Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 19 October 2026

Is what’s happening in Europe concerning to America?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #284 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.

Europe is in trouble. First in France, now in Belgium, Greece, the UK, Spain, Italy and other countries, students, activists, leftists, Marxists, agitators, labor unions, and simply thugs have taken to the streets by the thousands not in peaceful protests but destructive riots fighting police, burning schools and other buildings, looting, and waving flags—not national flags but Palestinian flags. Major news media describe this as student unrest regarding better education. It does not take much research or review to determine far more serious issues and organizations are involved than this, and the social turmoil is not going away anytime soon. Some pundits have wondered aloud about civil war.

Many people have been sounding warning bells for some time—actually, some have been issuing caveats since at least the 1990s and certainly since the 2010s.
But political elites, EU bureaucrats, leftists, globalists, and other sophisticates have paid no heed, and they’ve pursued their course with little input from the citizenry.

WWII devastated not only the landscape but the economies of European nations, especially, of course, Germany. Their economies were stymied for lack of workers due to the war and due in subsequent decades to an unsustainable low fertility rate that continues to this hour. Then, someone had the great idea of simply bringing in immigrants to become workers in European factories.

Within a decade or so, European leaders also embraced the misguided philosophy of multiculturalism – the idea that no culture is better than another – and then began inviting, importing, and welcoming immigrants, largely unvetted because to do much review is to violate the multicultural religion and become “racist” xenophobes. So, with Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel saying, “We can do this,” countries threw open their borders to first a few, then many, then unstoppable and often illegal waves of migrants mostly from lands formerly “colonized” back in another era.

The European leaders’ policy was called a “guest program” because they assumed immigrants would work for a time and then go home. That never happened.  
Migrants stayed and began having more babies than generational Europeans.
Then European leaders assumed immigrants would integrate and assimilate, become loyal German or French or Belgium or Swedish, work hard and produce goods and services for the marketplace and produce a happily ever after for all. That never happened.

European leaders thought immigrants would quickly get jobs and earn their way. While some certainly did this and live peaceful, productive lives, the majority of immigrants in most countries proved to be “economic migrants.” They were not really refugees from a troubled country, now seeking a short-term hand-up. They were looking for a handout. They were people whose religious inclinations gave them an entitlement mentality expecting the foolish, irrationally generous welfare social democracies of Europe to pay their way. So now what? France, for one, is broke.

One key element European leaders missed, in what some have called an ignorant and others have called an arrogant, secular mindset, is the importance and relevance of religion. The post WWII Europeans secular mindset is characterized by a deep decline in traditional religious practice and institutional belonging, accelerated by trauma, modernization, and a shift toward individual freedom, i.e., materialism, humanism. “Christianity, which had long been the spiritual and moral cornerstone of Europe and much of the Western sphere, began a steady decline—both in influence and practice.”

Discarding Christianity comes at a cost—societal cohesion, spiritual fulfillment, and moral clarity remain elusive in an increasingly fragmented and polarized world. Without Christianity as a unifying force, Western societies became more pluralistic but also more fragmented. Secular liberalism, while promoting personal freedom, often struggles to provide the existential meaning that religion once offered. The void left by Christianity enabled the growth of radical ideologies. The transition from moral absolutes to liberal relativism eroded clear definitions of right and wrong. 

With this secular mindset, European leaders failed to account for the religious views and values of waves of immigrants.These immigrants brought with them their religious values, their politics, their cultural practices and norms, and as importantly, their inbred, deep-seated animosity toward the West and the very countries that became their hosts.

Fast forward a couple of decades or more and now there are second and third generation children of migrants, youth born in Europe, who surveys and other research indicate are often more hostile to their host country than their parents. What happened to assimilation? What happened to happily ever after?

So now, in 2026, there are somewhere between 44-50 million immigrants in Europe. If these populations assimilate, then perhaps there is or will be no problem. But if they do not, as trends and recent events in Europe suggest, then predictions regarding Europe’s future range from not pretty to alarming.

Europe has sometimes served as America's early warning system: social and ideological changes that appear there first eventually cross the Atlantic. The open question is whether America will notice and act.

