Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 09 August 2026

Young Americans are experiencing significantly higher rates of mental health issues—anxiety, depression—than previous generations, and they are pay a price; yet there is a solution.

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #274 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.

Speaking as an aging Baby Boomer, I must say I feel sad and sorry when I hear young people—teens and 20-somethings, so-called Gen Z—express cynical outlooks on the world and seemingly everything around them. Not just sarcasm or simply pessimism, but harsh, angst-ridden, sometimes angry assessments. This includes jobs, if they have one, church, if they ever attend, certainly political leaders, and even their country. They seemingly do not think anything is trustworthy, 

They remind me of the political philosopher Thomas Hobbes who in his book, Leviathan (1651), described human life as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Interestingly, Hobbes imagined a world without rules, police, or leaders. He called this a “state of nature.” He believed that without a government to enforce rules, people would naturally compete and fight over basic needs.

Yet today’s Gen Z don’t trust government either, at least not as currently constructed, so many of them are voting for Democratic Socialist politicians like NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani or Seatle Mayor Katie Wilsom or now the DSA Senate candidate in MI, Abdul El-Sayed or maybe the DSA candidate for Wisconsin governor, Francesca Hong. They offer a kinder, gentler government, one with no police, no prisons, open borders, no private property, no capitalism, a brave new world.

Remember John Lennon’s signature song, “Imagine”? He imagined no heaven, no hell, no countries, no religion. “Imagine no possessions.  I wonder if you can.  No need for greed or hunger.  A brotherhood of man.  Imagine all the people.  Sharing all the world.” The problem with Lennon’s vision and with the DSA’s proposals is that along the way they’ve all been tried and none of them work. In the end, the political elite –George Orwell’s “the Party” in his classic, 1984 (1948)—get the goods and the rest pay for it.

Gen Z is confused about all this. Generation Z (roughly those born between 1997 and 2012) has come of age during a period marked by rapid technological change, political polarization, economic uncertainty, the COVID-19 pandemic, and pervasive social media. These experiences have shaped a generation that often expresses interest in spirituality while simultaneously distancing itself from organized religion. Gen Z is less likely than previous generations to identify with a religious tradition or attend worship services regularly. 

Meanwhile, Gen Z faces significant emotional and mental health challenges. Researchers report elevated levels of anxiety, depression, loneliness, stress, and suicidal ideation compared with many previous generations. Constant digital connectivity has increased opportunities for social interaction but often via cyberspace not in real human contact. And the digital phenomenon has also exposed young people to relentless comparison, information overload, diminished opportunities for rest and reflection, and worst of all, near unlimited bogus, weird, false, debauched, and evil influences sent every second of every day over the internet into their devices and into their hearts.

“A life lived with virtual reality, avatars and online personalities is not fulfilling. Multiple studies show a correlation between excess social media use and rates of depression and anxiety, low self-esteem, obesity and even violence in our teens.” 

Meanwhile, common sense, experience, and numerous studies indicate that active participation in religious communities is associated, on average, with greater social support, higher life satisfaction, lower rates of substance abuse, and increased resilience during times of crisis. Faith traditions provide moral frameworks, a sense of purpose, intergenerational relationships, and communities of care that can help individuals navigate adversity. Prayer, worship, confession, forgiveness, and service to others also foster hope, gratitude, and a sense of belonging.

“Americans who report leaving their formative religion report more significant personal hardship than those who were raised—and remain—religious. This is particularly true for Americans who disaffiliate from more conservative religious traditions; 39 percent of Americans raised evangelical Protestant but who no longer identify with the religion say they feel lonely or isolated from the people around them most or all the time.”

“In terms of identity, Generation Z is the least religious generation yet. More than one-third (34 percent) of Generation Z are religiously unaffiliated, a significantly larger proportion than among millennials (29 percent) and Generation X (25 percent). Fewer than one in five (18 percent) baby boomers. They are also far more likely to identify as atheist or agnostic. Eighteen percent of Gen Z affirmatively identify as either atheist (9 percent) or agnostic (9 percent). In contrast, fewer than one in 10 (9 percent) baby boomers.”

