Rex M Rogers - Discerning What Is Best

Discerning What Is Best
with Dr. Rex M. Rogers

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 17 February 2025

Is the U.S. Department of Education critical to the success of American education?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #192 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.

I remember when the federal Department of Education was created by President Jimmy Carter in 1979. Now President Donald Trump is considering dismantling the department.

“The heads of the education departments in multiple GOP-led states describe the move as a potential opportunity to get rid of red tape around funding and burdensome reporting requirements on their schools.”

“The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) recently showed students are still behind in reading and math, and that the gap between high-performing and low-performing students is widening.”

“Betsy DeVos, Trump’s secretary of Education in his first term…wrote in an op-ed for The Free Press that the department should be scrapped entirely.” She said, “Since its creation in 1979, the Department of Education has sent well more than $1 trillion to schools with the express purpose of closing the gaps between the highest and lowest performers. Today, those gaps are as wide as they have ever been, and by many measures, even wider.”

“Seven in 10 American fourth graders are not proficient readers, meaning they struggle with reading grade-level literature and comprehending informational texts. Forty percent graded out at “below basic,” meaning they struggle with basic comprehension. In math, the picture is similar: six in 10 fourth graders are behind in math. The gap between the highest and lowest performers has grown by 10 percent since 2019.”

She further noted, “The Department of Education does not run a single school. It does not employ any teachers in a single classroom. It doesn’t set academic standards or curriculum. It isn’t even the primary funder of education—quite the opposite. In most states, the federal government represents less than 10 percent of K–12 public education funding.”

So, we’re back to President Trump’s suggestion: why maintain a federal Department of Education?

Before we return to the Department, allow me to share some flashback biographical information.

I didn’t know it then, but I know now that I was enormously blessed to attend Ohio public schools, 1958-1970, graduate from small but high academic standards Cedarville College in 1974 and finally earn a doctorate in political science from the University of Cincinnati in 1982. I say “blessed” because throughout my educational experience, except for no more than five poor teachers, I attended school when teachers taught the subject matter, I was incentivized and expected to work and to achieve, and I was told by involved parents that if I got in trouble at school I’d be in trouble at home. I learned reading, arithmetic, spelling, and science. I learned problem solving critical thinking skills. I learned to express myself, writing and speaking, in a manner that was logical and cogent.

Today, there are still dedicated, hard-working, high-standards public school teachers and professors in university. I do not blame teachers for all our educational problems. But these good faculty members and academic staff are working within a massive system now governed by corrupted values and motives misaligned with what it means to be well-educated in a free and pluralistic society.

The educational landscape in which they work today is like Earth-to-Mars different from what I experienced growing up.

As I said, I experienced only a handful of teachers who should have worked somewhere else. The rest of my teachers and professors were outstanding: Mrs. Holmes in 1^st Grade and Mrs. Sigmon in 2^nd who taught me to read, the Mackley brothers, Ray and Ivan, in 4^th and 5^th Grade, one who taught me geography and one who taught me fractions. And by the way, most of my elementary school experience included starting the day with the Pledge of Allegiance and a Bible verse read to us all.

In 8^th Grade, favorite of many of my class cohort, Mr. Chuck Chippi, who taught me how to diagram sentences and speak the King’s English. He later went on to be a beloved high school administrator. Mrs. Crevey, who was short, and round as she was tall, but a tough-love taskmaster who taught me Algebra, Mrs. Burns who called me “Rexie” throughout my high school experience and taught me Latin, Mr. Farley who was a masterful lecturer and taught me to take notes as I learned American history and government. I was similarly blessed in college and university with professors dedicated to academic excellence and wanting to see it flower in me. Here and now, I thank and salute them all. I am forever grateful.

My point is that I was given a gift that has kept on giving throughout my life. I was well educated. I was taught to think.

But sadly, while I was yet in school, and certainly soon thereafter, education began focusing more on social engineering than on education.

And also – don’t miss this – the idea of getting in trouble at home if I caused problems in school, well, forget that. Now, many parents look upon teachers with suspicion, as adversaries, as someone to sue and who dare not discipline their child because, of course, he or she is angelic. Guess how the students game that system?

With this shift, teachers and administrators lost the authority to hold students accountable and thus to instill a proper work ethic and demand academic attainment.

Beginning in the 1960s, public schools became the nation’s Petri dish, the place where we experimented with our myriad, intractable social problems. Sex, drugs, and rock and roll, yes, but way more than this. Segregation/desegregation, school shootings and safety, debates about standardized testing, overcrowding, bullying, broken families and absentee fathers, technology pros and cons, self-absorbed teacher unions, jettisoning prayer and religion in general. And more recently, add woke or progressive, leftist ideological initiatives that have taken control of education from kindergarten to university: LGBTQ+ pride, gender fluidity and trans activism, pronoun mania, political correctness, critical race theory pushing DEI or diversity, equity, and inclusion, “anti-racism,” ironically, to the exclusion of many worthy educational programs.