In virtually all European countries with significant immigrant populations terrorist incidents, violence, and crime have climbed significantly higher. The social freedoms of women in European communities have changed markedly in response to public harassment by immigrant men. Threats to the safety of women, including an enormous increase in rapes and trafficking perpetrated by immigrants.

European nation integration policies have been largely unsuccessful. The sheer number of unvetted immigrants flooding the continent threatens the financial viability of the socialist welfare states eager to “buy them off,” which only results in dependency and perceptions of the nation as weak. And this perception of weakness may not be incorrect, for Western European complacency, fear, or a lack of resolve are clearly in evidence.  

What should Americans learn? One, we are in a brave new world in which mass migration is being weaponized as a tool of subversion. Then violent protests are encouraged by foreign governments.  

Being smart about immigration is not ipso facto racism. Nor is it irrational or isolationist. Nor is it evidence of a lack of caring – America has been and still is the most generous country in the world. Wise immigration policy is simply good stewardship, to which some European countries are now, finally, awakening.

Citizen and government pushback against civilizational erasure is now happening, for example, in Italy, led by conservative Prime Minister Georgia Meloni, and believe or not, at EU headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, where the European Parliament recently passed a major migration reform package by a vote of 418 to 218, establishing stricter rules for deporting undocumented third-country nationals.

We do not know if it is “too late” to turn the tsunami we’re now witnessing in Europe. But it is categorically not too late to take steps in the US to do our best to prevent similar social fragmentation here.

What do we do? 
1)    Teach civics and American history in high schools, 2) Continue to deport illegal immigrants, 3) Suspend birth tourism, 4) Identify and deport individuals acting on radicalized ideology that threatens to undermine American freedoms.  This is not a violation of the First Amendment.

President Dwight Eisenhower once wisely said, “To begin with: all of us—citizens, jurists, officials—must remember that the Bill of Rights contains no grant of privilege for a group of people to destroy the Bill of Rights. A group—like the Communist conspiracy—dedicated to the ultimate destruction of all civil liberties cannot be allowed to claim civil liberties as its privileged sanctuary from which to carry on subversion of the Government.”

God bless America.

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: 12 October 2026

If your loved one is suffering, or perhaps you are, is it really wise and morally justifiable to simply end life via euthanasia or assisted suicide?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #283 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.

“The Canadian approach to euthanasia and assisted suicide, euphemistically known as Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID), has expanded in recent years and has sparked significant debate about its ethical and societal implications. Euthanasia was first intended only for those nearing the end of their lives. Now, Canada has one of the most permissive euthanasia policies in the world, revealing a rapidly increasing culture of not just accepting death, but actively promoting it.

Canadian veterans have called the Ministry of Veterans Affairs looking for help and been offered euthanasia instead. Those with suicidal ideation have gone to the hospital for help, only to be encouraged to consider euthanasia. A woman was even asked if she was aware of the option of euthanasia before going into cancer-removing surgery.”

“MAID was first legalized in 2016 for Canadians whose death was ‘reasonably foreseeable.’ At the time, a person had to have a grievous and irremediable medical condition which caused enduring physical or psychological suffering to qualify for euthanasia. In 2021, just five years after legalization, MAID was expanded to include those whose ‘death is not reasonably foreseeable.’ With this expansion, people with disabilities or non-terminal illnesses could choose to have a doctor end their lives.”

“MAID now accounts for 5.1 percent of all deaths in Canada – one in every 20 deaths was due to MAID. MAID has gone from exceptional to routine.”

“Canada’s government-sanctioned assisted suicide program, known as ‘Medical Assistance in Dying’ (MAID), turns 10 years-old this month. Since its inception, reports say more than 100,000 people have been killed by euthanasia. This comes despite strong pushback from Catholic leaders and amid signs some regions are considering limits to the controversial program. Amanda Achtman, founder of the anti-euthanasia ‘Dying to Meet You’ campaign, says MAID essentially changed Canada’s criminal code to protect doctors and nurse practitioners more than patients.”

