Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 09 February 2026

Walter Cronkite used to end his newscasts with “And that’s the way it is.” Does anyone believe media is giving us an unvarnished presentation of facts today? 

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #248 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.

Years ago, when I was in graduate school at the University of Cincinnati, studying for a doctorate in political science, I selected as my doctoral dissertation topic the local Hamilton County “Home Rule” initiative. This meant I not only could research the topic, I could also survey local residents for the public’s view, and then conduct personal interviews with leaders, pro and con, all of which I did. It was a great learning experience and thankfully I was able to write the dissertation, defend it, and get the doctorate.

During my research, I attended a few public events about Home Rule covered by local media. Then I went home and watched the coverage on television. This is where it hit me. For the first time I realized how the position and angles of cameras, the words used by reporters, and the arguments offered by proponents and opponents could, and in fact did, greatly influence if not skew what the public saw, heard, and understood about the event.

For example, I was shocked to watch one media report that used a camera angle that made it seem like only 4-5 people attended, when I had been there and witnessed a few dozen people.

I quickly learned that reporters could easily bias, which is to say misrepresent, reality by the questions they chose to ask participants and the words they selected for their report.  Changing a noun or verb, adding an adjective or adverb could change the entire message.  It’s what Mark Twain once said, “The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter — ’tis the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.”

Of course, none of this was new to the political leaders on either side, so they had ways and means of responding to slanted coverage, but it was certainly new to me.  I went into the office of one well-known county official who opposed the Home Rule initiative and he had his female assistant sit near me taking notes on the interview, and he made a show at the beginning of pulling a small tape recorder from his desk, turning it on, and laying it on the desk in front of me – a not so subtle signal to me that I had better not misquote him, even in a university dissertation.

This was in the early 80s before internet and social media, so at that time TV and, radio, and something we called newspapers reigned supreme. You got your current events news from these sources or not at all. Unlike today, there was no YouTube, no legion of so-called “influencers” or online independent journalists, just what today we call legacy media. So, at that time, it was more challenging to glean different perspectives and points of view.

Today we can get current events, à la “the news,” from myriad sources, legacy media, streaming, and online. But intentional bias still occurs, or if intentional bias sounds too harsh, call it selective sharing. This happens when a program or presenter deliberately shares what we now call “misinformation” or “disinformation.” In other words:

• they are not presenting what they say in court when a witness is sworn in with the oath, “Do you swear to tell the truth,” or
• the presenter shares only a selected part of what happened, what they say in court, “Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth,” or
• the presenter adds to the narrative, i.e., makes up or fabricates matters that did not happen, or as they say in court, “Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?”

“One of the unavoidable parts of being human is bias. No matter how hard we try, we will always see the world in a subjective manner, colored by our experiences and opinions…Though many journalists try to just ‘present the facts,’ even what facts they choose to present is an indication of bias…This can become a major problem, though, when we ignore facts that are inconvenient to our worldview. Sometimes, even before all of the facts come out about a specific incident, we rush to our own conclusions.”

This kind of “reporting” happens every day. And this is not just a liberal or progressive, that is leftist, problem. Assuredly, people on the left do this every day, but sadly, it’s also a problem on the right.

An then as viewers, we select what we view according to our point of view, wanting to reinforce what we think. Audiences actively seek out news that confirms their pre-existing beliefs to avoid cognitive dissonance, driven by both psychological comfort and political identity protection. The trend of choosing ideologically aligned media has resulted in fragmented audiences, where different ends of the political spectrum only watch their favorite and trusted channel, thus consuming entirely different, often conflicting, sets of information.

Meanwhile, journalistic sources can and regularly do present the world with a certain bias. Journalists or media outlets may choose to highlight specific stories while ignoring others, creating a “curated reality” that fits a particular narrative or audience expectation. Media want to “preach to the choir.” And if they are ideologically biased, they want to report in a manner that reinforces what’s come to be called the “prevailing acceptable narrative.”

In the 2016 US election, some outlets, e.g., The Washington Post, strongly amplified claims of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, including widespread references to controversial sources like the Steele dossier. The resulting narrative persisted in many newsrooms even after the Mueller Report found no conclusive evidence of collusion.