This morass of social pathologies is rooted in something other than education as such. Schools and teachers can’t propagate values parents and society have rejected. Our school social pathologies are rooted in American society’s rejection of God and truth, the importance of two-parent families, recognition of moral parameters, work ethic, accountability, and a vision of a well-educated citizenry.

I was fortunate to be a student before these social problems dominated the school and classroom.

Today, millions of students are being ill-served by an educational bureaucracy more interested in social justice ideology than critical thinking, more interested in the politics of the adults than in the pedagogy of the students.

Just since I was a grade schooler, tens of millions of dollars have been dumped into public education, yet schools are now failing their students at all levels.

“The cost of the Department of Education is phenomenal. Since its creation, the Department of Education in the United States has spent over $1.4 trillion.

This funding, which primarily comes from taxpayer dollars, has had zero impact on test scores…Over the past 40 years, results have stayed flat or declined in most categories, which shows just how wasteful this system happens to be.”

Why should we keep pouring money into a bottomless pit and see little to no positive in return? Why should American tax dollars be earmarked to support values and philosophies, like so-called “anti-racism” or “gender inclusivity” that undermine the body politic and e Pluribus Unum? Why, if our students are falling behind other developed nations, and our national debt is now $36 trillion, should we spend $80 billion per year on educational bureaucrats and unproductive programs? If we care about our children and the nation’s future, why should we put up with the Department of Education’s left-leaning initiatives that turn out graduates who cannot read or think well, do not know American civics, are ill-prepared for college or the workplace, and who have been inundated with extensive pessimism about their own country and their future?

The bottom line is this: a) How do we create an educational system that better educates our children for the future? b) How do we disband governmental activities, even a department, no longer serving a needed function, and save the federal government billions of dollars?

The U.S. Department of Education is not a sacred entity. It is a bureaucracy that has seen its day and deserves a death with dignity. Abolishing the Department of Education will, it is my hope, increase the chances that my grandchildren attending public schools gain an education as good as the one I received. This is only possible if education is the actual focus of the activities in the schools.

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. Download an episode for your friends. For more Christian commentary, check my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s rexmrogers.com. Or check my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers for more podcasts and video.

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

*This podcast blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/ or my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers or https://x.com/RexMRogers.

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

Should children born in the United States to illegal immigrants automatically become American citizens?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #191 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 question of who is entitled to U.S. citizenship is most often raised during debates over illegal immigration. While most of the debate turns on the question of who can become a citizen through legalization and naturalization, some groups argue that the way to end illegal immigration is to change the rules of the game by denying citizenship to the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants.”

“January 20, 2025, President Donald J. Trump issued an executive order, titled ‘Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,’ which said that the federal government will not ‘issue documents recognizing United States citizenship” to any children born on American soil to parents who were in the country unlawfully or were in the states lawfully but temporarily.”

In short order, US District Judge Deborah Boardman blocked this executive order, saying “it’s likely unconstitutional and “runs counter to our nation’s 250-year history of citizenship by birth.” Another legal scholar, Joseph Mead said, “For well over a century, the 14th Amendment has been understood to guarantee citizenship to all persons born in the United States.”

“Eric Hamilton, a lawyer representing the Trump administration, argued that the framers of the 14th Amendment did not intend to ‘create a loophole to be exploited’ by temporary visitors or undocumented immigrants.’”

Among the problems with birthright citizenship in recent years is something called birth tourism. “Birth tourism is the practice of traveling to another country or city for the purpose of giving birth in that country. The main reason for birth tourism is to obtain citizenship for the child in a country with birthright citizenship (jus soli).

Such a child is sometimes called an ‘anchor baby’ if their citizenship is intended to help their parents obtain permanent residency in the country. Other reasons for birth tourism include access to public schooling, healthcare, sponsorship for the parents in the future, hedge against corruption and political instability in the children’s home country.”

“Numerous ‘maternity businesses’ advise pregnant mothers to hide their pregnancies from officials and commit visa fraud—lying to customs agents about their true purpose in the U.S. Once they give birth, several 'birth tourism' agencies aid the mothers in defrauding the U.S. hospital, taking advantage of discounts reserved for impoverished American mothers.”

“United States citizenship can be acquired by birthright in two situations: by virtue of the person's birth within United States territory (jus soli) or because at least one of their parents was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person's birth (jus sanguinis). Birthright citizenship contrasts with citizenship acquired in other ways, for example by naturalization.”

Birthright citizenship is explicitly guaranteed to anyone born under the legal "jurisdiction" of the U.S. federal government by the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (adopted July 9, 1868), which states:

‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.’

“The term ‘jurisdiction’ was carefully chosen to intentionally exclude U.S.-born children of foreign diplomats and Native Americans living under tribal sovereignty.”

“It was necessary to include the citizenship clause in the Fourteenth Amendment because the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision of 1857 had denied citizenship to the children of slaves.”

So, upon initial quick review, it sounds like the Trump Administration is assailing a sacred and historic American ideal…and admittedly, it’s close. Citizenship is a precious gift, not known to millions in history past who were serfs or subjects of their kingdoms, not always protected by authoritarian regimes even today, and a key part of what is means to be an American.