Canada’s MAID “rate (is) second only to the Netherlands. Euthanasia is now the fifth most common cause of death in Canada. Compare these numbers with Oregon, the first American state to legalize assisted suicide in 1997. In 2023, 367 people died by assisted suicide in Oregon, or just 0.8% of all deaths in the state.  
Of course, Oregon and other American states only permit assisted suicide, where a doctor gives the patient the means to end their own life. In Canada, assisted suicide is permitted but nearly non-existent. Instead, MAID deaths are almost exclusively due to euthanasia, where a doctor actively ends a patient’s life. In fact, in 2023, over 5,300 euthanasia deaths were done by just 89 medical practitioners, an average of 60 deaths each in just one year. Some Canadian doctors have become experts in killing, with one doctor “administering fatal substances” to over 400 patients.”

“Canada now effectively allows suicide on demand. While patients may be euthanized due to a specific reason for eligibility, such as illness or disability, it has become clear that some are also requesting and receiving death due to social, economic, or mental suffering.”

As Christians, we understand that suffering is real on this side of glory. Pain, disease, disability, and mental illness all point to the effects of sin on our world and the need for the world to be renewed. Death itself is referred to by the apostle Paul as the “last enemy that will be destroyed” (1 Cor. 15). But we also know that suffering builds us up in ways we cannot now see. As we read in James 1:12: “Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him.” We may not know the purpose of suffering. But we can respond to suffering by remaining faithful and giving glory to God. Further, suffering is an opportunity for care.

And yet, in Canada today, death is increasingly seen as a solution to suffering. Rather than being the enemy, death is seen as an ally…as Christians, we know that dignity is not found in one’s ability, health, or disposition. We know that every person has dignity, simply by the fact that human beings are made in the image of God.

The Apostle Paul said, “For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us...For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together…but we ourselves…groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for…the redemption of our bodies” (Rom. 8:18, 22-23).

From a biblical Christian perspective, human life is a sacred gift from God, possessing inherent dignity and value from conception until natural death. 
Because human beings are created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27), life is not merely a personal possession over which individuals exercise absolute authority. Rather, it is a trust from the Creator, who alone possesses ultimate sovereignty over life and death (Deut. 32:39).

Consequently, most Christian traditions oppose euthanasia—the intentional ending of a person's life to relieve suffering—and physician-assisted suicide, in which a medical professional provides the means for a person to end his or her own life. Christians generally understand the commandment, “You shall not murder” (Ex. 20:13), as affirming the sanctity of human life and prohibiting its deliberate, unjustified destruction. They also emphasize that human worth does not depend on physical health, independence, productivity, or freedom from suffering.

Christian opposition to euthanasia does not mean that suffering should be ignored or that every possible medical intervention must be continued indefinitely. Scripture calls believers to compassion, mercy, and care for the vulnerable. Palliative care, pain management, emotional support, and spiritual care can help dying patients experience comfort and dignity. Christians may also accept the withholding or withdrawal of disproportionate or futile medical treatments when the intention is to allow the underlying illness to take its natural course, rather than to cause death. Some Christians acknowledge difficult ethical questions when patients face unbearable suffering, terminal illness, or the loss of meaningful communication and independence. Nevertheless, Christians typically argue that compassion should mean accompanying and caring for suffering people, not intentionally ending their lives. The distinction between relieving suffering and deliberately causing death is central to traditional Christian medical ethics.

Ultimately, the Christian response to euthanasia rests on the conviction that every human life matters to God, including lives marked by disability, dependency, old age, or terminal illness. Christians are therefore called to defend vulnerable people against pressure to end their lives while providing practical assistance, loving companionship, and compassionate care. The goal is neither to prolong suffering unnecessarily nor to treat death as a solution to human need, but to honor life, alleviate suffering, and entrust the timing of death to God.

The Roman Catholic Church strictly and formally condemns euthanasia and assisted suicide in all circumstances as grave violations of divine law. Meanwhile, Conservative / Evangelical Protestants also strongly oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide, frequently organizing public resistance against legalizing "death with dignity" measures. Liberal, sometimes called Mainline Protestants denominations and churches, tend toward views that vary more widely; some denominations or congregations express openness to personal autonomy, conscience-based choice, or assisted dying if rare, and carefully restricted. 

Christians believe life is a gift from God. Indeed, all life is God-given. Consequently, birth and death are part of the life processes which God has created, so we should respect them. Therefore, no human being has the authority to take the life of any innocent person, even if that person wants to die. This has been the historical understanding of the Christian Church and therefore largely of the law in Western civilization, including rejecting the idea of suicide.
 
