Rex M Rogers - Discerning What Is Best

Discerning What Is Best
with Dr. Rex M. Rogers

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.

*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.

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

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”—

Substance Abuse & Addiction

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 07 January 2026

If you’re older, a Boomer like me, when you hear about pornography you probably think of men and what we used to call “dirty magazines,” but this era is long gone, and among younger generations, including Christians, pornography is ubiquitous, insidious, and noxious.

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #243 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.

There are a few topics that I do not like to think, research, write, or speak about. Among these topics are LGBTQ+ and pornography. For want of a more sophisticated way of explaining my feelings, these topics are too “icky,” too disturbing for me, too much of a yuk factor.

Both these topics, in different ways, stem from sexual perversion. Now, icky or not, I feel compelled to speak again about pornography.

Let’s set the stage with some statistics:

“Over 40 million Americans are regular visitors to porn sites. The average visit lasts 6 minutes and 29 seconds.
There are around 42 million porn websites, which totals around 370 million pages of porn.
The porn industry’s annual revenue is MORE than the NFL, NBA, and MLB combined. It is also more than the combined revenues of ABC, CBS, and NBC.
47% of families in the United States reported that pornography is a problem in their home.
Pornography use increases the marital infidelity rate by more than 300%.
Eleven is the average age that a child is first exposed to porn, and 94% of children will see porn by the age of 14.
56% of American divorcesinvolve one party having an “obsessive interest” in pornographic websites.”

A 2013 article in ExtremeTech magazine estimated that 30% of the internet’s data usage was for porn. This is a multi-billion-dollar business worldwide.

What about among those who self-identify as Christians? “Beyond The Porn Phenomenon,” published in 2024 by The Barna Group and Pure Desire Ministries, provides the most current data we have about Christians and porn use compared to the rest of the United States. According to this study:

61% of the general population (aged 13 and up) watches porn compared to 54% of practicing Christians.
75% of Christian men view pornography, compared to 78% of the general population.
40% of Christian women view pornography, compared to 44% of the general population.
Two-thirds of pastors (68%) have struggled or currently struggle with pornography.

“If we combined these percentages with US census data, we can see just how many people this is: 45,174,658 Christian men watch porn, and 24,135,395 Christian women watch porn.”

Another study found that “Men are still more likely to watch porn than women in general, but the number of female porn users increases as they get younger.”

“33% of women aged 25-and-under search for porn at least once per month.
Only 13% of self-identified Christian women say they never watch porn –87% of Christian women have watched porn.”

Of these women watching porn,

“88% attend church regularly, 81% pray regularly, and 72% read their Bible regularly
Only 6.7% of respondents had heard female porn use discussed in a sermon.

Women are not immune to porn. The old dichotomy that men are visually stimulated and women are relationally stimulated is less than helpful when it comes to pornography use.”

I haven’t bothered to define pornography. Reason is, it’s like Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's famous quote on obscenity, from the 1964 case Jacobellis v. Ohio, in which he noted: "I know it when I see it." He used this phrase to explain that while he couldn't precisely define "hard-core" pornography, he recognized it when he encountered it.

I’m assuming the same thing here. You know what pornography is.

The Bible doesn't mention pornography directly, but condemns the lust, sexual immorality (porneia), and objectification it involves, emphasizing sex within marriage. Key teachings include a call for purity in thoughts and actions (Ephesians 5:3, Philippians 4:8), viewing pornography as a destructive force against God's design for intimacy, leading to addiction, shame, and broken relationships.

Human beings, human hearts, are no different now than those in the ancient past or in our past. People are created by God as sexual beings, but we are also fallen, sinful creatures who are born in sin and must deal with sin throughout our lives.

What’s different today from the past, even our past if like me you are an older Baby Boomer, is that the internet – first widely available in the mid-1990s – and the smart phone – first released on the market in 2007 – puts pornography in our hands, instantaneously, a lot of it for free.