We all know Emma Lazarus’s famous lines from the base of the Statue of Liberty: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” These immortal words were taken from her sonnet, New Colossus. The words immediately became a “powerful portrayal of the United States as a beacon of hope, freedom, and opportunity for those seeking a new life. The poem captures the essence of the Statue of Liberty as a welcoming symbol and reflects the American ideals that have shaped the nation's history and identity.”

Immigration and citizenship, including birthright citizenship, are a part of this American Dream. All our ancestors were immigrants at some point in time. With few exceptions like the progeny of foreign ambassadors, the children born on American soil, at least since the 14^th Amendment in 1868, have been granted American citizenship. Now suddenly, the United States seems to be turning its back on this deeply embedded ideal.

But before we proceed, what we need is perspective. “How many other countries have birthright citizenship? How many such children are there in the United States, and how much is this costing us? The Center for Immigration Studies released a study by Jon Feere that gives some answers.”

Listen to this. “The “overwhelming majority of the world’s countries do not offer automatic citizenship to everyone born within their borders. Only 30 countries out of 194 offer automatic citizenship. Of the 31 counties listed on the International Monetary Fund’s list of advanced economies, only the United States and Canada grant automatic birthright citizenship.”

What countries do not offer automatic birthright citizenship? Most of Europe: United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, all the Scandinavian countries, Switzerland. Most of Asia and the Middle east: China, India, Japan, South Korea, Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Egypt. Then add Australia and New Zealand. So, the Trump 2.0 Administration is not considering something out of the box or ipso facto anti-humanitarian, much less racist.

“Nobody is talking about repealing the 14th Amendment, or taking away anyone's citizenship. Nor must we amend the Constitution. But Court needs to clarify the extent of birthright citizenship. It should do so as part of a clear and meaningful policy concerning immigration, naturalization, and citizenship that is consistent with the core principles and highest ideals of the United States.”

“And the hundreds of thousands of such children (born here to illegals) are no accident. Many of them are the result of a deliberate effort by illegal aliens and foreign tourists to exploit our law and use these children to keep themselves in the country. Such children provide access to welfare benefits that would otherwise be off-limits to the parents and can ‘ultimately initiate chain migration of the child’s extended family and in-laws.’”

“CIS estimates that 40% of illegal alien households nationwide receive some type of welfare despite federal prohibitions. That rate is even higher in states with larger numbers of illegal aliens such as New York (49%), California (48%), and Texas (44%). Contrast that very high rate with the fact that only 19% of households headed by a native-born citizen receive welfare benefits. Birthright citizenship is not mandated by the 14th Amendment and the Supreme Court has never held that children born of individuals who are in the United States illegally are citizens — only that the children of individuals who are born to legal permanent residents are citizens.”

So, birthright citizenship is a policy that should be administered in a manner that protects and reinforces the ideals and well-being of American interest and citizens.

Altering it is not a sin, nor does it mean Americans suddenly reject legal immigration or will make citizenship off-limits to their children.

I am not against birthright citizenship, nor do I want to see it eradicated, only legally administered in a manner that avoids fraud, discourages willful abuse of the system and its intent by birth tourists, implemented in a way that respects naturalization, and preserves the beauty and blessing of citizenship for all who qualify.

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

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 03 February 2025

After 25 years of dominance DEI – Diversity, Equity, Inclusion – seems finally to be on its way out. Why is this a good thing?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #190 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.

DEI, “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” is now Dead On Arrival, or at least Dead Man Walking.

“Diversity and inclusion,” were first used politically in the 1990s. The focus was initially on representation—ensuring more women and minorities were included. This was followed by the addition of “equity” in the 2010s. The Black Lives Matter movement accelerated the use of the term equity regarding what they considered systemic racism in the 2020s in the woke explosion following in the wake of George Floyd’s death in police custody.

Remarkably quickly, DEI was promoted, adopted, and then used as a bludgeon to virtually take over American culture, inculcating socialist, Marxist race and gender categories in the minds of impressionable school children, demanding, or forcing by threat of canceling, adults in education, business, government, even the military to accept these freedom-destroying categories. Then these ideas were marketed not just with religious zeal but in essence as a new religion designed to displace Judeo-Christian values and Christianity. Not everyone pro-DEI was or is anti-Christian, but the philosophic foundation of DEI is indeed built upon anti-Christian values.

One enormous problem with DEI is that it subjugates or abolishes merit or meritocracy in favor of discrimination based upon race, ethnicity, or gender, all in the name of something made up called “inclusion” and something damaging called “equity” – not equality before the law or equality of opportunity, but equity of result, meaning leveling, sameness in the name of fairness and racial justice. Along with this, many proponents of DEI demonstrated not freedom of choice but a willingness to use authority to force acceptance of their views.

DEI destroys a key part of the American Dream – equal opportunity for all, meaning the freedom and chance of advancement based upon one’s talent and work.

DEI displaced this in favor of race or gender quotas and advancement as a matter of entitlement or restitution for society’s past sins like pre-Civil War slavery.

