Rex M Rogers - Discerning What Is Best

Discerning What Is Best
with Dr. Rex M. Rogers

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.

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: 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.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 22 December 2025

Israel and its neighbors, most recently Hamas extremists in Gaza, have been in all-out war since 10/7. Is a two-state solution really a solution?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #240 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 war in Gaza has focused attention once again on the search for solutions to the Israeli Palestinian conflict. The solution favored by the United States, the European Union, most of the world’s democracies, and the United Nations has long been the two-state solution. This formula calls for two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side peacefully with security for both.”

After WWI, the Peel Commission, 7 July 1937, proposed Palestine be partitioned into three zones: Arab state, Jewish state, neutral territory containing the holy places. This recommendation to “partition” became the first official call for what later was termed a two-state solution.

Since 1937, a “two-state solution” calling for a Jewish state—Israel—and a separate, independent Palestinian State—some say in Gaza, some say place it elsewhere—has been proposed at least ten times (e.g., 1947, 1948, 1967, 1973, 2005, 2006), each time rejected by Arab nations and whatever group represented Palestinians at the time.

After WWII, “The U.N. General Assembly voted in 1947 to divide Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab.” Officially, “the 1947 UN Partition Plan was the first (bona fide and geographical) attempt to realize a two-state solution.”

Meanwhile, some “81% of US Christians believe in a two-state solution, with 88% also saying that Israelis have the right to determine their statehood and government and 76% that the Palestinians have the same right. (This survey of more than 1,200 American Christian views on the Israel-Hamas war was conducted by Lifeway Research on behalf of the Philos Project. It was conducted online between November 14 and 21 (2023) using a national pre-recruited panel of Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox Christians).”

A “one-state solution” has been called a “bi-national state.” “Contrary to the two-state solution, the entire territory of former Mandatory Palestine is not divided between the two parties. Instead, the area serves as a common homeland for both Jews and Palestinians. In the bi-national state, citizens of both nations will have one joint country, one constitution, and one democratically elected government.

Although the government is democratically elected, it will be proportionally represented by multiple interest groups. Furthermore, this state cannot be Jewish or Islamic, as one of the groups would have an advantage.”

This proposal highlights one of the many problems when you conceive of a “Jewish” nation-state. In December 2023, some “73.2% (about 7,208,000) are Jews, including about 503,000 living outside the self-defined borders of the State of Israel in the West Bank. About 21.1% (around 2,080,000) are Israeli citizens classified as Arab, some identifying as Palestinian, and including Druze, Circassians, all other Muslims, Christian Arabs, Armenians (which Israel considers "Arab"). An additional 5.7% (roughly 554,000) are classified as "others." This diverse group comprises those with Jewish ancestry but not recognized as Jewish by religious law, non-Jewish family members of Jewish immigrants, Christians other than Arabs and Armenians, and residents without a distinct ethnic or religious categorization.”

In a one-state solution, both Jews and Palestinians worry the other group will outpace their own, via birthrates or immigration, gaining a stronger representation. Herein is the problem I noted. Building a nation-state around a given ethnicity leads to demographic imbalance or political limitations via control.

Most recently, President Trump said he is against a two-state solution, the first American President to take this position. Partly this is due to what he considered rampant support of Gazans for 10/7. Others who oppose a two-state solution argue that:

1) God gave Israel to the Jews,

2) a Palestinian state would be a terror state on Israel’s border, and a

3) two-state solution would reward terrorism, creating a strategic and military nightmare for the state of Israel.

One reason a two-state solution has always been problematic is that has always largely been a Western idea, not really one born in the Middle East. Yes, Middle Easterners were involved in earlier proposals, and yes some of them affirmed the idea, but for the most part it’s been something pushed from outside.

While a two-state solution seems and may indeed be “rational,” that’s also part of the problem. Relationships between Jews and Arabs, Israelis and Palestinians, are more emotional, cultural, and political than rational. Simply because an idea makes sense on paper does not mean it makes sense to those expected not only to endorse it but to live by and in it.