I mentioned what we used to call dirty magazines, Playboy, and the like that featured unclothed women. When I was a kid the only way men accessed porn was to buy these magazines at newsstands, hide them in brown paper bags from the women in their lives, and sneak peek. I know this not because I did this, but I certainly saw friends do it.

Now, on one’s laptop or on that smart phone in your hand, you can instantly access, for free, one of those 42+ million pornography websites. This is what I mean about ubiquitous. Porn is everywhere.

And as of the mid-2010s, just 10 years ago, the modern era of independent, creator-driven adult content subscription sites began. Adult content creators—or if you prefer, pornographers—may be anyone who is willing to post licentious media of themselves: maybe your neighbors, or actresses who discover they can make more money posting than acting, or individuals who develop a brand presence like golf or swimsuit, i.e., seeking a following for their niche content that morphs over to paywalled adult content.

Adult-content sites offer content creators a platform they do not have to build and maintain, allows them to create accounts, post their pictures and videos, use paywalls and set their own fees requiring viewer-customers to purchase subscriptions for access to certain levels or kinds of content, then the websites return to the content creators as much as 80% of the revenues.

Many of these adult content creators are also active on social media like Twitter—the widest open to sexual voyeurism—Instagram, Facebook, and more, which typically are governed by restrictive parameters vis-à-vis nudity. The value of these sites to the adult content creator is brand promotion, name recognition, enticing more followers to links that feature more prurient content.

Remember this. Porn is not just on worst sites such that if you avoid these sites, you’re in the clear. No, adult content creators or their teams are continuously trolling on otherwise harmless sites. They use what in business is called a marketing funnel, meaning many might be engaged on the top end, and fewer take the next step, fewer still the next step in the funnel, but a certain percentage get all the way to the paywall sites and subscribe.

I have not visited adult content websites, but I know how they work. A typical marketing funnel involves: Awareness – you see an Instagram post featuring a person you find attractive; Interest – you check their advertised website; Decision - you buy a subscription, say $15 per month, giving you access to that person wearing less clothing or engaging in specific sexually enticing activity. Meanwhile, you are getting hooked on explicit pornography, and the content creator is making money based upon your addictive behavior.

So, I’d say, protect yourself. I’ve twice stopped using social media platforms that kept exposing me to enticements (trolling) to pornography. I got out because the social media platform was more of a threat than a help to me. Pornography is now as big a problem in the Christian Church as it is in culture.

The Bible warns against being mastered by anything, calling for freedom from damaging behaviors (1 Corinthians 6:12) and telling us “No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.” (1 Cor. 10:13).

There is no temptation and no addiction more powerful than the Holy Spirit.

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.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 05 January 2026

Given America’s First Amendment freedom of religion, should American Muslims be limited in any way in terms of their beliefs and practices?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #242 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.

In the 21^st Century, Muslim immigration to the West, including the United States, has skyrocketed, and many of these immigrants are Muslims from distinctly Muslim-dominated countries and cultures.

Like all immigrants, they bring with them their religious worldviews and their cultures. Some, like millions of immigrants before them, have eagerly sought a better life and worked to assimilate in classic melting pot fashion. Others have resisted assimilation and acculturation, have consciously sought to perpetuate their cultural and religious practices they brought from home, and tend to live in balkanized communities separated from other citizens. The estimated 10 million immigrants who came to the US during the recent Biden Administration, many but not all Muslim, are part of this story.

In this piece, I want to think with you about freedom of religion, and when, if ever, it can or should be restricted.

The US Constitution’s Bill of Rights begins with the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

This is a precious, and in world history, unprecedented guarantee of human rights. We do not ever want to treat it lightly or deny it’s protection of freedom of religion without considerable due process and careful thinking about community standards in a truly free society.

Numerous American voices are becoming concerned about not simply the number of Muslim immigrants who’ve come to the US, but

a) whether they will assimilate, and

b) whether their religious beliefs are compatible with a free society.

