacuum at the profound expense of e pluribus unum. We are threatening Western Civilization.

We are a people “harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd” (Matt. 9:36).

The West and America need to restore a sense of transcendent purpose. America needs a revival of the moral ideals that once made this country flourish: belief in the Sovereign God, truth, liberty, individual responsibility, virtue, family. God grant that we may see this renewal.

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

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 07 July 2025

Have you ever wondered why an attractive person you see with multiple tattoos and piercings thought they needed these permanent body decorations?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #214 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.

Tattoo-less individuals are an endangered species fast nearing extinction, at least it seems so to me. Piercings are not quite as prevalent but are growing in popularity and visibility among Millennials, Gen Z, and the coming Gen Alpha.

I walked out of a grocery store in Maryland to be met by a young woman, I’m guessing about 25, who was wearing very little but tattoos. She had so many tattoos on one arm and shoulder the colors ran together in an amorphous blue. She wore fewer but still a lot of tattoos on her other arm, a large tattoo running up her neck, and tattoos on her fingers. Tattoos of differing sizes and design were scattered up to the bottom of her skirt on both of her legs. She even had a small tattoo on her face. I’ve seen men wear this many tattoos but never a woman. With all that, these tattoos painted what would be considered a very attractive woman I’m guessing by anyone’s judgment. Forgive me for not understanding what motivated this beautiful young woman to do this to herself for life.

Tattooing and piercings as a form of body modification date back about as far as reliable history goes. “The earliest evidence of a tattoo dates back to roughly 3100 BCE.” Decorating the body is as old, it seems, as human vanity. But now it’s made a comeback in American culture where “tats” and ever-more-creative (or shocking) metal adornments in the skin are evident in whatever direction you look. Seemingly everyone, at least under 45 years of age, is tattooed or pierced. Just check out the young people serving you at McDonalds.

“Tattoos have become a more common sight in workplaces around the United States, even making appearances among members of the U.S. House and Senate. Amid this shift, how many Americans have tattoos, why, and do they regret it? A large majority of U.S. adults say society has become more accepting of people with tattoos in recent decades, according to a new Pew Research Center survey. And 32% of adults have a tattoo themselves, including 22% who have more than one.

38% of women have at least one tattoo, compared with 27% of men.
39% of Black Americans have a tattoo, compared with 35% of Hispanic, 32% of White and 14% of Asian Americans.
37% of those with some college or less education have a tattoo, compared with 24% of those with a bachelor’s degree and 21% of those with a postgraduate degree.
41% of religiously unaffiliated adults have at least one tattoo, compared with 29% of those who are affiliated with a religion.
There are no major differences by political party.
The most commonly cited reason is to honor or remember someone or something: 69% of tattooed adults say this is either a major or minor reason they got any of their tattoos.
Just under half (47%) say they got a tattoo to make a statement about what they believe, and 32% say they got at least one to improve their personal appearance.”

As to piercings, “in the U.S., approximately 83% of the population has their earlobes pierced and 14% has a piercing outside the earlobe.”

“Members of biker or prison gangs, political fringe groups, or even straight-edge punk rockers and vegans might get certain tattoos as proud displays of their membership (official or unofficial) in these groups. People often get tattoos to defy cultural norms, family expectations, or push the envelope in professional settings.

Sometimes, tattoos are used partly for cosmetic reasons. They can cover over or even incorporate certain imperfections in the skin (such as scars, stretch marks, varicose veins and cellulite) to make them less prominent and visible; and the fact that tattoos won’t be going out of style in the foreseeable future means that this permanent form of cover-up is an attractive proposition. Those who can’t even fathom getting a tattoo due to their fear of needles or because they blanch at the thought of how much pain would be involved (but interestingly) some people get tattoos precisely because they want those sensations.”