Canada evidences a culture in decline, one that has gradually set aside its Christian heritage. Christian affiliation fell by roughly 36 percentage points between 1971 and 2021. A country that once regarded Christianity as a central part of its cultural identity has become increasingly secular, religiously diverse, and skeptical of traditional religious authority. The overall picture is one of substantial Christian decline in cultural influence and religious affiliation, accompanied by significant differences among denominations, regions, and generations. Is it any wonder, then, that Canadian culture is now embracing, even encouraging, death rather than life as a solution to human suffering?

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: 05 October 2026

America seems to have a maturing problem, or at least a Gen Z adulting problem—why are Gen Z youth adrift?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #282 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.

A growing concern in America is that some members of Generation Z—particularly young men—are taking longer to make the transition from adolescence into full adulthood. The phenomenon is often described with the term “adulting,” meaning the ability and willingness to assume the ordinary responsibilities of adult life: working consistently, managing money, maintaining a household, forming lasting relationships, and accepting responsibility for one’s choices. 

As I said, while young women struggle, it seems to be a Gen Z male issue more than anything.

“Too many of our young men are not getting out there. They’re staying at home. 
They’re in their parents’ basements. They’re going down internet rabbit holes. Some of them are even, sadly and frighteningly, becoming radicalized. This is one of the foremost challenges of our time.”

Young men’s “mental health is poor, their habits are bad—video games, pornography, gambling, pot-smoking—and their views can become extremist—that’s the radicalized part.

Men account for roughly 75% of all suicides globally, yet men are diagnosed with depression at roughly half the rate of women, not because they suffer less, but because depression in men looks different and gets missed.

Lack of institutionalized social forms affects young men in many other personal ways. For example, with the long-running decline of voluntary associations—churches, service clubs, adult sports leagues, and the like—and the instability of the family (only about 60% of young men have a consistent presence of their father), young men are thrown back on themselves to find and create relationships of commitment and friendship. 
While most unmarried or unpartnered young men want to date, it is rough sailing. Many cannot find someone who will go out with them (reported by about 50%) and—attesting to the more amorphous and fraught circumstances of courtship—are reluctant to ask a woman on a date, primarily out of fear of being turned down.”

“The cultural narrative surrounding masculinity often feels like a tug of war, with young men being pulled in opposite directions. On one side, the culture tells them that being a man and displaying stereotypically male traits is inherently flawed and they should be more sensitive or emotional, -- ‘show their feminine side’ – while the other side encourages men to reject that narrative, to assert dominance, be aggressive—but watch out, don’t fall into ‘toxic masculinity.’ Neither of these cultural storylines offers a strong enough framework for human flourishing, and it’s no surprise that many young men are in crisis.”

“Men don’t know what a man is. In the media, men are accused of male privilege, male chauvinism, mansplaining, and misogyny.”

The issue is more complicated than simply saying that young people are immature. Economic conditions, cultural changes, technology, education, family structure, and shifting expectations about adulthood all play a role.

For many young men, the traditional markers of adulthood are occurring later. Marriage, establishing an independent household, completing education, developing a career, and achieving financial independence are frequently postponed. College has also become an extended period between adolescence and employment, while housing costs and entry-level wages can make independence more difficult. Men are less likely to complete a bachelor’s degree and more likely to leave college without completing one.

Some young adults remain at home longer, sometimes by necessity and sometimes because the transition to independence has become less clearly defined. Nearly half of adults aged 18 to 29 now live with their parents – the highest rate since the Great Depression. Traditional milestones that once defined the transition to adulthood – marriage, homeownership, financial independence – are being postponed or reimagined by Generation Z.

Technology has added another dimension. A generation raised with smartphones, social media, streaming entertainment, online gaming, and increasingly artificial intelligence can spend enormous amounts of time in digital environments. 
These technologies provide legitimate benefits, but they can also make it easier to avoid difficult face-to-face responsibilities. The internet can provide entertainment, friendship, information, and even a sense of accomplishment without necessarily requiring the discipline that real-world adulthood demands.