The challenge of Islam is that it is both a religion and a political ideology, one that seeks political control when it becomes dominant. Muslim adherents embrace Islam along a continuum of theological, political, and cultural ideas, some radical or extremist, some moderate. So, your conclusions about “what is a Muslim and what do they believe” depend upon which subgroup you may be examining along this continuum.

“Muslims” are but followers of their religion, which is Islam. They are just people, who, like all other human beings, carry their beliefs in a complex and confusing, sometimes contradictory, manner. There are indeed “moderate” or simply nominal Muslims the world over, ones who are not radical, do not act on religious violence, and simply seek to live their lives in peace. But there are many others who act out—often dangerously—extreme ideological views.

With increasing numbers of Muslim immigrants flooding the country during the Biden Administration, some American commentators began to suggest Islam be banned in the US, while others focused upon banning specifically Sharia law or radical Islam.

Some commentators argue Muslims intentionally use American human rights protections to advance their belief systems in the US, beliefs that are anti-freedom.

Charlie Kirk famously tweeted, “Islam is not compatible with western civilization.” Some argue Islam is the #1 enemy of the civilized world. In other words, Islam as a religion is an existential threat to the values upon which American experience was built and flourished.

Islam and distinguished Middle East expert, author Raymond Ibrahim, argues Islam is not free. Islam as presented in the Quran is totalitarian, inherently expansionist, i.e., Jihad, adherents are prepared to kill to achieve its aims - antithetical to everything Western society stands for—opposes free speech, free enterprise, freedom to practice or not to practice any religion, freedom of assembly, free press, fundamental human and civil rights; hatred of non-Muslims, “infidels,” is commanded, the Quran allows deception of infidels as needed, i.e., lying, and the call to violence and the justification for it are explicitly stated in the Quran. In Professor Ibrahim’s view, there may be moderate Muslims, but Islam is not moderate.

Let’s take a step back a moment for perspective. Throughout American history various religious groups have attempted to practice certain beliefs that, eventually, the Supreme Court of the United States disallowed, saying one can believe anything religiously, but not every action motivated by religion is immune from regulation.

For example, in Reynolds v. United States (1879), Mormon defendants argued plural marriage, i.e., bigamy, was required by their faith. But the Supreme Court drew a sharp line:

Religious belief → fully protected
Religious conduct → may be regulated

The Court noted that if religious belief excused illegal conduct, “each citizen would become a law unto himself.”

In Prince v. Massachusetts (1944), the Supreme court reviewed numerous lower-court blood transfusion cases involving Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Court said, parents may be martyrs themselves, but they may not make martyrs of their children. In other words, adults generally may refuse blood transfusions for themselves on religious grounds. But courts may override parents’ refusals for their children. The bottom line is the Supreme Court’s reasoning can be summarized like this:

Religious belief is inviolable
Religious conduct may be limited when:
Laws are neutral and generally applicable
Third parties (especially children) are harmed
Compelling state interests are at stake
The practice has never been historically protected.

Should The Muslim "Call to Prayer" be banned from public spaces in America? And should Muslims be stopped from blocking public roadways in order to bow in prayer five times per day? Dearborn, Michigan, nearby Hamtramck, considered to be America’s first majority-Muslim city, Paterson, NJ have authorized the call to prayer. Minneapolis, Minnesota became the first major U.S. city to allow the call to prayer five times daily, modifying its noise ordinance in 2023.

Loud "Allahu Akbar" calls blasting from speakers can be disturbing to public spaces. No other religion demands this — churches don't shut down roads for prayer or bells, synagogues don't amplify services over neighborhoods. Bans aren't official city-wide policies but rather the result of applying general noise ordinances to religious practices. Blocking public thoroughfares has long been denied back to the protests of the 1960s.