Same might be said for piercings. “Different types of body piercings have various symbolism for diverse groups of people. While a surface piercing may be nothing more than a sign of good looks to you, to others, it may have deeper cultural, spiritual, or social meanings…The primary meaning of (ear) lobe piercing (often encouraged among women and now some men) has been lost to time and culture integration. Nowadays, people mostly see lobe piercing as body aesthetics.”

Piercings have exploded in number but still have not achieved the popularity of tattoos. “Since the phenomenon of the mono earring; nose rings, eyebrow piercings, belly rings, and other piercings have become more accepted or tolerated, particularly within Gen Z, as they’re the most likely age group to have septum piercings.”

While not everyone who wears piercings or even nose rings are identifying with the LGBTQ persuasion, it is in some circles considered a signal. “Where identity is often policed or questioned, the septum piercing provides an unspoken understanding to communities falling under the LGBTQ2S+ and alternative umbrellas. This typical facial piercing offers a commonality and a sense of belonging to many who carry a horseshoe or circular ring under their noses.”

“Although newer generations have somewhat embraced overall body modifications, workplace dress code may not be as progressive with facial piercings nor tattoos. Employers are still allowed to ask their workers to hide or remove any piercings or tattoos at their own discretion.”

“The adoption of advanced materials like titanium and surgical steel is also on the rise. These materials reduce allergy risks and improve the safety of body piercings…The global body piercing jewelry market is projected to grow from USD 8.15 billion in 2024 to USD 10.89 billion by 2031, reflecting a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 6.14%.”

From the beautiful to the bizarre tattoos and piercings tend to provoke emotional response.

When Christians ask questions about tattoos or piercings, someone cites the Old Testament book of Leviticus: “Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD” (19:28).

Some people quote this verse as a statement outlawing tattoos or piercings, period. But this isn’t a valid interpretation. This verse commanded the Israelites to avoid certain funeral practices wherein bodies were marked in some pagan hope of attaining a good afterlife. This verse doesn’t really address present-day tattooing or piercing. So, we look to the New Testament, only to discover it says nothing about whether a person should or may acquire a tattoo or piercing.

While I am not a fan of most tattoos and certainly many piercings, I’ve always considered this kind of body modification a Christian liberty issue. In other words, God did not say “Thou shalt,” nor did he say “Thou shalt not” with respect to tattoos or piercings.

“Body piercing is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible, leaving the morality of it open to interpretation.
Scripture offers guidance on inner beauty, modesty, and the importance of blessings that surpass outward adornment.”

He left these matters in the so-called “gray area,” so we must reckon what to do and “be fully convinced in (our) own minds” (Romans 14:5).

While God didn’t give us rules, he did give us principles to help us answer this “matter of conscience,” one of which is that not everything we can do we should do. In 1 Cor. 10:23 the Apostle Paul noted the core of the Christian liberty doctrine: “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive.”

Whether we acquire tattoos or body piercings should lead us to careful spiritual discernment about what is best, what will honor God, what will allow us to serve him fully?

Certainly, I feel for people, like the young woman entering the Maryland grocery store, whose bodies are plastered with tattoos. It's their free choice, but I believe they've made an unwise, irrevocable one.

For those who may not like body art, it’s worth mentioning that tattooing and piercing are fads. When I was young, I wore bell bottom pants and longer hair.

I still like long hair but, well, no more flared leg pants. Tattoos and piercings will have their day and then will, someday, literally fade away. Fickle fashion fads are here today, gone tomorrow.

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

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 30 June 2025

When we witness chaos in our streets and public squares, what really are we seeing?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #213 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.

American society is polarized. We are daily beset with incidents in which one group, whatever the name or identity, faces another across a public square, on campuses, in the middle of highways or street intersections. These groups decry some perceived great injustice that is happening to them – or often, some other victim-group du-jour.

It seems no one is content. Certainly no one is pleased or even just optimistic.

But seemingly everyone in the street or online are unhappy and convinced they are the victim of some great if often manufactured wrong or inequity. We see this regarding social class, the Have Nots vs the Haves, regarding race, sex or gender, climate change, or just anti-Trump.