But individuals from every faith tradition, as well as those with no religious affiliation, can experience anxiety, depression, trauma, or other mental health conditions that require professional care. Moreover, some young adults who have had negative experiences with religious institutions and reject not only the institutions but religious faith itself. Others find that spirituality detached from organized religion provides comfort but lacks the sustained community, accountability, and coherent worldview that traditional faith communities often offer. Consequently, Gen Z's search for meaning reflects both a desire for authenticity and a continuing effort to find sources of hope, identity, and belonging capable of addressing the profound emotional and existential questions confronting their generation.
Actually, every generation faces existential questions.  Is there a God?  Who is God?  Is he involved in this world?  Does he know or care about my life, my problems?  What is the meaning of life?  Do I have a future?  Is there an afterlife?

But given Gen Z’s unmooring from family, church, and specifically meaningful Christian faith, this generation seems especially beleaguered by cynicism, which sadly, often leads either to nihilism, meaning nothing matters or hedonism, meaning life is only about pleasures of the moment.

Cynicism, nihilism, and hedonism are distinct outlooks, yet each can erode the foundations upon which young people build meaningful and productive lives.

Cynicism fosters the belief that people are fundamentally selfish, institutions are corrupt, and noble ideals are merely disguises for personal gain. Chronic cynicism often breeds distrust, isolation, and disengagement. Young adults who believe nothing is worthy of commitment may become reluctant to invest in relationships, careers, communities, or causes greater than themselves.

Nihilism goes further by denying that life possesses inherent meaning, objective truth, or lasting purpose. If nothing ultimately matters, then sacrifice, perseverance, and moral responsibility can appear irrational. This outlook can contribute to hopelessness and despair, particularly when individuals face failure, suffering, or disappointment. Without a sense of transcendent purpose or enduring values, life's inevitable challenges may seem overwhelming rather than opportunities for growth.

Hedonism, the pursuit of pleasure as life's highest goal, offers immediate gratification but often neglects the virtues that sustain long-term flourishing. 
A lifestyle centered on comfort, entertainment, consumption, or personal satisfaction can undermine self-discipline, resilience, and responsibility. Young people who constantly seek the next pleasurable experience may find that temporary excitement gives way to emptiness, addiction, financial instability, fractured relationships, or diminished purpose.

These three outlooks frequently reinforce one another. Cynicism weakens trust, nihilism undermines meaning, and hedonism substitutes pleasure for purpose. Together they can discourage the development of character, commitment, and hope. In contrast, lives grounded in meaningful goals, enduring moral principles, healthy relationships, and service to others are generally associated with greater resilience and long-term well-being. 

What I wish for today’s Gen Z is that they would come to understand they are made by God in his image. He made them for and with a purpose. Consequently, they matter and their future matters, notwithstanding the challenges of this world.

This is not vacuous self-esteem. This is eternal providence.

Gen Z desperately needs to answer their existential question, what does God want me to do, now, in this 250th anniversary year of our nation, in the beginning of the 21st Century? By seeking and acknowledging divine sovereignty, they will find their destiny, and the added benefit—cynicism, nihilism, and hedonism will lose all appeal.

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.

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2026   
  
*This podcast blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/ or my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers. 

Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 03 August 2026

Dr. Anthony Fauci made a public appearance recently and Americans are trying to discern whether he is a hero or a villain.  Meanwhile, RFK, Jr. is doing his thing to resuscitate American’s health.

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #273 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 confess that I’ve never been a fan of Dr. Anthony Fauci, America’s pandemic czar during the first Trump and then Biden Administrations. He was Director, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), later Biden’s Chief Medical Advisor, and for a time something of a media darling.

Now he’s facing serious questions regarding whether his pandemic recommendations, like masking, vaccines, and longtime school closings were wise and necessary, or ill-advised, scientifically questionable, or at a minimum another example of government overreach. Worse, some allege Fauci lied about the source of the virus, his involvement with gain of function research, whether he believed his own recommendations, and whether he profited illicitly from this awful time in the nation’s history. With the recent release of his private diaries, he’s come off as a narcissistic prima donna.

Meanwhile, at the start of President Trump’s second term, he appointed RFK, Jr. Secretary of Health and Human Services and RFK has become known for his “Make America Healthy Again” or MAHA mantra wherein he purports to be doing all he can to rationalize medical research science, hold pharmaceutical companies accountable for their claims, and in general raise the quality of the American food experience.