But this equality to equity switch is deceptive and dangerous. Equality of condition or playing field says, “It’s up to you.” Equity says, “It’s up to the government or some other authority to make something happen for you.” In other words, if necessary, resources will be redistributed based upon the left’s vision of fairness.

With warp speed, DEI became the religion of record for much of American education. DEI categories, including gender fluidity, are being promulgated daily in many public institutions of learning, not as theory but as established narrative.

Yet all the while DEI is a failed and dangerous un-democratic philosophy that does not improve education achievement for anyone, including minorities.

“There is something curious about Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)…Modern political ideologies, such as socialism and fascism, have been understood as secularized versions of Christianity for a long time, at least since the French Revolution. The question is, do DEI statements clothe Christian concepts in secular garb? The short answer is Yes.”

“DEI is The Doctrine That Ate America. If it is not stopped, DEI will supplant the country’s Judeo-Christian value system and push America farther down the road of decline.”

Lest I be misunderstood, I am not speaking here against working for a better America that improves opportunities for all. I am not speaking against anyone because of their differences. I am not speaking against anyone, including those who make sexual preference choices with which I morally disagree. For example, “If someone is gay, straight, trans, black, white, brown, male, female, faith-based, or atheist. If that person is truly qualified for a job based on merit and experience alone, they should get it.”

This is common sense. This is a free, open, pluralistic society. This is a color-blind society as argued eloquently by Martin Luther King, Jr. Until the last twenty years, this was America.

But now DEI’s juggernaut has infiltrated every nook and cranny of American society, discouraging recruits to join the military, displacing incentive with disincentive in the workforce, coopting professional training with DEI seminars, and undermining workforce effectiveness and morale, as witnessed among fire departments in Los Angeles County that were decimated by DEI baloney and budget cuts, rather than reinforced by firefighting training.

In my view, DEI does not help racial minorities or any other so-labeled under-represented group. Rather, it replaces your freedom with someone else’s power, removing individual choice and establishing government or other authority. Meritocracy does the opposite.

Meritocracy promotes excellence, advances civilization and culture. Even if inadvertently or unintentionally, still, DEI promotes mediocrity, denigrates civilization and culture. Meritocracy promotes independence and freedom. DEI promotes dependence and constraints.

In January barely a week into his second administration, President “Trump went about systematically dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion practices throughout the vast federal bureaucracy, federal contractors, and receivers of federal grants.”

“Trump signed a second anti-DEI executive order, ‘Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing”…The following day, Trump signed a third executive order, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.’”

“The second executive order, No. 24, laid out in detail what the departments and agencies needed to do to expel DEI. Mainly, they would have coordinate with the Office of Management and Budget, the attorney general, and the director of the Office of Personnel Management as they ceased all DEI activity.”

“The executive order, for example, called on the bureaucracy to take the following actions: ‘Terminate, to the maximum extent allowed by law, all DEI, DEIA, and ‘environmental justice’ offices and positions (including but not limited to ‘Chief Diversity Officer’ positions); all ‘equity action plans,’ ‘equity’ actions, initiatives, or programs, ‘equity-related’ grants or contracts; and all DEI or DEIA performance requirements for employees, contractors, or grantees.”

These DEI executive orders, along with others stating the federal government will recognize only two biological genders, male and female, and still others banning trans individuals from the military and athletics are, to put it mildly, extensive, transformational, draw a line-in-the-sand actions.

Some consider these actions lacking compassion or hateful or discriminatory or fascist, but none of these changes declare anything but what American society and culture considered normal, reasonable, moral, and common sense just since my days as a youth. None of these actions punish people but only state their sexual proclivities will no longer be the standard by which the rest of society must operate. They just will not be able to leverage their choices for advantage against others, for placement in the U.S. military, or for cheating in athletic events while endangering girls and women.

Will the decimation of DEI in government contribute to similar changes in business? Yes, it’s already begun. Corporations finally have cover to do what they know is good and wise for their customers and company without someone suing them or calling them racist or haters.

Walmart, McDonald’s, Ford, Harley-Davison and John Deere, now Target, are among the well-known consumer brands that reduced or phased out their DEI commitments in recent months. Others like Tractor Supply announced they will no longer conduct political cause related marketing initiatives, including Pride Month.

Will the end of DEI mean a setback for Blacks, minorities, and women? No, not if companies and American culture advance the ideals that made the country thrive in the first place: free enterprise, merit and work ethic, liberty and justice for all, rule of law blindly applied, opportunity for all.

“True diversity comes through the practice of nondiscrimination, outreach, and compliance with existing civil rights law and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Honoring the First Amendment freedoms of speech and religion can and should result in diversity of thought and goodwill among diverse groups of people. Institutions can and should abide by the First Amendment.”

DEI is now DOA in the federal government and U.S. military. It’s now up to non-governmental and private agencies, including churches, to provide open doors for all who wish to work.

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

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 27 January 2025

Is deportation of illegal immigrants morally justifiable?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #189 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.