What we need to understand is that what we are seeing is the manifestation of a deeper problem. What I mean is, the issues or the cause about which American society is fighting, at least for the Progressive Left, are not really the issues or the cause at all.

An “SDS radical once wrote, ‘The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution.’ In other words, the cause — whether inner city blacks or women — is never the real cause, but only an occasion to advance the real cause which is the accumulation of power to make the revolution.”

So, what we’re saying is that the issue we see in the streets is only a means to an end, and the end is chaos, which the Progressive Left believes will lead to their power.

Now this all sounds like political or philosophic mumbo jumbo. But I assure you it is not. This is as real as it gets.

Before I proceed, there’s another thing we need to understand – that some of our old and still-used political vocabulary is out of date.

Please note there is a difference between Liberals and the New Left or Progressives of the 2020s.

Classical Liberals believe in big government, which means taxes, regulations. Liberals believe the color of a person’s skin is insignificant. Does not matter.

They are committed to racial integration, they are often pro-capitalism, and they favor free enterprise as the best way to lift people from poverty. They are usually patriotic and believe in America. Now I know so-called Liberals have been featured on media in recent days questioning all these values, but historically at least, this characterization is accurate.

Now, more often, we hear on media from the New Left, the loud and proud, people like Congresswoman Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (NY), Jasmine Crockett (TX), Ilan Omar (MN), and Rashida Tlaib (MI). There are many more than this, including former VP Kamala Harris or Gov Gavin Newsom (CA). These individuals call themselves Progressives, are sometimes called Liberals but are not.

The New Left is now dominant in the Democrat Party, is the chief opposition not simply to Republicans but also to much that is historically American, and in many ways are anti-American. They focus on cultural or social issues like sexuality, climate change, and social justice. “Their focus is on means rather than ends, and therefore they are not bound by organizational orthodoxies in the way their admired Marxist forebears were. Within the framework of their revolutionary agenda, they are flexible and opportunistic and will say anything (and pretend to be anything) to get what they want, which is resources and power.”

The New Left or Progressives is what conservatives and Christians need to learn more about. They are quite literally everywhere, at every level of government and society, and their plan to integrate and destroy from within has been enormously successful, including in education, Kindergarten to graduate school. “Propagandists, posing as teachers and professors, are brainwashing legions of hapless kids looking for purpose. Millions of kids enroll in colleges and universities looking for an education but end up with an indoctrination.”

The New Left or Progressives consider “(incidents or issues) nothing more than a convenient reason to destroy, and, more importantly, to further their goal — the destruction of Western civilization — and to fuel the incipient rise of communism in the United States.

That also means that the Progressive apparatchiks don't care about black, gay, and/or trans people. Nor do they care about ‘due process’ for illegal immigrants.”

The intellectual North Star of the New Left is a late radical political activist named Saul Alinsky who argued for “the strategy of deception he devised to promote social change.” He recommended “Don’t sell it as socialism; sell it as ‘progressivism,’ ‘economic democracy’ and ‘social justice,’ the strategy of working within the system until you can accumulate enough power to destroy it.”

“What this amounts to in practice is a political nihilism - a destructive assault on the established order.” Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Bernie Sanders are a few of Alinsky’s leading adherents. Since they are older than AOC, these pols send off a mix of old Liberalism and attempts at New Left posturing.

Radicals now work in a kind of Fifth Column infiltration, incrementalism, slow but sure revolution. “Radicals camouflage their agendas by calling themselves at different times Communists, socialists, new leftists, liberals, social justice activists and most consistently progressives.” They are willing to use any means, unethical, illegal, and immoral, even violent behavior, to accomplish their goal and the goal is always power, always the revolution. That’s why the issue we see protested in the streets is not really the issue. It’s just a means to an end – chaos – which leads to power for the revolution. The issue is the revolution.