Among other things, RFK, Jr’s goals involve:
1.    Improve the American food supply
o    Reduce consumption of ultra-processed foods.
o    Reevaluate artificial food dyes and certain additives.
o    Increase ingredient transparency.
o    Promote healthier school meals.
2.    Combat chronic disease
o    Reduce rates of obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and other chronic illnesses.
o    Emphasize prevention through nutrition, exercise, sleep, and healthy lifestyles.
o    Focus particularly on children's health.
3.    Increase government transparency and scientific integrity
4.    Review environmental contributors to disease (like pesticides and microplastics)
5.    Reevaluate vaccine policy
o    This has been one of his most controversial priorities, with many public health organizations disagreeing with aspects of his approach while supporting rigorous safety monitoring as an ongoing responsibility.
6.    Promote "precision" or personalized health
7.    Improve maternal and child health
o    Address rising rates of childhood chronic illness.
o    Promote breastfeeding, healthy nutrition, and prenatal health.
o    Examine environmental and nutritional factors affecting child development.
8.    Address mental health and substance abuse
o    Continue efforts to combat the opioid epidemic.
9.    Encourage healthier lifestyles
It’s an extensive list.

As I admitted earlier, I was never a fan of Dr. Anthony Fauci and am even less so now. Frankly, I think the guy lied repeatedly to the American people and should somehow be held accountable – even though President Joe Biden preemptively pardoned Fauci from any crimes related to his work and service.

As to RFK, Jr., it’s another story. I used to regard him as, so to speak, “just another Kennedy” who moved through life living large off his family name and wealth but didn’t do a whole lot.  But RFK, to his credit, has admitted and owned many of his “youthful indiscretions,” as candidate Barack Obama once called his dalliances with marijuana. RFK, Jr. is a different man, it seems, than he was back when. He’s matured.  Hopefully, we all have. So, I’ve learned to appreciate RFK’s vision, steady commitment, and vigorous communication of his desire to improve America’s health. I’ve listened to him a lot, and I believe him.

I especially like RFK, Jr’s initiatives to restrict food dyes and ultra-processed foods in schools and addressing chemical additives.  

Now, some 40% of the U.S. food and beverage industry has committed to removing artificial dyes from their food. While HHS has redirected $1.8 billion per year to combat the childhood chronic disease epidemic.

I don’t look at all this as partisan. In fact, I specifically try to side-step across-the-aisle rancor and look at what, maybe, could be done to address what is large-scale health imbalances in the U.S.

HHS agencies are bringing together their collective expertise to evaluate prescription patterns for psychiatric medications, their benefits and potential harms, and elevate the role of nonmedication treatments and scalable, evidence-based solutions to improve mental health. HHS is working to prevent the unnecessary initiation of psychiatric medications and support the tapering and discontinuation for patients not experiencing clinical benefit. HHS highlights non-medication approaches, such as family support, psychotherapy, nutrition, and physical activity when clinically appropriate.

Secretary Kennedy has said, “For too long, Americans have been forced to pay exorbitant prices for the same drugs that are sold overseas for far less. That ends today. We expect pharmaceutical manufacturers to fulfill their commitment to lower prices for American patients, or we will take action to ensure they do.”

HHS expects each manufacturer to commit to aligning US pricing for all brand products across all markets that do not currently have generic or bio-similar competition with the lowest price of a set of economic peer countries…These targets will, we trust, drastically bring down U.S. drug prices, which are often three to five times higher than prices abroad, while preserving innovation by simply ensuring that Americans bear no greater burden than patients receiving the same drugs in other countries.

I hope so. 

For too long, in my view, American’s have been taught to “medicalize” every personal, emotional challenge, or to call something “mental health” as the quick off diagnosis. Soon as the person gets in trouble, they have mental health problems. Happens to athletes all the time. 
Of course, it could be. Genuine psychiatric and mental health issues exist. I am not discounting this. I’m simply saying there’s sometimes more to the story, which is to say, there are spiritual roots to our emotional and mental health issues.

I believe it is possible for human beings to get themselves so deep into problematic attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that they cannot extricate themselves. They’ve perhaps gone years in a downward spiral, which yields other problems too. They no longer have the capacity to make the decisions they should make to get help.
Perhaps they need an intervention?