Immigrants and immigration are part of the warp and woof of the American nation state. In a very real sense, there would be no United States of America without immigration. Yet today we are embroiled in a major, costly, political problem involving not simply immigrants but unvetted illegal immigrants.

I’ve talked about immigration in several podcasts.

The Immigrant Problem

Immigrant Qua Cultural Enricher

Western Nations and Mass Immigration

Love Your Neighbor—Immigrants Too?

Are Nation States Legitimate?

Before I proceed, let’s pause for a few qualifiers.

I am not taking a position against immigration, nor am I anti-immigrant. When I say this, I mean individuals who have come to America via a legal process. I have friends who fit this definition, people who came from other countries, worked for a time with a Green Card, and in the requisite period, applied for and attained their American citizenship. Bravo to them.

Our problem today are not these legal immigrants who worked the process and became American citizens. Our problem involves millions illegal or undocumented immigrants, many of whom it seems have not come to assimilate and pursue the American Dream, but to seek entitlements and apparently to prey on those around them.

So, when I say we have a major political problem relating to immigrants I am talking about illegals.

“As of January 2024, more than 7.2 million migrants had illegally crossed into the U.S. over the Southwest border during U.S. President Joe Biden's administration — a number higher than the individual populations of 36 states.” Other listings cite as high as 11 million migrants illegally entering the U.S. during the Biden Administration. Mr. Biden opened the floodgates his first day in office in 2021with executive orders that overturned the previous Trump Administration’s policies, like Stay in Mexico, and stopped work on the border wall. And, then the Biden Administration and so-called Progressives allowed illegals to flood the border, even employing night flights of illegal immigrants around the country, forcing state law enforcement to stand down, and more.

Since that time, several cities like New York, Chicago, Denver have spent billions of dollars on illegal immigrants, coopted schools and hotels to house illegal immigrants, spent millions on food credit cards, free cell phones or insurance, inexplicably refused to prosecute illegals involved in crimes against property and even rape and murder.

Now the Trump 2.0 Administration is closing the border and plans to deport, as necessary, millions of illegal immigrants. This, of course, has produced reaction: some 54% of Americans support mass deportation, while others, Democrats, Progressives, social justice advocates, cry fascism and say Trump and those who support his efforts lack compassion, or worse.

Why President Joe Biden, and why most Western European nations, opened borders in the past few years to mass immigration is at this point murky at best.

One reason is a philosophy called Multiculturalism, which wedded to the leftist progressive Democrat desire for political power is at work in the U.S. The last few years’ influx across the open southern border of unvetted, unauthorized, mostly male military-age migrants is now producing predictable, social fragmentation, unrest, and dangerous circumstances in American cities.

“The events on the border are not a humanitarian crisis but a political one…What’s at stake is whether or not laws apply to citizens and foreigners alike. Biden believes that the law should only apply to the former; Trump, to both…People often say, ‘the system is broken’ and call for new laws, but the legal framework isn’t broken, it’s ignored. It’s ignored because various people with power benefit from the chaos politically and economically.”

Meanwhile, many Christian leaders argue it would be wrong for the U.S. to consider closing borders or curtailing immigration because to do so is to not love our neighbors or not welcome strangers. So, this view states that to close borders, restrict immigration, and certainly to deport illegals, is to act in a non-loving, non-Christian manner.

Recently, “Pope Francis said Donald Trump’s plans to impose mass deportations of immigrants would be a ‘disgrace,’ as he weighed in on the incoming U.S. president’s pledges nearly a decade after calling him ‘not Christian’ for wanting to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border.” Interestingly, the Pope failed to mention the walls that surround Vatican City.

Author Megan Basham observed, the United States should welcome ‘huddled masses yearning to breathe free’ to share in the blessings God has bestowed on us. But if we incentivize illegal immigration by rewarding those who ignore our laws and fail to ensure that those to whom we grant citizenship understand and respect our founding ideals that made the nation great, the United States will soon look little different from the countries these immigrants are fleeing.

So, deportation is one approach to correcting what many consider an unsurvivable wave of mass immigration.

Deportation of illegal immigrants is nothing new. The first U.S. presidential administration to order the deportation of illegal immigrants was that John Adams, the second President of the United States. All U.S. president administrations have deported unauthorized non-citizens. Recently, George W Bush deported 2 million, Obama 2.8 million, Trump 1 766,373, and Biden 1.1 million.

Is deportation of illegal immigrants morally justifiable and why?

National sovereignty, including self-determination of identity and who may live here, is part of citizenship, and without citizenship, there is loss of freedom.
For a nation-state to exist, it must maintain territorial boundaries that are recognized by other nation-states. No borders, no identity, no nation-state. No nation-state, no common purpose or accomplishments, and likely no security.