So, what does this mean for Islam in the USA? It means that Muslims who have become American citizens enjoy and should enjoy the same rights and protections regarding freedom of religion as any other American. It also means that certain Islamist religious practices, should they become threatening to third parties or should the state develop a compelling interest in the outcomes, may be regulated without violating Muslim American’s First Amendment rights and certainly without banning Islam.

I have no desire to deny American citizen Muslims their right to freedom of religion. While I am not Muslim and while I disagree with what Islam proclaims and while I certainly reject radical Islam or Islamist views, I do not want to deny construction of mosques. I do not believe the Quran supersedes the Bible, but I do not want to ban this book.

In my view, freedom of religion was inaugurated in the Garden of Eden when God created Adam and Eve in his image with reasoning capacity and a moral consciousness, then permitted them to decide. God commanded them to obey and left them to choose, to exercise their freedom to believe and obey God, or not.

I do believe, though, that certain Islamist beliefs are inimical to free society and should be prohibited in Western civilization, specifically the USA, e.g., honor killings, female genital mutilation, child marriage, bigamy, jihad, forced religious conversion, misogyny, or obviously religiously motivated rape gangs like those occurring in Europe.

I also believe restricting others’ religious or cultural practices, which ostensibly offend some Muslims, e.g., not permitting dogs in neighborhoods where Muslims may live or shutting down Christmas celebrations or making haram foods like pork or alcohol illegal at local supermarkets near Muslim populations, are unnecessary religious impositions upon a pluralistic culture.

For e pluribus unum to work, we must be able to debate religious ideas in the civic public square and determine truth based upon the merits of views, not coercion or silencing. This is the essence of a free society. All Americans are welcome to join this conversation.

Well, we’ll see you again soon. This podcast is about Discerning What Is Best.

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

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 29 December 2025

Have you ever been thrust into a leadership assignment you did not know was coming? Or have you found yourself in a leadership opportunity but hesitated to step up?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #241 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.

For years I wanted to write a leadership book. I finally began one in year 2010, wrote maybe three-fourths of the envisioned chapters, set the content aside in view of job responsibilities, then didn’t touch it for fifteen years.

As I bypassed the typical retirement age and kept working, people would ask, “Why are you still working?” I usually said, “Because I don’t hate my job, and I’ve thus far been blessed with health; plus, it’s good to keep working for a number of reasons.” As I got closer to a time when retirement seemed likely, people started asking me, “What are you going to do when you retire?” Or they’d say, “You need to have something to do when you retire.” I’d respond, “I thought the point of retirement was to not do?”

When I finally did retire, end of May 2025, the Good Wife and I took a week in a log cabin in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, and when we came home, I picked up my leadership manuscript from lo those many years ago. I had something to do when I retired.

First, I re-read what I wrote fifteen years ago. Do I still think what I thought then? What illustrations did I use that by now are obscure and should be updated? Eventually, am I ready to tackle new content in the last chapters of the book?

I dove in and worked June through August on this and finished the book, took some time to identify a publisher, and with great satisfaction celebrated the book’s release November 21, 2025.

The book is called Be One of God’s Unlikely Leaders: Live With Focus, Get Things Done. My premise is leadership is a learned behavior. I say this because I believe leaders are more often “made” than “born.” Of course, all people are born, but leadership is developed. In my view, anyone, anytime, anywhere can be a leader.

Sometimes the leader is the one you’d pick out of a crowd. But just as often the leader is the person you’d least expect. I call them “unlikely leaders.” It’s these “unlikely leaders” who surprise us. They rise-up in our midst, demonstrating once again that a leader is a person who stands up and steps up, a person who meets a challenge or sees an opportunity and helps the rest of us attain a new level of achievement, or maybe safety or satisfaction or creativity.

Being a leader is not the exclusive domain of the rich and powerful, the famous, or the beautiful people. Being a leader isn’t reserved for the super talented or the V.I.Ps. It’s not just for men, adults, a given nationality, race, or ethnic group.