That said, I also do not think there is anything—catch that—anything we can get ourselves into where we are beyond the reach of the Holy Spirit of God. Submitting to his will and seeking his forgiveness can enable individuals literally with God’s help to change their destructive behaviors, to begin to change their lives.

This is not just tough love or self-help. It is biblically Christian theology.

So, I am in favor of HHS reviewing the quick trigger diagnosis that everything is a psychological, emotional, mental health issue that just requires some medication to “fix.”

Food is a tremendously important matter too. The Bible has a lot to say about food—not just what people eat, but what food symbolizes, how it should be received, and how it relates to God and other people.

•    Food is a good gift from God.
•    It should be received with gratitude.
•    Self-control is important; gluttony is discouraged.
•    Under the New Testament, no food is inherently spiritually unclean.
•    Believers should avoid judging others over food and should act in love and consideration.
•    Food also serves as a powerful symbol of God's provision and our relationship with Him.

God created us, physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually. He is engaged in our lives and this world, and he’s given us the reasoning capacity and responsibility to care for ourselves and the world. That includes food, medicine, and certainly our own and our loved one’s well-being.

I think government—also created by God—has a place helping us assure our food, health, safety, security, and ability to flourish are protected, preserved, and promoted. For me, that means holding someone accountable who, like Dr. Anthony Fauci, misdirected us, and it means empowering someone like RFK, Jr. who is working to improve our lot.

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.

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2026   
  
*This podcast blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/ or my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers. 

Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 27 July 2026

Does America need patriotism? Does it matter? 

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #272 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.

Patriotism at its best is about ideals, time-tested values and verities that we know result in protecting and liberating citizens.

America is uniquely blessed by the exceptional ideals and system of government the Founding Fathers established:  all individuals are created equal, the Creator endowed us with life, liberty, and the ability to pursue happiness.  

The Founders then set up a system of government that evidenced they understood human nature, that is, that human beings can get side-tracked by their own passions. So, we got government with separation of powers and checks and balances. And the Founders acknowledged that we seek “a more perfect union,” a goal that recognizes we are not perfect but perfecting, opens us to growth and change, is forever aspirational and optimistic.

Since I was a young professor in the 1980s, I’ve wanted to write a book about American patriotism. Finally, by the grace of God I was able to do so this past winter and spring. The book, We Hold These Truths—Responsible Christian Patriotism, was released July 6, 2026, and is now available in print and e-book format on Amazon, eBay, Barnes & Nobles, and more.

There is nothing wrong with appreciating America’s topography, as in the song, “America the Beautiful.” But patriotism is about more than landscape. Patriotism is a sense of love, loyalty, gratitude, and devotion toward one’s country and its ideals, often accompanied by a willingness to support and defend the homeland. 

Patriotism and nationalism are not the same. Patriotism focuses upon love of a country’s ideals, culture, people, geography and generally encourages gratitude.  
Nationalism can involve these attachments but typically takes them to the next level, i.e., considers the nation superior to others, and can also lapse into chauvinism or militarism.  
One concern I have about current politics is that Washington, DC seems to focus more on national position and power rather than on the principles of freedom that did indeed make us great.

I believe there are many patriotic people in this country. We saw considerable patriotism during the recent World Cup, evidenced not only by Americans but by people from all the countries engaged in the tournament. It was good and enjoyable to see.

But there are also many in America who no longer like, much less appreciate, their own homeland, its government, or its politics. They protest loudly that they are victims of an unfriendly, rigged capitalist system, even as they parade around high-end university campuses, carrying cell phones, wearing designer clothing, driving expensive cars, and otherwise demonstrating they enjoy a bona fide level of “privilege” they accuse straw man “oppressors” of wielding against them.

American culture is sadly suffering an identity crisis. We no longer know who we are and we aren’t sure that we trust any source to inform us. A growing segment of the citizenry are not simply protesting given political initiatives but rejecting the nation’s founding ideals. They argue America was not established by people seeking freedom, particularly religious freedom, but by slaveholders seeking to perpetuate their wealth and position. America was not, they say, founded in 1776 but in 1619 when they say the first enslaved person came to these shores.

My wife was speaking with one of our 20-something grandchildren recently and he said, “Well, Grandma, you have to realize that many in my generation think 9/11 was caused by the CIA and the American government.” Really? What happened to Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, terrorism, and radical Islamism?