Many American Christian leaders support a two-state solution. But this approach is not supported by all Christians. Some who call themselves Christian Zionists are not in favor of a two-state solution and then some are. Usually, support or rejection of the idea turns on whether people believe Jews have a divine right to the land that reaches back to biblical times. And there is also the ongoing legitimate concern for security.

The raison d'être, the very reason for existence, of Hamas, and some other extremist terrorist groups, is based upon hatred for Israel, a commitment to see the nation destroyed, and vows to exterminate all Jews. As American-Israel author Joel C. Rosenberg says, “You can’t make peace with people who don’t want peace.”

If there is any practical hope, “a just and moral solution to the conflict necessitates a Palestinian leadership that is genuinely committed to peace and ending its culture of incitement against the Jewish people…Sadly, Palestinian political culture continues to glorify terrorism and denies Israel’s right to exist.”

Let’s look in the Bible for a moment. “Scripture is clear that God has assigned the land to Israel (Gen. 12:1–7; Ex. 6:8), and prophecy speaks of its full restoration (Jer. 30:1-3; Ezek. 36:24–28). Scripture also repeatedly warns against unjust division of God’s land (Joel 3:1–3) and foretells judgment on nations that divide the land and mistreat God’s people, while Ezekiel 36:5 condemns nations that claim possession of Israel’s land with “utter contempt.” Furthermore, Numbers 35:33–34 warns against polluting the land through bloodshed—a consequence that any forced political solution risks incurring. Ultimately, God makes clear that the land belongs to the (Lord) (Lev. 25:23), and for this reason responsible stewardship of it is paramount.”

“The Jewish connection to the land is ancient and well-documented. The term ‘Jew’ derives from ‘Judea,’ a central region of Israel. Scripture, archaeological evidence and an enduring Jewish presence – even during exile – affirm this bond.

After crushing the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 CE, Rome renamed Judea ‘Palestina’ after the Philistines to mock the Jews. ‘Palestine’ referred to a geographic region at the time, not a distinct national identity.”

“The Middle East’s problems will not be solved by reducing them to hashtags or campus chants. They require patient engagement, nuanced understanding, and the kind of costly love that characterizes authentic Christian witness. This means speaking truthfully about Hamas’s terrorism while also acknowledging Palestinian suffering. It means supporting Israel’s right to defend itself while questioning whether all tactics serve the cause of justice. It means caring about Gaza while not forgetting those suffering in many other situations in the Middle East. It means advocating for Palestinian Christians while also defending Jewish families.”

In principle, I am in favor of a two-state solution, meaning I think it’s rational and ostensibly fair. But I favor a two-state solution only if Israel’s security can be maintained, only if Hamas terrorist leaders in Gaza are removed and others in leadership who follow truly renounce terrorism, and only if Hamas’s prime directive of eliminating Israel and all Jews is buried deep in the sands.

I also recognize the genuine plight of Palestinians, unwanted by Arab nations, caught in the middle of misery with no way out. They, too, need a solution.

I admit that the likelihood of this happening is slim, or at least is not predictable, currently. And one other major consideration not addressed here: peace between Israel and Palestine is inextricably tied in with what’s happening in Iran, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, and more.

Our ultimate hope lies not in political solutions but in the Prince of Peace who will one day make all things right.

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: 18 December 2025

Antisemitism is sadly alive and well and flourishing the world over, both among the Left and the Right.

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #239 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.

Antisemitism is, simply put, hating Jews. A formal definition comes from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

Dec. 13, 2025, an armed individual walked into a Providence, RI, Brown University classroom of a Jewish professor “where students had gathered to review for their final exam in Principles of Economics, Brown’s most popular class and one that is dominated by freshmen. He killed two students and injured nine others.”