Former radical and author David Horowitz said this about Alinsky: “Recall how Satan tempted Adam and Eve to destroy their paradise: If you will rebel against God’s command then “You shall be as gods.” This is the radical hubris: We can create a new world. Through our political power we can make a new race of men and women who will live in harmony and peace and according to the principles of social justice.” Karl Marx thought that. Progressives think that today.

No matter that the history of socialist totalitarianism in the 20^th and now 21^st Century is a record of hundreds of millions of deaths in the Soviet Union, China, and elsewhere in the world. People do not matter. Power matters. The issue is the revolution, because in creating it, the radical becomes a god.

“Conservatives think of war as a metaphor when applied to politics. For radicals, the war is real. That is why when partisans of the left go into battle, they set out to destroy their opponents by stigmatizing them as ‘racists,’ ‘sexists,’ ‘homophobes’ and ‘Islamophobes.’

It is also why they so often pretend to be what they are not (‘liberals’ for example) and rarely say what they mean. Deception for them is a military tactic in a war that is designed to eliminate the enemy.”

For radical New Left Progressives, “politics is a zero-sum exercise, because it is war. No matter what (these) radicals say publicly or how moderate they appear, they are at war. They’ve been taught to be so.

So, as we watch the chaos in our polarized streets, we should remember that what we are seeing, the issue, is not the Left’s goal. The issue is not the issue. They do not often admit it, but they are at war and in war, there is no compromise, no quarter. “One side is fighting with a no holds-barred, take-no-prisoners battle plan against the system, while the other is trying to enforce its rules of fairness and pluralism.”

Remember Dostoevsky? He famously wrote that “if God does not exist then everything is permitted.” What he meant was that if human beings do not have a conception of the good that is outside themselves, then they will act as gods with nothing to restrain them.”

Conservatives and Christians who believe in rules must awaken to the fact their opposition knows no rules. For New Left Progressives, the issue is not the issue. The revolution is the issue.

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

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 23 June 2025

With the forever war in the Middle East, have you wondered why war is necessary?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #212 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.

Recently, the Israeli government surgically bombed the nuclear bomb preparation facilities of Iran. Israel argues it is fighting an existential fight, even as many in the international community criticize or condemn Israel as the wrongdoer, initiator, or perpetrator of war.

Civil War General William Tecumseh Sherman famously said, “War is hell.” He knew whereof he spoke. He’d seen thousands wounded, mangled, and killed.

War involves death and destruction, the subjugation perhaps annihilation of the enemy, if not for your own forces, and sadly, the inevitable death of civilians. It’s not pretty, nor is it preferrable, except for demented souls, and therein lies the problem. Demented souls exist because evil or sin exists.

We know this because God told us in Genesis 1-3 about the Creation of humanity in God’s image, followed by what’s called the Fall from grace after Satan, masquerading as a Serpent in the Garden of Eden, tempts Eve then Adam into sin. Only one generation later, one chapter in Genesis, brother Cain rises up and kills his brother Abel.

War exists because evil exists. People act against others out of greed, lust, envy, desire for power, hate, so they go to war. Think Hitler, the personification of a warmonger in the past century. But wait, didn’t others rise up against Hitler and the Axis powers? Yes, they did.

The Allies mounted a concerted and remarkable effort involving hundreds of thousands of soldiers and sailors, eventually landing on the beaches of Normandy, D-Day, June 6, 1944, and pushed all the way to Berlin. Meanwhile, other Allied forces in 1942 began island-hopping, pushing back the Empire of Japan in the Pacific.

Why did the Allies fight? Did they want their young people to die in battle? Of course not. They fought because the evil that was presented to them would not stop and could not be stopped in any other way. Today, we thank God, and we thank both those who served and those who gave the last full measure of devotion for our freedom.

Back to the question: why is war sometimes necessary? Because evil exists.

God used war and warfare in the Old Testament to hold evil civilizations accountable, and he even used it to discipline his own children the Israelites.