It’s disheartening to see American college students marching in support of not just the people of Gaza, i.e., Palestinians, but in open support of Hamas, the vicious murdering perpetrators of 10/7.

It is mind-blowing to see Americans carrying signs saying, “Queers for Palestine.” Don’t they have any self-awareness, factual information, or even common sense? Don’t they know that the Islamist ideology motivating Hamas would lead them to kill the so-called sexually liberated outright? Critics have pointed out that this kind of sign is as illogical as a placard saying, “Chickens for KFC.”

So, back to our identity crisis. Juxtaposed to America’s founding ideals—belief in God, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, equality of opportunity, respect for life, and the rest of what comprises the American Dream:  personal responsibility, merit, upward mobility, private property, entrepreneurship, family, rule of law, limited government, alongside these traditional and admirable values is now something new.

Well, not new really, newly rehashed but actually old, revived political views that are undermining the American system. These new-for-this-moment, but-old-retread ideas and values, are vigorously vying for a complete displacement of all that has made this country free and flourishing.

Among the values being propagated are:  an anti-God mentality including an openly hostile attitude toward a biblical worldview and the Christian faith, a globalist view that diminishes and dismisses American national concerns, a celebration of rebellion in the name of absolute freedom, a repression of freedom of speech, which we see in so-called political correctness, a failed and unworkable socialist outlook upon the economy, a disavowal of law and order including calls for abolishing police and prisons, and a perpetuation of tribal and identity politics sacrificing unity in the interest of absolutizing diversity.

All this is bad enough, but there’s more. A confused segment of the American population is intentionally sowing chaos, madness, racism ad nauseum, and a culture of fear, because they believe these unsettling conditions will offer them a path to power.

Many on what’s called the left—Progressives, Democratic Socialists, Communists—sincerely believe and actively promote an amoral nihilism about life itself. They embrace abortion, of course, and a weird, “pro-criminal” view that argues for no sentencing, no bail, catch and release, no one held accountable. They preach a cynical, angst-ridden, angry interpretation of everything they touch, including America itself.

How is this possible? Well, if you don’t believe in God, you have no hope. And if you have no hope, then everything degenerates rapidly from there.

Our challenge for the next 250 years is to develop our ability to be worthy citizens of a worthy nation. We exalt God who gives us truth, life, and liberty. We don't hate; we help. We defend good and as necessary fight evil, but we always strive for peace. We cultivate the character necessary for self-government.  

We must reaffirm our founding ideals as never before. “We hold these truths.” We develop a patriotism that is deeper than national identity, deeper than nationalism, because patriotism that is about pride and power and partisanship is not enough.  Patriotism dies as it is politicized.     
     
The flourishing of America after 250 will depend more on citizen virtue than on dynamic political leaders and political movements that come and go. Liberty requires character. Christians must recommit to the Great Commission, to discipleship, and to building the character of the citizenry, spending more resources on religion than politics.

The promise of America is more about possibility than perfection. That possibility remains real, provided its foundational principles remain respected and realized.

I still believe in the timeless ideals upon which the American Experiment was founded. I believe because I’ve seen the truth and power of these ideas, resulting in the freest and most abundantly productive society in history.
     
The best stewardship of a “city on a hill” celebrates faith, family, and freedom, and offers a compelling moral vision to a people hungry to progress, if no longer through the wilderness than through time and space.
     
For as long as “we hold these truths” the United States of America will offer Americans and the world a beacon of freedom and peace.  

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.

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2026   
  
*This podcast blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/ or my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers. 

Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 20 July 2026

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #271 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 spent 35 years of my career in education, except for five years, all of it in higher education. And I loved every minute of it.

It started when I was in college. I was a good student and liked learning. I admired my professors’ work and lifestyle. So, it was an easy jump to begin thinking I should try to earn a doctorate so I could teach in a college or university. After graduation, that started an eight-year grad school odyssey in which my new bride supported me all the way. Then, wink-wink, and 35 years go by.

Now, though, when I read or think about American higher education, I am often saddened because, frankly, it’s a mess.

While American higher education has long been admired for its research, innovation, and commitment to intellectual inquiry, in recent decades, critics from across the political spectrum have argued that many colleges and universities have experienced a decline in their commitment to open debate and viewpoint diversity. Some institutions have increasingly embraced ideological frameworks often described as “woke,” emphasizing concepts such as systemic oppression, identity politics, and equity in ways that overshadow traditional liberal education.