A day later, “December 14, 2025, a terrorist mass shooting occurred at Archer Park beside Bondi Beach in Sydney, Australia, in the late afternoon during a Hanukkah celebration attended by approximately one thousand people. Two gunmen shot at the crowd, killing 15 people, including a child. Police and Australian intelligence agencies declared it an Islamic State–linked terrorist incident. Numerous world leaders, news outlets and Australian authorities said the shooting was motivated by antisemitism.”

“Since the onset of the campus protests in October 2023, in the aftermath of the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, one thing has become painfully clear: we have an antisemitism crisis on campus. The past academic year witnessed more than 1,400 antisemitic incidents on campuses across the nation – an unprecedented, all-time high.”

“A whopping 39% of Jewish college students have had to hide their identities on campus while 62% said they have been directly blamed for Israel’s military action in Gaza, according to a new report obtained by The New York Post. The civil rights group StopAntisemitism issued its 2025 ‘report cards’ grading how 90 colleges addressed the spreading hatred against Jews on campuses, with 14 schools flunking the exam.” Brown University is one of the fourteen.

“This surge of antisemitism in schools stems from a decade-long politicization of the education system, infiltrating every aspect from educational philosophy to curriculum and classroom discussions. If we want to get serious about addressing antisemitism, we must understand its driving force: the new leftist dogma.

At its core is ‘critical pedagogy,’ an educational philosophy that fuels resentment, victimhood, and collectivism, while promoting hatred towards certain groups.

It indoctrinates students to view the world through a lens of power dynamics and oppression. Cloaked in euphemisms such as ‘inclusivity’ and ‘social justice,’ this ideology – like all aspects of woke education – contains a destructive mind virus.”

“Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.”

There is a sense in which antisemitism is no different than any other form of bigotry, hate, and harm directed at individuals or groups whose human characteristics differ from the hater. Racism exists in all societies. Discrimination and persecution have been directed at countless families, clans, tribes, and people groups since ancient times. Antisemitism, like all hate, is sin, and human beings are sinful people who sooner or later aim suspicion, fear, envy, or arrogance toward others different from themselves.

But in another sense, antisemitism is different from other forms of racism. Antisemitism targets Jews as a people, not just as followers of a religion. Historically, Jews have been treated as a racialized group (e.g., Nazi ideology), regardless of individual beliefs or practices. Because of this racialization, many legal systems and institutions classify antisemitism under racism or ethnic discrimination.

A Jewish person can be targeted even if they are atheist or secular. Antisemitic ideas often involve myths about bloodlines, inherent traits, or collective guilt, which go beyond religion. Antisemitism has some unique features compared to other forms of hate:

Conspiracy theories (e.g., secret control of governments, media, or finance)
Collective blame (holding all Jews responsible for real or imagined actions)
Contradictory stereotypes (Jews portrayed simultaneously as weak and all-powerful)
Persistence across very different cultures and time periods

Because of this, scholars often treat antisemitism as a specific category of hate, even when it is legally grouped under racism.

The Bible records examples of antisemitism. The Pharaoh and the Egyptians looked upon Jacob’s descendants and said, “Come, let us deal shrewdly with them, lest they multiply, and, if war breaks out, they join our enemies and fight against us and escape from the land... So they ruthlessly made the people of Israel work as slaves” (Exodus 1:8–14).

“The Spirit of Amalek is the oldest enemy of Israel. The Amalekites were the first people to attack Israel when they left Egypt for the Promised Land” (Ex. 17:8). The ancient Amalekites became a symbol of unprovoked hatred toward Israel (Deut. 25:17-18).

In the book of Esther, “Haman was filled with fury…So, Haman sought to destroy all the Jews, the people of Mordecai, throughout the whole kingdom” (Esther 3:5–6). This is one of the clearest biblical depictions of attempted genocide against Jews. Surrounding Nations’ evidenced hatred of Israel, a collective wish for Israel’s destruction. “They say, ‘Come, let us wipe them out as a nation; let the name of Israel be remembered no more!’” (Psalm 83:3–4).