Boys generally mature somewhat later than girls during adolescence, and contemporary culture sometimes provides fewer clear pathways from boyhood to manhood. Earlier generations often encountered structured expectations through work, military service, marriage, church, civic organizations, or other institutions. 
Those pathways remain available, but participation in many of these institutions has declined or changed.

The pandemic’s economic and social disruptions further amplified these trends, creating additional uncertainty that made long-term commitments seem risky. A 2025 survey of young Americans from the Harvard Youth Poll discovered that views on traditional life milestones have notably shifted, with just 48% considering having children important and only 57% placing significance on marriage. Meanwhile, 86% identified financial security as their primary goal, though only 56% expressed confidence in achieving it. What distinguishes Gen Z’s approach is not a lack of ambition but a more holistic perspective that prioritizes mental well-being alongside financial and professional goals. They’re more likely to seek meaningful work that aligns with their values rather than pursuing traditional career trajectories solely for financial gain.

“Today’s culture puts a heavy spotlight on appearance, social media image, achievements, and popularity…Youth are constantly exposed to unrealistic standards on Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube. They begin to compare themselves with others, questioning their value and identity. This identity crisis can lead to low self-esteem, anxiety, and even depression…Even worse, moral boundaries are becoming blurry. What once was wrong is now widely accepted, even celebrated.”

Young men need expectations, opportunities, responsibility, and encouragement. Families can gradually transfer responsibility rather than indefinitely protecting young adults from consequences. Churches and community organizations can give young men opportunities to serve, lead, work alongside older adults, and develop relationships across generations.

Ultimately, adulthood is less about reaching a particular birthday than developing the character and competence necessary to carry responsibility. Certain questions should be asked, haven’t these kinds of challenges always played a role in the life experience of most of us? Is what youth are experiencing today all that different from any era? Perhaps it is not the circumstances that offer greater challenges as much as it is that youth are spiritually untutored and unprepared?

What’s missing for many Gen Z youth is a spiritual safety net or back stop. They get in trouble, so to speak, and there’s nothing there to catch them. Lacking knowledge of who God is and what he wishes for them, they are adrift.

One of the main issues is the struggle to find a deeper sense of purpose and identity. Many men feel lost, focusing too much on career success or material things. However, the Bible teaches that true purpose comes from God. Jer. 29:11 says, “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.” This verse shows that God has a unique plan for every man, which can provide direction and meaning in life. This gives a sense of the challenges facing Christian men today.

Over the past six years, male attendance at church has seen a significant rise, especially among Gen Z, but it remains to be seen how long this lasts and whether youth are attending Bible believing that offer them meaning and direction or woke, weak, and whining churches that offer them little hope.

Gen Z young men and young women can be reminded they are children of God, chosen, royal, and set apart (1 Pet. 2:9).

•    Is.  40:30–31: “Even youths grow tired…but those who hope in the Lord will renew their strength.”
•    1 Tim. 4:12: “Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young…”
•    Rom. 8:37: “In all these things we are more than conquerors…”

Youth in every culture in every era have faced uncertainty. What’s needed today is not religion but a relationship with Christ, an understanding of biblical theology, and a grasp of how God instills them with ambition they can use for his glory and their fulfillment.

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: 28 September 2026

Do you believe in truth? Sounds like a funny question but our youth are asking.

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #281 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 late 1970s I was newly out of college, a graduate student, a new middle and high school social studies teacher, and most importantly, a newly wed. We got married the same summer we were awarded our BAs, then accepted our first professional academic appointments in a Christian school in Cleveland.

This was back in the day when the private Christian school movement was gaining steam, and a lot of teacher conferences were developed to support the effort. In the course of time, I attended one of these conferences and was privileged to hear Calvinist Christian philosopher and theologian, Dr. Rousas J. Rushdoony, who was then gaining a reputation for his conservative theological and political views, some controversial, and writing books that people yet read today after he went to his reward in winter 2001. 

I clearly remember Dr. Rushdoony saying, “There is no new truth, but continually much new error.” He did not mean that human beings know everything or that we can’t learn anything new. Nor did he mean there would never again be a new discovery.

He was speaking about philosophy and epistemology. What Dr. Rushdoony meant is that the Bible is God’s revealed Word, it is infallible and inerrant, it is complete in its canon, and it contains within it everything we need for life, as the Apostle Peter said in 2 Pet. 1:3: “His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness.”