Classrooms and campus culture have, in some cases, become less welcoming to dissenting opinions. Speakers have occasionally been protested or disinvited, faculty members have reported pressure to conform to prevailing viewpoints, and some students say they self-censor rather than risk social or academic consequences. From this perspective, universities have shifted from encouraging vigorous debate to reinforcing a narrower range of acceptable opinions.

Surveys of faculty political affiliations consistently show that professors in many disciplines lean more politically left than the general public. This imbalance influences curriculum, hiring, and classroom discussions, potentially limiting exposure to conservative, libertarian, or traditional perspectives, certainly to religious perspectives.  

The broader concern expressed by many observers is not simply that universities lean left, but that higher education may be drifting away from its historic mission of pursuing truth through reasoned inquiry, civil disagreement, and intellectual humility. The debate has prompted renewed calls for protecting free expression, emphasizing rigorous academic standards, and ensuring that universities remain places where competing ideas can be examined openly and respectfully.

At the same time, sadly and astoundingly, antisemitism has become a significant concern on some American college and university campuses, prompting widespread debate among educators, policymakers, Jewish organizations, and civil liberties advocates. Numerous incidents in recent years have raised alarms about the climate experienced by many Jewish students.

Following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel and the subsequent war in Gaza, reports of antisemitic incidents on campuses increased substantially. Jewish students at some institutions reported harassment, intimidation, exclusion from campus activities, and, in some cases, fear of expressing their religious or cultural identity. Protest encampments and demonstrations, while often organized to criticize Israeli government policies, also included rhetoric or actions that crossed the line from legitimate political expression into antisemitism by targeting Jews as a group or denying their equal participation in campus life.

Congressional hearings and investigations brought national attention to the issue, questioning whether universities had adequately enforced their own policies against harassment and discrimination. Several university presidents faced intense scrutiny over their largely lame responses, rightly leading to resignations at some ostensibly “prestigious” institutions. 

It is important to distinguish between criticism of the Israeli government—which is protected political speech—and antisemitism, which is hostility, discrimination, or prejudice directed against Jewish people because they are Jewish. Maintaining that distinction is essential to protecting both free expression and the safety and dignity of Jewish students and scholars.

The increase in antisemitism in the United States has become a matter of serious concern for government officials, religious leaders, educators, and civil society organizations. Political and social polarization has intensified hostility. Left leaning extremist groups used this period of national tension to promote antisemitic rhetoric. 

Many observers also cite declining civic trust, reduced historical knowledge about the Holocaust, and growing acceptance of inflammatory rhetoric as contributing factors. Addressing antisemitism requires consistent enforcement of laws against hate crimes, education about Jewish history and the Holocaust, promotion of respectful dialogue, and a clear distinction between legitimate criticism of governments and prejudice directed against people because of their religion or ethnicity. It also and most importantly demands the teaching and understanding of a moral code based upon Judeo-Christian values that respect all human beings as created in the image of God.

The treatment of conservative speakers on some American college campuses has also become a subject of sustained national debate. Institutions dedicated to the free exchange of ideas have become less hospitable to viewpoints that depart from prevailing campus opinion, particularly those associated with political conservatism.

A number of high-profile incidents have involved invited speakers facing protests, disruptions, or demands that their appearances be canceled. In some instances, demonstrations have remained peaceful, reflecting students’ rights to express disagreement. In other cases, however, events have been interrupted, speakers shouted down, or security concerns have led universities to cancel appearances. 

Conservative student organizations have also reported difficulties hosting controversial guests due to heightened security costs, administrative restrictions, or fears of disruption. These barriers can have a chilling effect, discouraging students from inviting speakers who represent differing viewpoints on campus. The broader concern extends beyond individual events. Surveys have suggested that some students and faculty, from both conservative and progressive perspectives, choose to self-censor because they fear social or professional consequences for expressing unpopular opinions. This climate diminishes the robust intellectual engagement that universities are intended to foster.

The ongoing debate highlights a fundamental challenge for higher education: balancing freedom of expression, campus safety, and mutual respect while preserving the university’s historic mission as a place where competing, even ugly, ideas can be examined critically, openly, and without intimidation.