This certainly happened during COVID when the Administration at that time, Big Media, and social media colluded to suppress so-called “disinformation” about the pandemic, possible curing medicines like ivermectin, and the efficacy of masks, six-foot rule, and vaccines. Repeated headlines about “overwhelmed hospitals” and alarming projections — were later criticized by analysts for not sufficiently contextualizing regional case variation or data showing fewer extreme outcomes in many areas. This also occurred regarding the debate about keeping children out of public schools for so long. 

Big Media have presented markedly different presentations or interpretations re immigrants, deportation, the social unrest in Minneapolis, the sad development of two shooting deaths of civilian protestors at the hands of law enforcement, and public officials’ comments.

Media across the political spectrum often use different frames that influence perceptions of immigration, e.g., criminal threat vs. humanitarian human-interest stories. This can shape public opinion by emphasizing selective aspects of a complex issue. Some outlets frequently use dehumanizing language and criminal imagery, e.g., “gangs,” “invasion,” reinforcing threat-based narratives rather than balanced policy discussion. Officials in the Trump Administration got into difficulty when some used the over-zealous term, “domestic terrorism.”

There is also selective storytelling, e.g., reporting on deportation cases while omitting full criminal histories or legal complexities, which affects how policies and law enforcement actions are perceived. For example, several media sources refuse to use the legally recognized term “illegal alien” and instead say undocumented or asylum seeker or border crosser or unauthorized migrant or new arrival, or more recently, our neighbors.

Perhaps any of these terms could be defensible, but none change the law, whether an individual is here legally, and whether he or she has a criminal record in their own country. Assuredly, there is a moral and best way to enforce the law, and law enforcement must also be held accountable to the law but calling for no law enforcement at all and for criminal migrants to be ignored invites not simply lawlessness but chaos, something a free society cannot endure.

It’s difficult to discern when what we are given is biased out of the gate. Best advice is:

• Don’t outsource your thinking to any single outlet.
• Get your news from multiple and intentionally different kinds of sources – flip between Fox and CNN, add the BBC, then seek additional sources online.
• Distinguish news reporting from analysis and opinion.
• Compare left vs. right headlines for the same immigration event.
• Separate facts, interpretation, and moral judgment.
• Watch for what’s missing, not just what’s said.
• Don’t rush to judgment on any new development – for example, wait for the investigations of the recent protestor shootings.

Finally, 8) learn to discern.

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: 02 February 2026

Worldwide, especially in so-called developed or industrial nations, normal population growth has become depressed, registering below what’s called the “replacement rate,” so what does this mean that human beings no longer want to reproduce? 

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #247 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.

Population decline is no longer a future projection but a present reality. The West, if not the world, is well into a shrinking and aging population trend. 

“American fertility has precipitously dived to 1.6. The foreign-born now represent 15% of the American resident population, the highest in both actual numbers (50 million) and percentages in history.”

The fertility rate refers to the average number of children born to a woman over her reproductive lifetime (typically between the ages of 15 and 49). Meanwhile, the replacement rate is the fertility rate at which each generation exactly replaces itself without any net population change, i.e., immigration. In most industrialized countries, the replacement rate is generally considered to be around 2.1 children per woman.

Fertility rates have fallen below replacement level in most developed countries and in many developing ones as well. South Korea has the world’s lowest fertility rate at 1.08. China’s fertility rate is estimated to have touched a record low of 1.09. Singapore’s birth rate is at a record low. 1 in 10 are now 80 or older as country’s birth rate continues to fall in Japan. The fertility rate in Canada is only 1.48. In the U.K., 1.75. Europe's fertility rate has been stuck around 1.5 births per woman for the past decade, far short of the 2.1 needed to maintain population levels.

About 103 out of 237 countries and territories in the world have total fertility rates above the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman in 2025 estimates. The leading countries are mostly in Africa and the Middle East, with a few like Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan in south or central Asia. Most of the world’s wealthier, industrialized nations have fertility rates below 2.1, meaning populations are shrinking with each passing year.

This trend is not just happenstance, nor is it that people in the West have forgotten how to make babies. It’s happening because of changing values and moral choices.