What Dr. Rushdoony was saying is that the Word of God gives us truth, reveals to us God who is truth, and tells us—human beings—who we are, where we came from, why we were created, what is our essential nature and purpose, and what will happen to us in the not-so-far-off end of history.

Dr. Rushdoony coupled his statement about truth with the observation there is much new error. Here he meant that since the dawn of time, human beings have used the creative mental capacities God gave them to search for something—anything—other than God and what he said is true. Human beings have never stopped creating new error.

So, we can hold in our hands and hearts God’s truth about life and the reality he created. We can know that we are sinful creatures living in a fallen world. Yet we know that God not only created but he loved each human being and has provided a way of redemption, hope, and peace for them.

--Think about that for a minute. God created and loved and provided a way of reconciliation and divine fulfillment for every human being. That includes terrorist suicide bombers. That includes perverts and pedophiles. That includes liars, drug cartel kingpins, spouse and child abusers, and murderers.

Liberal theology or TV theology or what might be called secular celebrity theology like to say, “God loves you the way you are.” This truism is OK insofar as it goes, but it leaves a lot of critical understanding unsaid. Sure, God loves you the way you are because he loves you and me no matter what we are or what we have done—like the Apostle Paul who used to be the Christian-killer Saul, “the chief of sinners.”

But what pop theology omits is that God does not want us to remain in our sinful condition. He wants us to change, and he has provided a remedy—the Good News—for our sinful condition that is available to one and all if we but believe and accept it.

To believe and accept God’s plan of salvation, his plan for our lives, we must choose. We must in faith decide to believe. We must acknowledge God’s truth.

It may not strike you but think about this. What God is doing in giving us a choice is by other words known as religious liberty or freedom of religion. God does not force people to acknowledge truth or believe. There is no record in the Bible of God the Father or the Lord Jesus Christ ever coercing people to express faith and believe. Not once. None. There is only the invitation.

I wrote another podcast not long ago about young Americans being not just skeptical but American Youth Adrift in Cynicism. I noted how Gen Z (20-somethings and late teens) and Gen Alpha (age 1 to 16) are confused, and experiencing significant emotional and mental health challenges, including elevated levels of anxiety, depression, loneliness, stress, and suicidal ideation compared with many previous generations.

While it is too early to say regarding the youngest children, Gen Z and older Gen Alpha evidence relatively high rates of religious disaffiliation, while some pursue individualized spirituality. They wrestle with the idea of truth, and in fact moral relativism, the idea that truth is circumstantial and cannot be known is the primary driver of their existence, consequently, like all human beings, they are asking 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? 

Even more disconcerting, youth cynicism, unmoored from truth, leads many to nihilism, the idea that life possesses no inherent meaning or lasting purpose.

If that is not bad enough, social psychologists now speak of something called “alethophobia” the persistent fear or dislike of the truth, often marked by an unwillingness to accept facts. People who fall into alethophobia reject hard facts that contradict their personal beliefs or comfort zones, ignore scientific data, deny personal mistakes, or avoid uncomfortable realities about history or culture.

Now did you get this? American culture, especially among the young, now features people who not only don’t believe in truth, but they are also afraid of or do not like truth!

This is astounding. Remember what old Dr. Rushdoony said? “There is much new error.” It appears that one of the errors of this time in which we live is the idea that truth is scary, uncomfortable, even deniable. So, a person denies facts in front of them and then what? They go away, change? How about this one? A man can have a baby. Or, a mother can strangle her three infant children, then claim she didn’t know what she was doing due to postpartum psychosis, and therefore is not responsible for the murders she admitted committing?

Here are a few more things people believe but that are demonstrably untrue: “If it feels right, it is right.” “As long as nobody gets hurt, anything is morally permissible.” “Nobody has the right to judge another person's morality.” “Moral truth is whatever a culture says it is.” “If everyone does it, it can't be wrong.” "Truth is different for everyone." “My intentions were good, so what I did was good.”

Scripture tells us that Satan is the father of lies, and since he senses his time is short, he is working overtime to create new deceptions, new error.