Contrary to popular opinion, leadership is not a mysterious talent only some people are “lucky” enough to acquire. Quite simply yet quite remarkably, leadership is a gift of God to all of us. This book is written for everyone who’s ever thought, “How am I going to do this? I’m no leader.”

That’s a lot of people. Maybe it’s you. You want to accomplish something, but your perception of leadership—or of yourself—makes you think you’re not cut out to be a leader. You think you can’t be a leader. This book is for you.

Then there are other people I meet who don’t want to be leaders. Or at least they say they don’t want to be a leader. They lack confidence in themselves or their abilities. They’re not sure they have “the right stuff.” They fear the hassle or the pressure or the accountability or the potential embarrassment if they don’t make it. But even these folks can become leaders, and some of them, deep down, really want to.

Maybe that’s you. You’d like to lead, but you’re not sure how. Remember what we said: Anyone, anytime, anywhere can be a leader. That includes you.

You’re still breathing, so it’s safe to say God’s blessed you with time and talent. So, no matter how unlikely it may seem, you can learn to lead.

The importance of leadership cannot be overstated. Whether an art or a science, leadership is key to change, accomplishment, and success. Leadership motivates others to get things done.

The Bible is filled with stories of everyday people who learned to lead for the Lord. I call them “God’s unlikely leaders.” They were people just like you and me. Really. We say that, but it’s genuinely true. Moses and Peter were flesh and blood men, talented, temperamental, tough, scared—all rolled into leaders who accomplished great things for God despite their weaknesses.

Biblical leaders aren’t typically people we would’ve chosen. They’re not always the ones their contemporaries chose or wanted to choose. They weren’t always the best and the brightest.

God’s leaders are a strange list of characters from all walks of life. Sometimes it seems the only trait God’s leaders hold in common is the fact it’s unlikely they’d ever be chosen to lead.

We think biblical leaders are an “unlikely” bunch because we look for people we think are leaders while God looks for people who will be leaders. God doesn't think like we think. God looks for obedient people he can form into leaders.

“Man looks at the outward appearance,” God said to Samuel, “but the Lord looks at the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7). Godly, effective leadership is in short supply. There are manifold opportunities for you.

Real leaders lead when others are not yet following. This does not mean leaders ignore their followers, only that great leaders see things before others, see a possible future, aspire to it, and inspire others toward it as well.

In Be One of God’s Unlikely Leaders—Live With Focus, Get Things Done, I try to make it clear leadership is not about pride, prowess, power, or promotion. It’s about ordinary men and women—unlikely leaders—being used of God to accomplish extraordinary things.

Be One of God’s Unlikely Leaders is a roadmap to accomplishing more for the Lord than you thought possible.

God often calls ordinary people to do extraordinary things, not because they are great, but because he is.

Leadership is not for the faint of heart. In a complex world, leadership is challenging, stressful, and fraught with obstacles—polarization, technological change, shifting social dynamics.

Leaders get burned out, bummed out, or bounced out, and potential leaders hesitate to step forward, creating a leadership vacuum.

But this is our moment. God is still sovereign, and leadership as unto the Lord even in the most demanding environment can be productive, transformative, and rewarding. For Christians, leadership is not an option; it’s an opportunity.

In his book, Involvement, the late British theologian John R. W. Stott chastised the Christian community. He said, “Don’t be content with the mediocre! Don’t settle for anything less than your full God-given potential! Be ambitious and adventurous for God! God has made you a unique person by your genetic endowment, upbringing, and education. He has himself created you and gifted you, and he does not want his work to be wasted. He means you to be fulfilled not frustrated. His purpose is that everything you have and are, should be stretched in his service and in the service of others. This means that God has a leadership role of some degree and kind for each of us.”

The late Mother Teresa said, “If you can't feed a hundred people, then feed just one.” You can be an unlikely leader, a legion of one.

Well, we’ll see you again soon. This podcast is about Discerning What Is Best.

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