Why is the fertility rate declining? Later marriage and delayed childbearing, career prioritization, city life favoring smaller families because children shift from being economic contributors (on farms) to economic dependents, access to contraception – and abortion. I am not equating use of contraception with abortion, just noting these are two different reasons why fertility rates are dropping.

Around 90% of countries allow abortion in at least one circumstance beyond lifesaving (such as rape, health reasons, or socioeconomic factors). Only a small minority of countries prohibit abortion altogether, even in extreme cases. Following the Dobbs decision, June 2022, abortion remains legal in the United States, but there is no longer a nationwide constitutional right to abortion. Several states have banned abortion nearly entirely or have strict limits where abortion is prohibited except in rare circumstances (e.g., to save the pregnant person’s life).

States with such bans include Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and more. Since Roe v. Wade in 1973, most estimates center around 64 – 65 million total abortions over that period. Much of the world now promotes this culture of death.

Why does declining population matter? This shift is driven by common forces: urbanization, higher education levels, women’s workforce participation, rising living costs, delayed marriage, and cultural changes that prioritize individual fulfillment over large families.

While these trends often reflect what some consider social progress, their cumulative demographic effect is profound. Fewer young people are entering the labor force just as the number of retirees grows rapidly, placing immense strain on pension systems, healthcare infrastructure, and public finances.

Economic growth in modern economies depends heavily on a stable or growing workforce. Persistent population decline threatens productivity, innovation, and the ability to sustain global economic leadership. Aging societies may also become more risk-averse, less entrepreneurial, and slower to adapt to technological or geopolitical change.

In the U.S. and Europe, mass immigration has partially offset these trends, but mass immigration along with the faulty and failed philosophies of multiculturalism and cultural relativism have created explosive tinder boxes. Many immigrants today do not share the host culture’s worldview, do not embrace the same religious values, do not wish to assimilate, and bring attitudes inclined toward entitlement.

This is dramatically different from most immigrants in the 19^th and early 20^th Century who arrived through Ellis Island eager to become and be Americans, who brought strong work ethics and a desire to learn the language and assimilate, and who also brought aspirations for freedom and achievement. So today, given the foolish open borders authorized by the Biden Administration, we are seeing developing in the U.S balkanized nations within nations yielding social, financial, and political problems.

From a Judeo-Christian, but also broader faith-based perspective, declining fertility is often interpreted not only in economic or social terms but as a spiritual and moral issue, including:

Rejection of “be fruitful and multiply,” childbearing no longer viewed as a vocation or blessing, but as a burden or lifestyle option, rise of secularism and loss of God-centered purpose, and life oriented toward self-fulfillment rather than stewardship and legacy, and a contraceptive mentality and separation of sex from procreation. Fertility is treated as a problem to be controlled rather than a gift to be received. We are immersed in cultural confusion about gender, motherhood, and fatherhood, weakening the stable family structure traditionally seen as the proper context for raising children.

Biblical language “children are a heritage from the Lord” (Ps. 127) is often replaced by cost-benefit thinking. Children are seen as obstacles to freedom rather than signs of hope and continuity.

Fear, anxiety, re the future, global crises, is replacing trust in providence. Some religious voices note a loss of hope in the future. If people no longer believe in building for coming generations, they invest less in having them. When societies become dominated by fear, comfort-seeking, or radical individualism, they often lose the willingness to sacrifice for the next generation.

From a Christian biblical perspective, population decline is not merely a demographic trend but a reflection of deeper spiritual, cultural, and moral realities. Scripture consistently presents human life as a blessing from God, not a burden to be minimized. Throughout the Bible, children are described as gifts from the Lord:

“Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward” (Ps. 127:3).

From the beginning, God’s command to humanity (Gen. 1:28) linked fruitfulness with stewardship, purpose, and hope for the future. This establishes a biblical vision in which life, family, and generational continuity are central to God’s design.

Biblically, population decline can also be understood as a consequence of moral and spiritual disorientation. The Old Testament prophets frequently linked societal weakness and decline to a turning away from God’s order (Deut. 28). When marriage is devalued, sexual relationships are detached from covenant and responsibility, and family stability erodes, demographic consequences naturally follow.