The New Testament noted “…the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all mankind…” (1 Thess. 2:14–15). This passage has historically been misused to justify antisemitism. But theological scholarly consensus emphasizes:

Paul himself was Jewish
It refers to specific authorities, not all Jews
The New Testament elsewhere condemns hatred (Romans 11).

Meanwhile, the Bible reminds us that God’s covenant with the Jews is everlasting. “I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Gen. 12:3). “And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant” (Gen. 17:7). “I will take the people of Israel from the nations among which they have gone, and will gather them from all around, and bring them to their own land. And I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel.” (Ezek. 37:21–28).

Antisemitism contradicts the Bible and the Christian ethic of love. Jesus said, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt. 22:37-39). “Whoever despises his neighbor is a sinner” (Prov. 14:21).

Jews are our neighbors. There are more Jews living in the United States – 7.5 million – than Jews living in Israel – 7.2 million. From Stephen Spielberg, Wolf Blitzer, Jerry Seinfeld, Wonder Woman Gal Gadot, and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg to the guy at your local grocery you didn’t know was Jewish, Jews are our neighbors and U.S. citizens.

Hating and harming them hurts them, it hurts America, and it hurts those who hate and harm.

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

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 15 December 2025

Mixing theology and politics regarding the nation of Israel now includes something called “Christian Zionism,” a perspective that is dividing Christian churches.

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #238 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, about one thousand American evangelical leaders traveled to Israel to show their support, learn more about what’s happened on the ground, and for many of them to directly affirm something called “Christian Zionism.” This gathering has been billed as “the largest public-diplomacy mission in Israel’s history.” “The event was initiated by Christian Zionist leader Mike Evans and the Friends of Zion.”

Meanwhile, some Middle Eastern Christians have offered scathing critiques of this event, considering it shameful for what they say is an absence of contact with Palestinian believers and in the event’s propagation of what the Middle Easterners consider heretical Christian Zionism.

This event comes “after the anti-Zionist and anti-Jewish social-media platformed onslaughts by the likes of anti-Israel, anti-Jewish podcasters and political commentators Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes, among others, all of whom avow—(oddly)—a form of Christian justification.” Tucker Carlson recently called Christian Zionism a “brain virus and heresy.”

“The support for Zionism is under a renewed attack of opposition and invalidation. One stream of vitriol, of course, stems from the ideology that Judaism and Jews have been replaced. A second flow of animosity essentially is structured on hard-core antisemitism. A third current of negativity is predicated on the neo-Marxist progressive politics of defining Zionism as ‘colonialism.’ The fourth wave has been the development of a Christian-based ‘Palestine liberation theology.’”

“People are throwing this term ‘Zionism’ and ‘Zionist’ around, sometimes as a compliment – sometimes as an insult – and don’t seem to understand what it really means.” So, let’s pause for a moment and define Zionism and Christian Zionism.

Zionism is the idea of a return to Zion, meaning Jerusalem or the Land of Israel, an idea with deep roots in Jewish religious tradition. For centuries, Jewish prayers, holidays, and rituals expressed the hope of returning to Zion—"Next year in Jerusalem" they would say during Passover and Yom Kippur liturgies. However, these expressions were spiritual or messianic hopes, not a political program. Then came Theodor Herzl (1860–1904), an Austro-Hungarian journalist, considered the father of modern political Zionism. The first Zionist Congress was held in Basel, Switzerland, 1897, where the movement formally adopted its goal of establishing “a home for the Jewish people in Palestine secured by public law.” Today, Zionism, is best understood as a spectrum encompassing a broad set of beliefs, some contradictory to the other.

Christian Zionism is a theological and political movement that supports the Jewish return to the land of Israel and the modern State of Israel, based on specific interpretations of the Bible. Evangelical supporters included, back in the day, Jerry Falwell Sr., Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye, Pat Robertson, and recently John Hagee, Robert Jeffress, Paula White-Cain, Mike Evans, David Jeremiah, and Michael Brown. Evangelicals who reject Christian Zionism include John Piper, N.T. Wright, and the late J.I. Packer and R.C. Sproul.