In the New Testament, God said, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer” (Rom. 13:1-5).

While God clearly states that murder is a sin, nowhere in Scripture does God forbid self-defense or use of weapons or even warfare. War is never labeled immoral or ungodly. While Jesus taught love for enemies (Matt. 5:44), turning the other cheek (Matthew 5:39), and peacemaking (Matt. 5:9), and the Apostle Paul emphasized living at peace with everyone, as far as it depends on us (Rom. 12:18), Scripture does not forbid all war.

Diplomacy is a noble art. Wouldn’t we rather engage in strategic arms limitation talks with Russia than shoot at one another? But diplomacy works only when the sides are either exhausted by war or truly desire peaceful coexistence.

Arguments for ceasefires may be useful diplomacy and are not ipso facto naïve or wrong, but ceasefires agreements with governments and militaries driven by ideologies like Nazism and Hitler’s megalomania, or present-day Islamic jihadism, will not likely be fruitful.

This is one of the challenges in Western capitals. Western secular leaders do not now seem to comprehend the level of ideological religious extremism that hates, that celebrates not only the death of the enemy but welcomes their own death in the service of their fanaticism.

Extremist Islam is a culture of death. ISIS, al-Qaeda, Al-Shabaab, Boko Haram, Hezbollah, Houthis, and the Taliban are examples of groups associated with Islamic extremism and terrorism. These radicals are not interested in finding consensus, breaking bread and living happily ever after. They do not want peace; they want the annihilation of Israel. The Hamas charter says as much. Their drive is to exterminate Jews or the Great Satan America that they consider the dark oppressors of the world.

So, by noting the dark side of the jihadist extremists am I advocating war? No. But I recognize that in this fallen world, war is unavoidable, inevitable, and at times necessary to protect and preserve the lives, freedom, property, and well-being of innocent citizens. If you do not believe this, take some time to read world history.

In the late 1970s-early 1980s, during my days in graduate school studying political science our concern was what was then called “thermo-nuclear war.”

The primary foreign policy America pursued in this nuclear context is still called MAD, “Mutually Assured Destruction.” The assumption is if we build our devastative military power to a point, we can destroy the enemy and they’ve built theirs to a similar level, any use of nukes by them will result in use of nukes by us, or vice versa. Boom. Everyone is destroyed.

Mutually Assured Destruction assumes no one wants to commit suicide and no one will blink.

But MAD also assumes rational actors, meaning an enemy that thinks logically, wants to live, and cares about its future. Will MAD work when the enemy are fanatic ideologues, death cultists, people who religiously believe that their path to glory goes through bombings, attacks on civilians, assassinations, elimination of Jews, and destruction of America? Talks, treaties, timeouts clearly don’t work. So, we’re left with the prospects of eventually going to war to preserve peace and a future for our children.

This is what Israel, and the United States, face with the jihadist government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. “Iran has waged war on Israel and the West for over 45 years. As it repeatedly broadcasts its calls for “Death to Israel” and “Death to America,” it has been pursuing the development of nuclear weapons and stockpiling missiles to use against Israel (and potentially the U.S. homeland). It has hidden behind its terror proxies Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis to attack both military sites and civilians. And egregiously, it fully supported Hamas’s detestable actions against civilians, including women, children, and the elderly, on October 7, 2023, and refused to call on them to release their hostages. And last year, on two occasions, it directly launched missiles into Israel.” It’s doing so now.

While no one wants endless war, not going to war can be more irresponsible and result in greater death than going to war. Sometimes we must fight because we aspire to higher purposes.

As John Stuart Mill observed long ago, “War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing is worth a war, is worse. . . .A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”

People advocating ceasefires under any condition and no war at any cost seem to have forgotten this.

Wars will only end when someday the “Prince of Peace” returns. “He shall judge between the nations and shall decide disputes for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore” (Is. 2:4).

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

Subcategories