At the same time, Christianity does not measure human worth by numbers alone. Faithfulness, not sheer growth, is the ultimate standard. The New Testament emphasizes spiritual multiplication—making disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:19)—alongside physical fruitfulness.

By the way, we must not judge people who in God’s providence do not to have children. There are many legitimate reasons a couple may not have children. This is between them and the Lord. While couples may choose not to have children selfishly or for some of the morally questionable reasons mentioned above, not having children is not ipso facto a sin.

Yet spiritual vitality and openness to life are often closely connected. From a Christian perspective, responding to population decline involves more than policy solutions. It calls for cultural renewal rooted in faith, hope, and love: honoring marriage, supporting families, caring for children, and recovering confidence that the future belongs to God. Where such renewal takes place, openness to life can once again flourish.

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: 26 January 2026

Do our free speech rights allow us to disrupt church services?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #246 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.

Recently, anti-ICE demonstrators invaded the Cities Church of St. Paul, yelling, "Hands up, don't shoot" and "ICE out,” disrupting the Sunday service, frightening children, being streamed by former CNN host Don Lemon, all the while arguing what they did “needed to be done.” Church pastor Jonathan Parnell said, "We have asked them to leave, and they have obviously not left. This is unacceptable. This is shameful. It is shameful to interrupt a public gathering of Christians in worship."

Don Lemon responded, "There is a Constitution. There is a First Amendment of freedom of speech and freedom to assemble and protest." To which Pastor Parnell said, "We are here to worship Jesus. That is the hope of these cities. That is the hope of the world, Jesus Christ."

Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the DOJ, Harmeet Dhillon, wrote on X, "A house of worship is not a public forum for your protest! It is a space protected from exactly such acts by federal criminal and civil laws! Nor does the First Amendment protect your pseudo journalism of disrupting a prayer service.”

Christian leaders across the country decried this incident, repeatedly noting there is no constitutional First Amendment right to protest during religious assemblies or in churches, some citing the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. “This 1994 federal law prohibits the use of force, threat of force, or physical obstruction that interferes with any person seeking to exercise their First Amendment right to religious freedom at a place of worship.”

There is considerable case law dating to the protests in the 1960s, detailing how peaceful protest and speech are indeed sacrosanct and protected, but this does not include obstructing the progress of others, for example, blocking people from entering pro-life or abortion clinics or blocking highways or sidewalks, it does not authorize commandeering private property or disrupting private meetings, much less religious services, nor do our First Amendment guarantees protect use of physical threat, intimidation, or violence.

Somehow, many of the so-called “mostly peaceful protests” following the George Floyd tragedy in 2020, the anti-DOGE protests in 2025, and now with the anti-ICE movement, think they have a right to aggressive, threatening, property damaging public riots.

However, “the First Amendment does not grant license to hijack private religious services. It does not permit protesters to silence others or transform religious sanctuaries into stages for political theater. Our freedom of speech is not a freedom to prevent others from speaking—or in this case, worshiping. This distinction is crucial for anyone committed to ordered liberty. A society where activists can storm churches, synagogues, or mosques to target individuals based on their employment or political views is not a free society. It’s a society descending into mob rule…When protesters believe their cause justifies any tactic—including invading houses of worship—they’re not championing justice. They’re claiming a form of moral superiority that places them above the rules that govern everyone else.”

This St. Paul church incident reminded me of an occurrence during my other life as a university president when an organized group of college students, volunteers, and hangers-on—some gay, some not—calling themselves “Soulforce,” gained funding from large-donor liberal sources and began traveling the country in what they called an “Equality Ride,” showing up, usually uninvited, on Christian college or university campuses, all in the name of what back then were called gay rights.

When I was president, they visited Cornersone University uninvited and unauthorized, coming on campus, interrupting teaching by walking into classrooms, and some attempting to take over our morning chapel on campus, an event at which I was present and in which I stepped forward to cancel chapel and dismiss students. The organization had repeatedly and kindly been informed that its tour bus stop was not welcome at Cornerstone University and that riders would not be permitted on the campus. I had simply told them, “No thank you.” Yet they came anyway. Eventually, members of the group lined the street edge of the campus in protest and when enough media were present, Soulforce sent two of its members onto campus, knowing Grand Rapids Police officers stood ready to arrest them. They got their photo op, handcuffs and all—standard operating procedure for the local police—and proclaimed their agenda.