Christian Zionism involves these core biblical beliefs:

God’s covenant with Abraham is eternal — “I will bless those who bless you” (Genesis 12:3).
Israel’s modern restoration fulfills prophecy – “I will take the Israelites out of the nations… and bring them back into their own land.” (Isaiah 66:8; Ezekiel 37:21-22). “Has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew” (Rom 11:1–2).
Christians have a biblical mandate to support Israel — both spiritually and politically.
Opposition to Israel is opposition to God’s plan, while blessing Israel brings divine favor.
Premillennial eschatology — Israel’s rebirth is a prelude to Christ’s Second Coming.

A few Christian Zionists—but not all—support what’s called “Replacement Theology,” also known as supersessionism, the belief that Christians or the New Testament Church have replaced or superseded the Jews (ethnic Israel) as God's chosen people, and that this New Covenant in Jesus Christ renders the Old Covenant obsolete. This is a heretical doctrine that most Christian Zionists reject.

The politics of Christian Zionism gets complicated.

The term is often used as an insult or bludgeon or label for anyone who supports Israel in ways an opponent disagrees.
Israel is considered God’s chosen nation by virtue of biblical command, which translates to unconditional support (Genesis 12:3).
Political theology merged with populism: Israel’s defense and U.S. nationalism were portrayed as linked covenants with God.
Israel became not just a prophetic marker but a symbol of Christian identity and divine blessing for nations that support it, such that Israel now functions as a symbol of conservative Christian identity, patriotism, and biblical fidelity.

Criticisms of Christian Zionism can be summarized in this list:

Christian Zionism mixes theology and nationalism/political ideology – Critics claim Christian Zionism elevates nationalism, military power, and territory over the universal message of reconciliation in Christ.
Christian Zionism ignores moral/justice concerns regarding Palestinians and is accused of marginalizing or dehumanizing Palestinian Christians and Muslims, viewing them as obstacles to prophecy rather than neighbors to love.
Church’s prophetic voice is muted – By sacralizing Israeli military or political action, critics say Christian Zionism abandons the New Testament ethic of peacemaking.
Over-emphasis on land and ethnicity – critics say, divides the Church by giving theological priority to one ethnic or national group and contradicts Paul’s teaching that “in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek” (Gal 3:28).

Christian Zionists argue that “although Christian Zionists differ on certain points, (they) are united by one truth: Zionism is rooted in God’s unbreakable biblical covenants. Simply put, the Jewish people have the divine and historical right to a sovereign state in their ancestral homeland of Israel.” “Some assume we view Israel through rose-colored glasses, as if the Jewish people and their leaders are perfect. (But) that could not be further from the truth. Like the United States, Israel is imperfect. Jews and Christians alike are imperfect. Yet Christian Zionists choose to be loyal friends to Israel in a world where antisemitism continues to spread like poison.” “(Their) allegiance is not to politics or personalities but to Scripture, which we regard as God’s unchanging truth.”

For me, the term “Christian Zionism” is problematic because it can be interpreted with so many meanings, some of which I directly oppose, so while I support much that it represents, I don’t usually use the term. That said, I do not believe Christian Zionism, i.e., a belief in God’s promise of the Holy Land to the Jewish people, is ipso facto heretical, much less anti-biblical.

I believe God’s Word is immutable and that his covenants and promises in both the Old and New Testaments are permanent. So, I believe God promised the Holy Land to his chosen people, the Jews, and this promise is yet theologically and practically operable today.

I do not believe in Replacement Theology, the idea the Church supersedes or replaces the Jews in God’s plan and providence.