American higher education faces a series of significant challenges. Affordability is one. Rising tuition, student debt, and the increasing cost of operating colleges have led many families to question the value of a four-year degree. At the same time, demographic changes and declining enrollment have placed financial pressure on many institutions, particularly small private colleges and regional public universities.

A second challenge is restoring public confidence. Surveys indicate that Americans have become more divided over whether colleges effectively prepare students for careers, promote critical thinking, and encourage open intellectual inquiry. Concerns about ideological polarization, academic freedom, and viewpoint diversity have intensified debates over the mission of higher education.

Preparing graduates for a rapidly changing economy is another priority. Advances in artificial intelligence, automation, and emerging technologies require universities to equip students with adaptable skills, technical competence, ethical judgment, and lifelong learning habits.

Mental health has also become a major concern. Colleges are experiencing growing demand for counseling services as students face increased anxiety, loneliness, and stress – and remember, the audience we’re talking about here is 18 to 22 years of age. Colleges may be able to help, but the real issue is spiritual and rooted in students’ lives and families.

So, the old image of a college where a professor sits on one end of a log and a student sits on the other, well, that seems long gone. But this personal engagement, hopefully from a mature and trustworthy scholar, is what students still need.  So, here’s some hope: there are still some wonderful professors out there in academia.  Find them.

For parents, it’s a boatload of money to pay for four years of higher education. Be sure you know what your favorite college or university is really teaching and whether it’s worth your child’s time and your money. A great football team says nothing about what’s being taught in the classroom.

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.

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2026   
  
*This podcast blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/ or my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers. 

Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 13 July 2026

If you decide you like eating sushi, tacos, or curry, are you stealing from another culture or are you enjoying what that culture created?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #270 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.

In the run-up to the FIFA World Cup 2026, American corporation Airbnb sponsored a commercial entitled, “The World is Meant to Meet.” You can yet watch it on YouTube.

I appreciated and enjoyed this commercial as much as any I have seen in a long time. In 30 seconds, the female narrator says,

“Did you know salsa was invented when Cubans took Puerto Rican rhythms to New York? Brazilian Jui-Jitsu was born when the Japanese took Judo to Brazil. When North African frying traditions met Spanish dough, Spain made the churro. After Jamaicans took their sound systems to the UK, the world got punk. And this this is what the world gets when 48 nations meet to play one beautiful game.”

Cue pictures of soccer stadiums crammed with international fans sporting their national colors. “The World is Meant to Meet.”

It's also surprising, because this commercial is celebrating the joys and innovation of cultural exchange, which flatly challenges all the leftist angst we've heard for the past few years about "cultural appropriation," i.e., don't dare wear a sombrero or dance at Cinco de Mayo if you are not Mexican, put cornrows in your hair and you're racist, sport a kimono if you are not Japanese or don a headdress if you aren't Native American, even non-Christians daring to sing Christmas Carols. Somehow, any appreciation of another culture's or even religion’s practices got you labeled as insensitive. 

I know. It's identity politics malarkey, so it's good to see a bold and creative celebration of life, sport, and cultural exchange and innovation.

“Cultural appropriation” generally refers to the adoption or use of elements of one culture by members of another culture in ways that critics believe are exploitative, disrespectful, or divorced from their original meaning. The term is debated, however, and people disagree over where the line lies between appropriation, appreciation, cultural exchange, and assimilation.

Elvis Presley has sometimes been cited in discussions because he popularized music rooted in African American traditions, although many historians note that Presley himself frequently acknowledged his influences.

Those who argue that an act is cultural appropriation often point to factors such as:

•    Removing an element from its original cultural or religious context. 
•    Using sacred or ceremonial items casually. 
•    Profiting from another culture without acknowledgment or benefit to that community. 
•    Reinforcing stereotypes. 
•    A history of unequal power between the cultures involved.

Those who are skeptical of the concept often argue that:

•    Cultural borrowing has occurred throughout all human history. 
•    Most cultures have developed through continual exchange of ideas, foods, clothing, language, music, and technology. 
•    Sharing cultural practices can foster appreciation and understanding. 
•    It is often difficult to determine which culture "owns" a particular practice because many traditions have multiple historical influences. 

Scholars commonly distinguish cultural appropriation from cultural appreciation. Appreciation generally involves learning about another culture, engaging with it respectfully, giving proper credit, and recognizing the original context, whereas appropriation is typically understood as using cultural elements in ways viewed as exploitative, misleading, or disrespectful.