The group argued they were only seeking dialogue, yet most riders arrived in gray Soulforce logo jackets, they sat together for a more visible impact, and they had a video camera person staged inside the chapel venue and two still cameras outside.

I was asked by the local press, “Some might say you made your point yesterday when two people were arrested. Why not just let them alone today?” I answered, “I understand the compassion or the desire to be hospitable that lies behind that view, but there’s another principle at stake here. If any organization can at any time come to our campus and involve itself uninvited in any program or event, then we don’t have control over our own programs or property. Our liberty is being violated. That’s true for you as a homeowner and its true for every corporation and organization in this town. Soulforce’s actions are ethically and legally questionable.”

One thing Soulforce did not understand, or more likely ignored, is that Cornerstone University’s campus is private property. Even public universities can bar individuals from venues if, for example, they chant obscenities at opposing teams—a trend a few years ago—because public universities are allowed to impose content-neutral, conduct-based restrictions and sanctions tied to student status and event rules.

Soulforce still exists, still promotes its agenda “to end the religious and political oppression of LGBTQI people by breaking open the ideologies of Christian Supremacy and healing our communities’ spirits from Spiritual Violence.” I don’t support their beliefs now any more than I did then, but I do support their right to freedom of speech, even protest, as long as their protests are indeed peaceful speech, lawful in behavior, and not actions limiting others.

Now, we are witnessing sometimes peaceful but often aggressive, uncontrolled, anarchistic protests qua riots, in the name of some political position. The danger lies in the “anything goes” trend. If this trend continues, it’s only logical to conclude more people will be hurt, maybe some killed.

“Conservatives have long championed law enforcement, and rightly so. Police officers, border agents, and federal law enforcement personnel stand between ordered society and chaos. They deserve our respect, adequate resources, and legal protections when acting lawfully. But supporting law enforcement does not mean granting blanket immunity from accountability. True law and order require that laws bind everyone equally—including those who enforce them.

When officers abuse their authority or use excessive force, conservatives should be the first to demand accountability, not the last to excuse it.”

I am not saying the ICE agent who shot and killed Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis acted improperly, nor do I want to rush to judgment to excuse him.

I am saying I support full transparency and investigation. The only way citizens are going to trust law enforcement—especially in the current environment—is to see for themselves that law enforcement officers followed proper protocol within the law, or if they did not, they will be held accountable. This is not a partisan matter, not a race or gender matter. It is a justice is blind matter.

To me, protestors would carry greater moral credibility if they protested specific incidents which they believe violate the constitution and the rule of law. Instead, they have backed themselves into a dead-end wherein they protest all ICE action, i.e., they are defending illegal aliens, defending criminals with long rap sheets, defending people who are a clear and present danger to the city and neighborhood in which they lodge. Protestors, or what seem to simply be agitators, risk their lives and the lives of law enforcement to scream shrilly about people they would not want living in the apartment above them.

Now, some protestors justify invading a church service.

But “churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples must be off-limits for political disruption. Full stop. This isn’t a partisan position—it’s a baseline requirement for a functioning pluralistic democracy. Religious communities across the theological and political spectrum should unite in defending this principle, regardless of their views on immigration policy…What happened at Cities Church cannot become the new normal. If we care about preserving religious freedom for future generations, we must draw a line here and now.”

Protest if you wish, but protest peacefully, lawfully, safely, and protest in a manner that does not seek to directly inhibit law enforcement officers from doing their job.

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: 19 January 2026

Does it seem to you that public officials are becoming increasingly crass, crude, and aggressive, maybe inclined to violence, in their pronouncements?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #245 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.

Recently, Jacob Frey, Mayor of Minneapolis, responded to the shooting and killing of a resident by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent by demanding publicly that ICE “get the f--- out of Minneapolis.” He went on to emphasize his profane interpretation of the deadly incident and called for resistance to what he considers unlawful activity by the federal agency.