So, the Bible tells us to beware deceptive philosophies, human traditions and worldly thinking can draw people away from Christ (Col 2:8), and we are to test the spirits to see if they be of God (1 Jn. 4:1).

To protect ourselves from falsehood, from alethophobia, from error, according to the Bible we should:
•    Believe that Jesus identifies himself as “the truth” (John 14:6).
•    Recognize that truth brings freedom (John 8:32).
•    Trust that God’s Word is truth (John 17:17).
•    And “Buy truth; do not sell it” (Proverbs 23:23).
According to the Bible, deception grows when people begin to prefer:
•    comfort over truth,
•    acceptance over truth,
•    power over truth,
•    pleasure over truth,
•    ideology over truth,
•    self over truth.

This is why Paul speaks not merely of knowing truth but of "loving the truth" (2 Thess. 2:10). 
The Bible says that the greatest protection against deception is not intelligence or education, but a heart that genuinely wants reality as God defines it, even when that reality is uncomfortable, costly, or humbling.
Our youth no longer believe in truth and are adrift in cynicism. Perhaps the greatest gift we who are older could give them is a demonstrable faith in the living and true God. The Bible says of the Sovereign God of the Universe: “For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why it is through him that we utter our Amen to God for his glory” (2 Cor. 1:20).

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: 21 September 2026

Have you ever wondered if you were being overcharged for an item you’re buying in a retail or grocery store? 

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #280 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.

The retail grocer, Dollar General, has been accused of business fraud. 

But first, this: there are two different issues that often get mixed together in discussions of Dollar General: ordinary price changes and retail mistakes, versus knowingly charging more than the price displayed to the customer. The latter is where regulators and lawsuits have used consumer-protection/fraud terminology.

The basic allegation is straightforward: a shelf tag or in-store sign shows one price, but the scanner/register charges a higher price. Shoppers frequently find that everyday items cost more at checkout than the price listed on the shelf tag. These discrepancies often affect rural and low-income areas where options for alternative grocery stores are limited. There is substantial documented history behind the allegations:

2023, the state of New Jersey settled with Dollar General for $1.2 million after alleging that merchandise repeatedly scanned at higher prices than those posted on the shelves. The state characterized the conduct as violations of its Consumer Fraud Act and Weights and Measures Act.

Missouri: 2023, a state investigation cited discrepancies as large as $6.50 per item, with an average alleged overcharge of $2.71. Ohio: Dollar General also settled allegations brought by the Ohio attorney general concerning pricing practices, agreeing to measures intended to improve price accuracy. 
 
In 2025, Colorado state leaders have cracked down on the retailer, including a $400K settlement with Dollar General for overcharging customers.

2025, the Pennsylvania attorney general announced a $1.55 million settlement. “Our investigation found widespread and repeated instances of Pennsylvanians being overcharged at checkout—blatant deception of customers all over the Commonwealth,” Attorney General said. The state's investigation found that Dollar General failed more than 40% of pricing-accuracy inspections from 2019–2023, and the settlement required additional staffing, training, audits and correction of known inaccuracies. The agreement itself says that a settlement is not an admission of a legal violation. 

Nationwide, a class-action case alleged that customers were routinely charged more at checkout than the advertised shelf price. Dollar General ultimately agreed to a settlement, while denying wrongdoing.

So, this isn't simply a story based on customers noticing an occasional mismatched tag. Government inspections have repeatedly documented mismatches, and the company has entered multiple settlements concerning them.

But is that actually “changing prices”? This distinction matters. Suppose Dollar General changes the price of a bottle of detergent from $3 to $3.50. That's generally ordinary retail pricing. A company is ordinarily free to change its prices, subject to applicable laws and representations it makes to consumers. The controversial situation is more like shelf: $3.00, register: $3.50. If the shelf hasn't been updated, the company can characterize this as a pricing-system or operational error. That's materially different from deliberately putting “$3” on the shelf while intentionally programming the register to charge $3.50.

Some former employees cited in litigation have attributed the mismatches to frequent price changes combined with inadequate staffing to replace shelf tags. One amended complaint quotes former employees describing weekly price changes and employees struggling to keep shelf labels current. Those are allegations in litigation, rather than independent findings that every discrepancy was intentional.
The Pennsylvania settlement is illustrative: the remedy specifically required Dollar General to maintain enough staffing to update shelf tags weekly and to correct known inaccuracies within 24 hours.