Deportation is a legitimate means, not an intrinsically evil act,of protecting the common good, of protecting culture and safety, of advancing e Pluribus Unum based on a desire to assimilate, while upholding the dignity of each human person.
“The reason for the deportationremains that(illegal immigrants) have no right to be in the country to begin with…This follows the basic principle of equivalence in moral justice: the punishment should be calibrated to offset the crime, and should not impose suffering that exceeds that caused by the violation. Deportation merely reverses the harm caused by the person who entered illegally. And if you acknowledge that illegal immigration has negative effects on American citizens – particularly the most vulnerable ones – justice and morality demand that we offer them redress…When illegal immigrants are allowed to work, to make use of public schools, to get drivers’ licenses, to receive in-state tuition at our universities, to receive medical care at the cost of American citizens, to collect welfare assistance, and indeed, in some cases, even to vote…what benefits remain the sole privilege of citizens? We owe it to all citizens – especially the most vulnerable, who are most affected by the mass importation of impoverished, uninvited foreigners – to restore the value of citizenship.”

Considerations of national and local security. “The lesson of the last 20 years of immigration policy is that lawlessness breeds more lawlessness. Once a people or government decide to normalize one form of lawbreaking, other forms of lawlessness will follow until finally the rule of law itself is in profound jeopardy…Immigration is not a service we provide to the rest of the world. Yes, we are a nation of immigrants and will continue to be. No other country welcomes as many newcomers. But rewarding illegal immigration does an injustice to the many legal immigrants who played by the rules to get here.”

To continue as we are now with open borders is to destroy America’s position as a beacon of hope to the world.

So, the U.S. must develop immigration policy that protects and preserves American ideals and identity, rule of law, and borders so that the nation may survive and meet the needs of its citizens, and the U.S. must develop immigration policy that provides a legal, orderly, just path for those who desire freedom and opportunity to become Americans. Both these conditions empower us to love our neighbors.

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

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 20 January 2025

What can we learn from the Los Angeles area wildfires?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #188 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.

Undoubtedly many of us have been watching news reports and thinking about the horrific Los Angeles area wildfires. You have to go back to the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 that “eventually consumed roughly 3.3 square miles, killed up to 300 people and left 100,000 homeless” or the San Francisco Fire of 1906 in which “over 25,000 buildings were destroyed over 490 city blocks and 3,000 people died,” or the Hawaii fires of 2023 to find comparisons in the area affected and the number of homes and structures destroyed.

The Great Fire of London raced through the city during the Black Plague and destroyed over 13,000 homes, leaving 100,000 people homeless. And there are many other historic fires that destroyed entire cities, forcing survivors to work decades to rebuild. So, fire is nothing new, but in our modern age we’ve fooled ourselves into thinking such extensive, unstoppable power is somehow a thing of the past, that mass devastation can’t happen now, certainly not in Tinsel Town.

Then it happened.

I’ve been thinking about what’s lost and what can be salvaged or rebuilt. Obviously, loss of the lives of loved ones cannot be recovered. At this writing there are 27 lives lost and more than 12,300 structures destroyed.

“The ongoing fires could become the most expensive in terms of insured losses in California history, with analysts estimating that losses could approach $20bn.”

“Private forecaster AccuWeather estimates total damage and economic loss between $250bn and $275bn, which would make the LA fires the costliest natural disaster in US history, surpassing Hurricane Katrina in 2005.”

“Before the fires broke out, insurance groups such as State Farm and Allstate started cancelling home insurance policies in areas prone to fires. As of 2022, the Illinois-based State Farm was California’s largest insurer. In July 2024, it dropped about 1,600 policies for homeowners in Pacific Palisades, which meant 69.4 percent of its insurance policies in the county were not renewed.”

These actions did not take place simply because the insurer wanted to ditch California but because the state had previously capped the insurance premiums companies could charge, thus making the insurance an unprofitable proposition for the companies.

So, it remains to be seen if some families, particularly ones without considerable personal resources, will be left with no insurance or not enough insurance to replace their homes in the burned over communities. It’s another thing, too, even if they have insurance, whether families will want to rebuild in what are warzone neighborhoods bereft of trees and the shrubbery so prized for privacy. In addition, will families want to rebuild not knowing what the rebuilt neighborhood will look like, what the homes near them will be like, and in an area where businesses and amenities like parks, etc., do not exist.

My guess is that homes in Malibu, bordering Hwy-1 running alongside the Pacific Ocean will be the first to be rebuilt, for two reasons: one, these homes were nearly all multi-million-dollar residences and thus owned by families with substantial means, and two, the ocean beach is still there. Once cleanup takes place, Malibu will look like Malibu, which is not necessarily the case in Pacific Palisades or other canyon or hillside communities.

Like the impact of Hurricane Helene in North Carolina, September 2024, families were left with properties, i.e., dirt, but they still owed the bank for the mortgage on the house that no longer existed. This could happen in California too.

Add to this the anger aimed at government officials that we’re hearing come in the wake of what many say were preventable, or at least containable, fires. Assuming this anger will continue and grow, and among the angry are celebrities with names, fame, fortunes, and capacity to talk to the media, there may be extensive lawsuits come from these hellish fires. If so, likely so, this is going to take time.