In recent American experience, elected officials across the political spectrum have repeatedly encouraged citizens to ignore, resist, or defy laws—sometimes through lawful non-cooperation, sometimes through civil disobedience, and occasionally by challenging the legitimacy of the law itself.

Elected officials have urged residents and local officials not to cooperate with ICE and encouraged illegal immigrants to remain in place and use local protections. Oregon officials, particularly in Portland, have actively encouraged pushback against federal government actions. U.S. Senators Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) and Mark Kelly (D-AZ) along with Representatives Jason Crow (D-CO), Chris Deluzio (D-PA), Maggie Goodlander (D-NH) and Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA) released a video urging members of the U.S. military and intelligence community to “refuse illegal orders.” None of them named a specific order they considered unlawful, and none of them have been able to name one in subsequent challenges by media or congressional colleagues.

Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson encouraged citizens to "resist" federal immigration enforcement, particularly ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), by signing executive orders to limit local police involvement in federal operations and create "ICE-free zones" in city spaces, asserting that Chicago would challenge federal overreach in court, leading to controversy and accusations from critics of siding with criminals over law-abiding citizens, while he framed it as protecting immigrant communities and constitutional rights against potential federal crackdowns. 

Milwaukee Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan was convicted last month of obstructing federal agents attempting to arrest an illegal immigrant. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz recorded a “six-minute-long address to Minnesotans where he called on President Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to ‘end this occupation.’” He went on to say, “If you see these ICE agents in your neighborhood, take out that phone and hit record. Help us create a database of the atrocities against Minnesotans, not just to establish a record for posterity, but to bank evidence for future prosecution.”

Either these officials do not realize, or they know exactly what they are doing, is that what a public figure says is often magnified, taken to another uncontrolled, unexpected level. This is called a stochastic effect wherein a public figure makes a broad, charged statement or sets a goal. Unpredictable individuals interpret it as a call to action. The leader does not specify violence or extreme acts, but some followers escalate far beyond what was explicitly said. The leader’s statement lowers social or moral barriers, making actions feel justified or acceptable. Followers feel “authorized” even without explicit instruction. The outcome is statistically foreseeable but individually unpredictable.

My interest here is not per se the specific issue, i.e., immigration, deportation, ICE debate, but the idea of elected officials calling for resistance. I am not defending ICE or claiming all their actions are justified. Nor am I attacking them. I am more interested in what seems to be an increasing number of elected officials directly encouraging citizens to break the law.

American politics has always been rancorous and insulting—actually from the very beginning—including during George Washington’s lifetime. Notorious slogans, insults, and arguments are not a modern novelty. Nor is the idea of state and local public officials calling for citizens to reject federal law.

There are many well-documented moments in U.S. history when state or local officials openly defied federal law or federal authority—sometimes framed as principled resistance, sometimes as obstruction, and often later judged very differently with hindsight.

One of the earliest was called the Nullification Crisis (1832–1833), in which the South Carolina state government declared federal tariffs null and void within the state. President Andrew Jackson threatened military force; compromise on the tariff ended the crisis. This was the first major constitutional showdown over federal supremacy.

During the Antebellum Period and subsequent Civil War, certain northern refused to enforce or actively obstructed federal fugitive slave laws. Southern state governments, became the Confederacy, claimed authority to secede and defied federal sovereignty entirely. One hundred years later during the Civil Rights Era encompassing my youth, in 1957, Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus used the National Guard to block desegregation. In 1962, Mississippi state officials blocked James Meredith’s enrollment at Ole Miss, defying Supreme Court rulings (Brown v. Board of Education) and federal court orders. President Dwight D. Eisenhower sent federal troops or marshals to enforce compliance. In 1963, Alabama Gov. George Wallace famously stood in a schoolhouse door at the University of Alabama to block federally ordered desegregation.

Now, it seems, we are being treated to a host of examples wherein local or state officials defy federal law, e.g., challenging or refusing to enforce federal vaccine or workplace mandates during the COVID-19 crisis, marijuana legalization by states contravening federal law, states or communities creating so-called “Second Amendment sanctuary” jurisdictions refusing to enforce federal gun regulations, immigration enforcement.