I think we, too, must be careful jumping from the Bible to the current news saying, “This is what God is doing.” God’s Word is complex, and it is not for us “to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority.” (Deut. 29:29; Isa. 46:9–10; 55:8–9; Acts 1:7). We must also, I think, be careful equating the modern nation state of Israel directly with all God said about the Jewish people, in part because Israel is a pluralistic, democratic state that can make mistakes like any other. Israel is not above critique. Meanwhile, I believe Israel has a right to self-determination, existence, and as required, self-defense.

I certainly believe the Gospel is for all people, including Jews, Arabs, and Palestinians. I believe God loves Arabs and those called Palestinians. I do not believe Christians should denigrate, ignore, dismiss, or otherwise politically mistreat who these people are.

One tragedy of the Gaza War is the apparent ease with which some American evangelicals have dismissed or downplayed the horrible effects of war on the people, including children, in Gaza. Their suffering is as dreadful as the suffering of Jews in Israel, and among the people of Gaza are Christian believers, who have also suffered.

So, I desire a just peace, and I pray all may hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the true and ultimate source of change.

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

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 08 December 2025

Whatever your age, do you sometimes feel like culture is spinning out of control? What are the forces generating this spin, and what can restore stability?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #237 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.

Centrifugal force is an established fact of physics. It’s the outward (fictious) “force” that seems to push an object away from the center of a circular motion. It’s the idea that if something moving has no anchor, no hub, no center mooring, it will spin off from the center, moving away in any or all directions.

A car turning a corner such that passengers feel pushed to the outside of the turn. A tetherball flying outward away from the pole. Clothes in a washing machine spin cycle. People riding carnival rides feel pushed to the outside of a merry-go-round or a tilt-a-whirl.

Meanwhile, centripetal forces pull things toward the center or hub. For example, the centripetal force of gravity from the sun keeps planets in orbit. Same with the moon. Gravity holds the moon in orbit around the earth. The moon tries to move in a straight line (because of inertia). Earth’s gravity continuously bends that straight-line path into a curved one, preventing the moon from flying off into space.

During Medieval times, scholars believed religion was the essential glue, or centripetal force if you will, holding society together. They saw social order, morality, authority, and unity as rooted in divine law. Many later scholars worried that as modern secularized nation-states emerged, without religion’s unifying role, society might fall apart, i.e., lose moral coherence and fragment.

But as it turned out, secularization didn’t remove religion; it: privatized it, pluralized it, reduced its political power. Today, many scholars still argue that religion helps bind communities, just not as the sole basis of social order. Religion helps generate forms of “collective moral sentiment,” even if not overtly religious, e.g., patriotism, national celebrations, constitutions treated with symbolic reverence, social solidarities through shared values. These moral sentiments act like what scholars have called “civil religion.”

We know from the study of past empires certain centrifugal forces can tear a civilization apart. The Roman Empire unraveled over centuries due to a combination of internal weaknesses and external pressures: corruption and ineffective administration eroded trust and stability, heavy taxation and debt, barbarian invasions, decline in civic pride.

Question becomes, what can we learn from this history? Certainly, the USA is fraught with a growing list of centrifugal forces: political polarization, deep ideological divisions, increasing distrust between opposing political identities, media echo chambers, debates over immigration and street protests: free speech or lawlessness, anarchy, and planned chaos?

These centrifugal forces reduce social cohesion, make compromise harder, weaken confidence in institutions, heighten social conflict, and reduce a shared sense of belonging. The United States of America are not as “united” and our e pluribus unum maximizes “pluribus” over “unum.”

Thankfully, Americans still widely rely on several centripetal forces, for example, shared national institutions like a single Constitution and legal system, a unified military, a Federal Reserve and unified financial system, mature civil rights legal framework, a common currency, national corporations, national holidays, symbols (flag, anthem), widespread civic rituals (voting, jury duty) that reinforce a sense of belonging to a larger whole. High geographic mobility, marriages across region, religion, and ethnicity, national entertainment, sports, music, and a common language.