Where does “business fraud” enter the picture? This is where commentators and regulators can use somewhat different language. There are at least three possible interpretations: Normal business practice: Prices change frequently. The company's computer system gets updated before every physical shelf label gets changed. That's an operational explanation. It doesn't necessarily imply fraudulent intent.

Negligent or systematically poor business practice: if a retailer knows its stores routinely have stale shelf labels and doesn't devote enough resources to fixing them, critics can argue that the company is benefiting from a predictable operational failure even without proving that employees deliberately overcharge customers.

Deceptive/fraudulent conduct: if a company knowingly represents one price to induce a purchase and then deliberately charges another, that moves into a very different legal and ethical category. Consumer-protection laws can prohibit misleading pricing even when prosecutors cannot establish criminal fraud. The important point is that “illegal deceptive pricing,” and “criminal fraud” aren't synonymous. A state attorney general can bring a consumer-protection action or obtain a civil settlement without proving that executives had a criminal scheme to defraud customers. For example, Pennsylvania's attorney general described the conduct as “deception,” while the settlement itself explicitly says it isn't an admission of violation.

The business commentary re Dollar General tends to split around the intent question. Critics, including consumer advocates and reporting, have argued that the repeated nature of the discrepancies matters. Their argument isn't simply “one cashier made a mistake”; it is that recurring mismatches across many stores can transfer money from customers to the retailer, particularly affecting people who don't have the time or ability to scrutinize every receipt. 

The opposing/less accusatory interpretation is essentially: Dollar General operates thousands of relatively small stores, changes prices frequently, and has historically had staffing constraints; maintaining perfectly synchronized shelf labels and registers is difficult. Dollar General has maintained that accurate pricing is its objective, while settlements have required it to improve the processes for achieving it.

That's why the most defensible distinction is: changing a price is normal business. Advertising one price and systematically charging another is potentially deceptive. Whether a particular discrepancy represents an innocent operational failure, negligence, or intentional deception depends on evidence about knowledge, controls, frequency, and what the company did after discovering the problem.

And there's an interesting broader business-ethics question underneath it: even if a company can technically attribute overcharges to understaffing or outdated tags, at what point does knowingly maintaining a system that predictably produces those overcharges cease being merely “bad operations” and become consumer deception? The repeated government settlements are evidence that regulators have treated the problem as more serious than ordinary isolated checkout mistakes, but they don't by themselves establish that every overcharge was intentional fraud.

Repeatedly charging customers more at checkout than the price displayed on the shelf raises serious business-ethics concerns because it violates the basic principle that a transaction should be transparent and honest. In New Jersey, inspections of 58 Dollar General stores found more than 2,000 instances in which products scanned for more than their posted prices. In Pennsylvania, an investigation found Dollar General stores failed more than 40% of pricing-accuracy inspections from 2019–2023, leading to requirements for greater staffing, audits, training, and prompt correction of inaccurate prices. 

From an ethical standpoint, repeatedly allowing customers to be charged more than advertised undermines informed consent and trust. Whether individual discrepancies resulted from negligence or intentional conduct is a separate question, and the settlements do not establish criminal fraud. However, regulators have treated the repeated conduct as deceptive pricing and consumer-protection violations, making it reasonable to describe the practice as fraudulent or deceptive business conduct in an ethical sense, while recognizing that “criminal fraud” requires a specific legal showing of intent.

“Dollar General is stealing from its customers. It’s a major scam that’s siphoning hundreds of millions of dollars from the poorest people in America,” so said one investigator.

You can protect yourself by always looking over your receipt before leaving the store. Or, snapping a picture of the shelf price if you suspect an item is mislabeled. And by notifying the cashier immediately for a price correction or filing a consumer complaint with your state's attorney general office or local weights and measures department.

Caveat emptor is an old Latin phrase meaning "let the buyer beware," placing responsibility on the consumer to inspect the quality and pricing of an item purchased. For the distinction between making money legitimately versus profiting through deceptive pricing, Dollar General needs to learn another old Latin phrase, Veritas ante lucrum, “Truth before profit.”

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.