I remember comedians like Don Rickles, Buddy Hackett, Flip Wilson, even Jerry Lewis, none of whom would be able to make it today because their gigs often centered on making jokes about different races, ethnicities, and nationalities. I’m not defending all their routines, nor wanting to go back to that time, because some of their bits I recall were pretty bad, meaning racist or on the borderline, disrespectful to the max, and frequently vulgar to boot. But then again, not all their jokes or those of people like them were objectionable. Much of it was hilarious and allowed us as a culture to laugh at ourselves.

Conservatives are typically skeptical of the concept of cultural appropriation, but others distinguish between respectful cultural exchange and the misuse of sacred or ceremonial traditions.

Many conservatives regard the modern concept of cultural appropriation as an overextension of identity politics that treats ordinary cultural exchange as a social offense. From this perspective, human history is characterized by the continual borrowing and blending of ideas, customs, technologies, foods, clothing, music, and languages. Civilizations have always learned from one another, and many of humanity's greatest cultural achievements are the result of such exchanges.

Social pundits who hold this view argue that sharing cultural traditions is generally a sign of admiration rather than disrespect. They point to examples such as Americans enjoying Italian cuisine, Japanese baseball, Scottish bagpipes, Irish music, Mexican food, or African American musical styles. Rather than viewing these as acts of theft, they see them as evidence that cultures enrich one another through openness and voluntary exchange.

Many also question whether cultures can meaningfully "own" hairstyles, recipes, artistic styles, or forms of dress that have evolved over centuries through contact among diverse peoples. They argue that attempts to assign exclusive ownership to cultural practices can discourage curiosity, appreciation, and mutual understanding while reinforcing social divisions based on race or ethnicity.

Another common concern is that accusations of cultural appropriation are applied inconsistently. Critics note that borrowing from some cultures is frequently celebrated as diversity, while borrowing from others is condemned. They contend that such selective standards make the concept subjective and difficult to apply fairly.

At the same time, conservative social commentators distinguish between ordinary cultural exchange and conduct that is intentionally disrespectful. They generally recognize that mocking another culture, desecrating sacred religious objects, or exploiting indigenous traditions for profit without acknowledgment may warrant criticism. The disagreement is less about whether respect matters than about where the line should be drawn.

Ultimately, conservatives who are skeptical of the modern appropriation framework tend to view free cultural exchange as one of the strengths of an open society. They believe that ideas, traditions, and artistic expressions flourish when people are free to adopt, adapt, and celebrate them across cultural boundaries. In their view, encouraging respectful appreciation of other cultures promotes social cohesion more effectively than emphasizing cultural ownership or restricting who may participate in particular traditions.

Christians generally evaluate questions of cultural appropriation through the lens of biblical ethics rather than contemporary political categories. Scripture teaches that all people are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), that believers are to "love your neighbor as yourself" (Mark 12:31), and that they should "do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves" (Philippians 2:3). These principles encourage respect for the dignity, traditions, and convictions of others.

At the same time, the Bible presents cultures as gifts that are neither isolated nor static. Throughout Scripture, peoples and nations influence one another through migration, trade, language, and worship. The spread of the gospel itself crossed cultural boundaries, with the early church welcoming Jews and Gentiles into one body in Christ while recognizing that the gospel could be expressed within diverse cultural settings (Acts 15; Galatians 3:28).

Many Christians therefore distinguish between respectful cultural appreciation and exploitative misuse. Learning another language, enjoying another culture's music or cuisine, or adopting customs with gratitude and understanding can reflect an appreciation of God's diverse creation. By contrast, mocking another people, commercializing sacred religious practices, or using cultural symbols in ways that intentionally demean or deceive others would conflict with biblical commands to love one's neighbor and to act with integrity.

Ultimately, Christians ask not simply, "Do I have the freedom to do this?" but also, "Does this demonstrate love, honor God, and build up others?" (1 Cor.10:23–24, 31–33). Christian liberty is balanced by a willingness to limit one's freedoms when doing so serves others and promotes peace, mutual respect, and the unity of the body of Christ.

Cultural appreciation, as unto the Lord, is a way of enjoying the blessings of the beautiful creation God gave us.

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.

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2026   
  
*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.