The growing belief on left and right that elections are unfair, rigged, subject to fraud, the focus of voter suppression, non-citizen voting, tampering, political bias, foreign influence, or other corruption is a key threat to national unity. This is a huge issue that indeed has come close and could still in the future precipitate a constitutional crisis.

What is that? It would happen if an incumbent elected official, especially the President, rejected an election outcome and refused to leave office. This is banana republic stuff, and we want no part of it in the USA, but our political polarization and overwhelming distrust has us on the brink.

America’s sense of disruption, polarization, chaos, and decline has largely occurred in my lifetime—that is, since the 1960s when Christianity began to lose its time-honored spot at the head of the table. Now, depending upon the social circumstances, like a public university, Christianity is not only not at the head of the table, but it’s not at the table at all.

Christian scholar Henry Van Til famously defined culture as “religion externalized.” In other words, a people’s religious presuppositions will work themselves out in the culture, the way of life, they develop.

“Culture is simply a worldview made evident. It is basic beliefs worked out into habits of life. It is theology translated into sociology. Culture is a very practical expression of the common faith of a community or a people or a nation.”

“What a person thinks, what he believes, what shapes his ultimate concerns, and what he holds to be true in his heart—in short, his faith or lack of it—has a direct effect on his material well-being, behavior, and outlook; on his sense of what is good, true, and beautiful; on his priorities, values, and principles. After all, ‘As a man thinks in his heart, so is he.’”

If Christianity, or what scholars like Peter Berger, Os Guinness, and others cited as America’s historic, “Judeo-Christian moral consensus,” our “sacred canopy” as they called it—when this was jettisoned we lost our glue, our reason for existence, and with it, our key centripetal force holding Western Civilization and specifically the USA together.

But there is still hope.

“In 1905, Max Weber, the renowned political economist and ‘founding father’ of modern sociology…in his classic work, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, argued…that faith brought men and nations both liberty and prosperity.”

“The great lesson of history…is ordinary people of authentic Christian faith who are ultimately the ones who best able to shape the outcome of human events or, as G.K. Chesterton said, “The most extraordinary thing in the world is an ordinary man and an ordinary woman and their ordinary children.”

Ultimately, that is our greatest hope for the future. It is simply that a new grassroots majoritarian emphasis on things that really matter–on the Gospel and its fruits–will emerge as we train up the next generation of culture-shapers.

It is that a love for hearth and home, community and culture, accountability and availability, service and substance, morality and magnanimity, responsibility and restoration will capture hearts and minds and lives. It is a hope that may be stymied, obstructed, and hampered–but ultimately it cannot fail.”

So, we as Americans, as Christians, as conservatives, or frankly however you align your beliefs, if we care about passing on to our children and grandchildren a country and culture that is a land of freedom and opportunity, then we need to stand up and speak up, sharing the truth in love, that politics cannot solve our crises. Politics might assist, but politics and political leaders cannot provide ultimate meaning or a vision for tomorrow that perpetuates a shining city on a hill.

As G.K. Chesterton noted, we need ordinary men and women who have accepted the message of the Gospel, who embody its incredible transformative power, who then live out or “externalize” their religious beliefs in their everyday life. We need people who believe in truth because God Is There and He is Not Silent, that he is Truth. We need people who are weary of politicians who mouth platitudes to get elected but then in office go along to get along, never really voting to change anything in the interest of freedom and opportunity. We need people who believe in marriage, family, an outstanding work ethic, and generosity.

We need Christian nonprofit organizations who help the Church help others in both spiritual and humanitarian need—the “truly needy,” as Ronald Reagan called them, people who life has dealt them hard knocks but people who want to contribute to the good of their families and society. We need citizens who affirm right and wrong, law and order, mercy, responsibility and accountability, blind justice.

We need people who commit, with the Holy Spirit’s enablement, to be the light of the world and the salt of the Earth. This is a centripetal force great than all others.

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

Subcategories