I’ve been thinking more about the fact that insurance cannot replace the irreplaceable. Earlier we mentioned loss of life, including pets. That’s of course number one. But then there is the content of these thousands of homes. For example, people’s sentimental items that have no real financial value but to the owner priceless value. This could be family heirlooms, pictures, toys, clothing, souvenirs, collections of one kind or another. It could be someone’s modest but meaningful arts and crafts, wedding or anniversary gifts. None of these things, once burned, can be replaced.

Then there are the homes wherein the owner, maintained memorabilia from his or her career, or the sports achievements of a family member, trophies, medals, awards. I’ve already seen one picture, which frankly could have been generated by A.I., that showed a movie Oscar lying amongst burned rubble, tarnished, damaged.

Now whether this was a real picture or a generated one, the point stands, many film and television celebrities lost homes too, and some of them indeed had won Oscars and featured them in their homes.

Years ago, when we lived north of New York City in Westchester County, the surrounding communities featured high-end homes like those found in Pacific Palisades. While the houses were million-dollar structures of far greater value was the fact a few of these homes contained artworks, sculptures, and artifacts within them that were worth tens of millions, sometimes ten times the value of the house.

It’s not too much of a stretch to think that many of the homes that burned in the California fires, especially perhaps those belonging to higher net worth families, contained serious valuable artworks within them, art now lost. None of these original artworks can be replaced.

Insurance cannot replace the irreplaceable.

The 2023 Türkiye/Syria earthquakes killed 53,537 in Türks and up to 8,476 Syrans, and left 1.5 million homeless: at least 518,009 houses and over 345,000 apartments were destroyed in Türkiye. It’s too hard to estimate in Syria. In the aftermath, the ministry with which I serve, SAT-7, Middle East and North Africa satellite television and online media, reported on people’s needs.

Of course, like for many in the Californian wildfires, the immediate need is “physical relief,” the basic human requirements of safety, shelter, food, medical and health assistance. People need rescue and aid addressing life-threatening and other injuries, they need somewhere to stay, and they need physical stability and sustenance. They may need transportation to get to safe havens. This took place in Türkiye and Syria as tens of thousands of international aid teams came to help from all over the world. It’s happening now in Los Angeles County.

Very quickly, once what amounted to M.A.S.H. units set up in Türkiye and Syria attended to serious medical and health threats, our staff were told by doctors and nurses on site that people began expressing a desire not simply for physical relief but for “spiritual relief.” They began asking existential questions, like,

Where is God? Did he forget us; is he punishing us? Why did I survive but my brother did not? How could a fair, loving, and just God allow something like this to happen? Why didn’t an all-powerful God stop this from happening? What will happen to us now?

Right now, and assuredly in the days ahead, these kinds of existential “spiritual” questions are being asked and they’re going to be asked for the foreseeable future.

People made in the image of God, whether they acknowledge him or not, look for spiritual solace in the face of adversity, destruction, and in some cases death. People what to know why and they yearn for hope.

News reports have tended to focus on who’s to blame for the fires? What political leaders and what political party is responsible? Could the fires have been prevented or at least fire prevention and mitigation efforts better employed? If not prevented, could the fires have been curtailed sooner? These kinds of questions are likely to go on for weeks if not years to come.

In the meantime, people will privately if not publicly ask why? As believers, we can cite a tremendous Os Guinness insight, we do not or will not always know why, but we know the God who knows why. We can help those who ask existential questions. We can respond with faith and assurance, knowing the Sovereign God is not surprised and has not departed, indeed he is there to bless those who respond to him.

I’m not sure what all God wants this nation to learn from these horrific and tragic fires, but I do know “God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.
Therefore we will not fear though the earth gives way, though the mountains be moved into the heart of the sea, though its waters roar and foam, though the mountains tremble at its swelling” (Ps. 46:1-3).

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

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

An inescapable element of a social media age, memes are everywhere, but are they all harmless? What about the ones that employ Scripture, especially for political ends?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #187 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.

Meme is a word most of us would not have recognized ten years ago. Now they’re a daily occurrence.

The word meme was first coined by British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins in his 1976 book, The Selfish Gene. He derived the term from the Greek word "mimema," which means "that which is imitated." For Dawkins, a meme referred to a unit of cultural transmission or imitation, such as an idea, behavior, style, or practice that spread within a culture, e.g., melodies, religious beliefs, catchphrases, or fashion trends.

More recently in the 21st century, internet memes are now understood as visual, textual, or video content that spreads virally online, often through humor, satire, or commentary on societal or cultural phenomena.

Visit any social media platform, and you’ll see images of animals, people, landscapes, you name it, usually along with some printed observation that makes a joke, takes a potshot at a political rival, celebrates some human event or achievement. The uses of memes are limitless.

Since this is audio podcast, I can’t put a few memes up on screen for you to see, but I think you understand what I’m talking about. Memes can be funny, serious, insightful, honoring and honorable, and because we’re human beings, memes can also be ill-advised and unwise, offensive, vulgar, mean, pornographic, derogatory and more.