So, American history has repeatedly shown that state and local defiance of federal law is not an anomaly but a recurring feature of constitutional conflict. Defiance of federal authority has occurred, from slavery to civil rights, from tariffs to marijuana, from segregationists to sanctuary cities. Sometimes history later judges these actions as courageous resistance, sometimes as unconstitutional obstruction—often depending on moral context and outcomes.

But this said, there seems to be a difference now. What’s changed is the intensity and a direct embrace by progressive officials of a morally relative, lawlessness in the name of compassion, non-discrimination, or in their words, freedom.

Reports and analysis suggest rising anti-government sentiment and lawlessness in the U.S., often tied to political polarization, particularly concerning the Trump administration's actions on immigration and federal power, leading to increased protests, challenges to legal processes, and concerns about politicized law enforcement. It seems like hyperbole, but there are times when it feels like our country is tottering on the brink of anarchy.

“America suffers from a raft of lawlessness that is eroding social cohesion and democratic norms. From the little crimes to the big crimes, an epidemic of excuse-making by political elites allows lawlessness to run rampant while good-hearted and law-abiding citizens get played…in America’s eroding social contract.”

I first noticed and commented about this during the COVID pandemic. While I often objected to what I considered state governmental officials’ overreach playing fast and loose with respect for individual liberty, I also noted how some local officials—for example elected county sheriffs—stating publicly they had no intention of enforcing statewide pandemic mandates. I may have agreed with their view of the mandates, but I was uncomfortable with their selective approach to law enforcement.

Now, we have governors and mayors making big media splashes proclaiming their progressive bona fides by declaring what federal law they will either ignore or actively encourage citizens to defy. Mayors tell police forces to stand down, not to go to certain immigrant neighborhoods, not to do their jobs. But they would do well to temper their comments to avoid the stochastic mobilization of gullible or fanatic followers.

To form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, we must maintain the rule of law.

Ordered liberty is essential for security, well-being. True freedom depends on order, because without order, freedom collapses into chaos, that is, anarchy, and without liberty, order collapses into tyranny, that is, despotism.

Right now, we don’t have domestic tranquility. The social experiment we’re enduring is bringing us increased lawlessness. It’s dysfunctional, dangerous, dystopian, and sadly, for some, deadly.

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 January 2026

America was birthed by people seeking liberty, i.e., “Let me alone,” but does it seem to you that today citizens more often seek security, i.e., “Take care of me”?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #244 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.

Governments often try to respond to problems that are real and harmful, but whose root causes lie largely in individual choices, moral formation, habits, family structure, or culture rather than in policy design.

Here are some examples of prominent personal and social problems government ultimately cannot “solve”—

1. Substance Abuse & Addiction

Government gives us regulation, criminalization, treatment funding. But government falls short because addiction involves personal decisions, trauma, habits, and moral agency.

2. Family Breakdown (Divorce, Absent Fathers, Instability)

Government social “solutions” include welfare programs, child support enforcement, marriage incentives. But government programs fall short because stable families depend on commitment, fidelity, and self-sacrifice.

3. Crime

Government attempts to stop crime include policing, sentencing reform, criminal justice system, rehabilitation programs. But these programs typically fall short because, while laws and police restrain behavior, they cannot make people virtuous or law-abiding at heart.

4. Poverty

Government attempts to improve people’s economic lives include income transfers, unemployment and housing programs, food assistance. But such programs fall short due to people’s repeated choices—dropping out, chronic dependency, refusing work. Government might temporarily relieve immediate need, but it cannot instill work ethic, personal responsibility, discipline, initiative, or long-term planning.

5. Educational Failure

Government attempts include massive funding increases, standardized testing, curriculum reform, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. But government has fallen short because learning requires effort, parental involvement, and self-control, none of which government can create or even teach.

6. Mental Health

Government attempts to improve mental health by expanded counseling, medication access, awareness campaigns. But such programs typically fall short because despair often involves worldview and moral direction. Government cannot give meaning, purpose, or hope.

7. Sexual Behavior Consequences

Government is all over this one with innumerable programs, especially via public education, in which societal sex challenges are addressed through sex education, contraception access, abortion policy. But government always fails in this because policy cannot remove moral causality or eliminate responsibility and consequences.