So, what about memes? First, there’s no “Thou shalt not meme” in the Bible. Memes, of course, did not exist when Scripture was written. But the use of images as such existed, and images are not condemned in Scripture, nor considered intrinsically evil, though we are warned not to make graven images or idols out of that which we artistically create.

So, like anything else we engage in life, memes should be something we consider carefully, and about which use good discernment. In other words, it’s possible to use them harmlessly or harmfully, or wisely or unwisely.

As I said at the top, memes can be funny or make thoughtful points. I’m not “against memes,” nor is this some kind of legalistic anti-meme screed. I’m just thinking aloud with you about something that has become a part of contemporary life.

Since 2024 was a presidential election year, political memes dominated social media. But I’m not sure 2025 and thereafter will be much different. Biden memes, Harris memes, Trump memes, they’re endless.

Scripture offers several straightforward comments about Christian involvement in what we call politics.

For example,

Jesus’s words from the Sermon on the Mount: “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden.” Matt. 5:14

“Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work.” Titus 3:1

Forfreedom Christ hasset us free; stand firm.” Gal. 5:1

These verses, and there are many others, teach us that Christians should care, be involved in politics and government as they deem appropriate, and trust God in all of this. So again, nothing here that suggests Christians who produce memes with political messages are somehow acting improperly.

But as I said earlier, it is possible to create memes, just like it is possible to speak or write, in a manner that is indeed an improper application of Scripture.

I confess the memes that make me uncomfortable are those that quote Scripture alongside highly partisan presentations, or ones that use Scripture or biblical imagery alongside candidates as if to bless that person as God’s choice for the office. I am even more uncomfortable with memes that basically offer not Christian but civil religion, memes that wrap the candidate in the Bible and the flag. Worst of all, there are memes that I consider sacrilegious.

Interestingly, as I was thinking about this topic and did some research in the past week, I found few memes portraying Mr. Biden or Ms. Harris in association with Christian themes or imagery. A few, but very few. Meanwhile, I found almost innumerable such memes portraying Mr. Trump in association with Christian themes or imagery.

Now let’s pause for a disclaimer: I want to talk about memes that mix or apply Christian themes or imagery alongside given candidates, mostly Mr. Trump, without this being heard as a) me blaming Mr. Trump, or b) me attacking Mr. Trump or his policies. Partisanship and politicking are not my points here.

What I want to focus upon is us discerning together whether given memes are appropriate or wise. I wish I could show you visuals, but in lieu of this, think of memes this way: memes I consider—

Uncomfortable
Civil religion.
Sacrilegious

So, memes that make me uncomfortable—Think of memes in which Mr. Trump is being hugged by Jesus or wherein Jesus is standing with his hand on a seated Mr. Trump’s shoulder. Or another one depicting Jesus and Mr. Trump walking on water. Uncomfortable? I am.

What about civil religion? Think of memes depicting Jesus sitting beside Mr. Trump in a courtroom, or Jesus embracing Mr. Trump in the Oval Office or standing ethereally behind Mr. Trump who is seated at the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office with the meme captioned: “Jesus is guiding Trump; Democrats and Satan are trying to stop him.

Finally, there are memes I find so offensive and impious I label them sacrilegious. One meme shows Jesus hanging on the cross in the background and Mr. Trump standing victoriously in front of him—I don’t even know what this means.

Another meme depicts Mr. Trump as a great image in the sky above a crowd of people while heavenly aura beams out from Mr. Trump’s image. I guess this one is attempting to make Mr. Trump a deity. There are memes in which Jesus wears a MAGA hat, memes where Mr. Trump is dressed in a white robe, hands folded in prayer and a halo glowing around his head.

One blasphemous meme depicts a shirtless Mr. Trump wearing a crown of thorns and hanging on a cross alongside a caption: “I drained the swamp. Promises kept. They had me impeached. Jesus wept…Never…forget.”

Then there’s the meme that portrays Mr. Trump in a white robe wearing a crown of thorns with a cross on a wall behind him. Strangely, four or five Jesus characters stand behind him.

Lastly, a profane meme portrays a dark-haired Mr. Trump, presumably to resemble Jesus, with his hand raised like a pope and a caption: “He shall rise again in 2024.”

I know it is more difficult to follow this on audio than to see these memes in visuals. Just do a search like “Trump and Christian memes” or “Trump and Jesus memes.” Then go into the image pages and you will see some of the memes I’ve highlighted and more. Draw your own conclusions on whether any of these make you feel uncomfortable or are indeed sacrilegious, irreverent, or desecration.

Again, I am not saying all memes are bad or wrong or unspiritual. I’m not blaming Mr. Trump for these memes. I’d make the same observations if my image was being propagandized as somehow especially blessed by Jesus. Toward good discernment, remember these points:

Scripture should never be equated with partisan politics, or a given politician.
Memes often misapply Scripture.
There’s no verse saying, “Do not meme,” but if you meme, do so with discernment.
If others meme in a way you find offensive, you can forget it or give them space to be different à la Christian liberty or double-check you are not doing the same—like a speck in their eye and a plank in our eye—or approach them personally to share your concern.

Blessings to you.

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

Subcategories