8. Obesity & Lifestyle

From time to time, government via both political parties works hard on national fitness by offering dietary guidelines, bans, public health campaigns. But government cannot make people eat well or exercise.

9. Debt and Finances

Government attempts include regulation, bailouts, financial education. But government even falls short on finances because overspending and risk-taking are personal habits. Government can help to prevent fraud but cannot enforce self-control or wisdom.

10. Moral and Civic Decline

Finally, government makes a few attempts to address moral decline via civics education, public messaging, regulation of speech or behavior. But government falls short because virtue cannot be legislated.

Government can restrain evil, relieve suffering, protect the vulnerable like children, and set conditions for flourishing, but it cannot replace personal responsibility, moral formation and virtue, family, faith, or culture. Or to put it more sharply: the state is good at managing systems; it is bad at changing hearts.

Government under FDR began expanding to meet personal and social needs in response to the Great Depression, followed by the demands of WWII. After the war, there was some reduction in central government, but not much, and then another wave of expansion began under LBJ’s “Great Society” in the 1960s.

Despite President Bill Clinton’s 1996 State of the Union comment, “the era of big government is over,” big government never really ended. No matter the political party in power, all levels of American government have continued to expand, and another wave of expansive government overreach took place in response to COVID-19 during the Biden Administration.

This trend toward ever bigger government responded to a huge cultural shift wherein Americans expressed a desire for government intervention. Government, not the family, not the church nor pastor, not the local community, emerged as the source of hope and progress.

And this trend toward trusting government to solve our problems followed another powerful cultural shift in which issues once understood as matters of character, morality, or choice were “medicalized” and morphed into mental-health categories. Behaviors once understood in moral terms (virtue vs. vice, self-control vs. indulgence, responsibility vs. irresponsibility) began to be described as diagnosable conditions or disorders. Moral agency was gradually replaced with therapeutic explanation, reducing accountability, leaving us with “if everything is a condition, nothing is a choice.”

Medicalization of attitudes and behaviors reframes culpability as pathology rather than decision. Bad choices become symptoms, not actions requiring repentance, discipline, or reform. Consequences are softened or removed, weakening incentive to change. “Experts” replace moral authorities, i.e., pastors, parents, elders. Government and institutions intervene through counseling mandates or pharmaceutical treatment.

Moral language: sin, vice, temptation, repentance, discipline, has given way to therapeutic language: condition, disorder, coping, management, triggers.

Therapeutic language is value-neutral, avoiding judgment. Explanation becomes justification. Trauma, upbringing, or neurochemistry are treated as determinative, not influential. Agency is minimized in favor of external causes. Therapeutic language explains behavior without evaluating it, and it often redefines wrongdoing as identity, i.e., “to explain everything is to excuse everything.”

Behavior is regulated indirectly through diagnosis rather than law. These trends have enlarged bureaucratic power, encouraged dependence on professionals, and undermined family and community correction.

My problems or your problems, my poor choices or your poor choices are not my fault or responsibility or your fault or responsibility but a nebulous “our” fault and thus no one’s responsibility. No longer is it “the devil made me do it” but “society made me do it.”

Modern culture increasingly treats sin as sickness, vice as diagnosis, and responsibility as pathology. We trade moral clarity and personal agency for therapeutic explanation and bureaucratic control, which is to say, “Big government will save us.” This is one source of American young people’s current infatuation with so-called democratic socialism.

In his influential 1976 book, How Should We Then Live?, Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer said of American culture: “As the more Christian-dominated consensus weakened, the majority of people adopted two impoverished values: personal peace and affluence. Personal peace means just to be left alone…wanting to have my personal life pattern undisturbed in my lifetime, regardless of what the result will be in the lifetimes of my children and grandchildren. Affluence means an overwhelming and ever-increasing prosperity…a success judged by an ever-higher level of material abundance.”

A Christian worldview reminds us, humans are free, rational, morally responsible agents. Scripture says, “Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits,
who forgives all your iniquity, who heals all your diseases, who redeems your life from the pit, who crowns you with steadfast love and mercy, who satisfies you with good so that your youth is renewed like the eagle's” (Ps. 103:2-5).

Government cannot do any of this.

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.