Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 14 July 2025

If you’re older, you remember a time when something called polite society existed—decorum, manners, self-restraint, civility mattered—but it may be gone forever.

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #215 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.

Language is crude and lewd. I began watching a movie recently on a cable channel and was not 30 minutes into it before I realized the producers were enamored with the F-word. Not just the thugs but the cops, not just men but women, not just the antagonists but the protagonist, everybody dropped F-bombs as an all-purpose means of conveying their toughness or frustration or anger. What this said to me is that the writers were not very good. They did not possess the creativity or intellectual depth to write dialogue or access a vocabulary capable of sharing wide ranging emotions without falling back on a vulgar term. Apparently, they think this level of crudeness is how the American populace talks. Maybe it is, but thankfully not folks around me. And by the way, I switched the channel.

On another front, the Left, or so-called progressive politicians, many Democrats to be frank about it, are recording short videos in which they use profanity, supposedly to reach the young American male, but which actually makes them sound juvenile and coarse.

National politicians are getting more aggressive not only in their language but at times behavior, showing up unannounced and challenging security like California Sen. Alex Padilla recently did at a Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem press conference, or like New Jersey Rep. LaMonica McIver did at an ICE detention facility. House minority leader NY Rep Hakeem Jeffries posed with a baseball bat supposedly to demonstrate his tough approach to legislation. Others scream and otherwise disrupt congressional sessions.

"At town halls in their districts and in one-on-one meetings with constituents and activists," (even) more moderate Democratic House colleagues are "facing a growing thrum of demands to break the rules, fight dirty – and not be afraid to get hurt." Another lawmaker told Axios that constituents say, "civility isn't working" and to get ready for "violence ... to fight to protect our democracy." And another said, "It's like ... the Roman Coliseum. People just want more and more of this spectacle."

“Some Democrats are calling on their elected representatives to engage in violence against policies of the Trump Administration. Militant allies of the progressive Democratic movement are resorting to violence in an effort to obstruct the president's enforcement of federal immigration law.”

Political protest is no longer “mostly peaceful,” nor is it apparently about a controversy. It’s planned, prolonged violence. It’s an excuse to run amok, to throw rocks, or worse, Molotov cocktails. Protest is now more performance outrage, a sampling of anarchy, than it is intelligent expressions of disagreement offering other points of view.

We know this because media sometimes interviews protesters in the streets, asking them what they hope to achieve and they offer no response or an obscene response like flipping the finger, or they just parrot talking points they cannot explain. Then they go back to their feral behavior, damaging or looting businesses in their own communities, destroying cars, or shouting slogans at law enforcement.

Deliberative discussion, and disagreement, have gone out the window. Now, anyone who opposes an open border is called a racist. Support the idea of voter ID or photo identification for national elections or even holding national elections on one day with limited mail-in privileges, and you’re a bigot, you’re anti-minorities, or you’re destroying democracy.

Wish for better science regarding vaccines and you’re a purveyor of misinformation. Support efforts to stop waste, fraud, and abuse in government spending and programs and you’re called cruel, a person who does not care about the poor or needy.

Say you are against abortions, and you’re anti-women, anti-reproductive health care. “Reproductive health care” is an illogical oxymoron anyway because abortions stop reproduction entirely.

Lawlessness is no longer limited and infrequent. Portland struggles with Antifa and other extremist groups. Chicago is once again the nation’s murder capital.

Lawfare, the strategic use of law to damage, delegitimize, or hinder an opponent—often under the guise of a semblance of legality or justice, is now commonplace.

Leftist politicians encouraging or specifically calling for violence against those whose politics they oppose, including law enforcement officials, is now a weekly occurrence.

New York City recently elected a self-professed Democratic Socialist with clear Communist principles as the Democrat candidate for city mayor. He has the audacity to call for the arrest of U.S. ICE agents and Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, and he’s repeatedly on record affirming the slogan, “Globalize the Intifada.” He’s antisemitic, anti-capitalism and free enterprise, and anti-American. This is the best New York City can do?

The Pride movement seems to be in some retreat with corporations announcing they will no longer support or promote Pride events. Finally. But Pride parades are still taking place around the country, as are Drag Queen story hours featuring dissolute, decadent behavior and depraved presentations for kids.

The parades are intentionally structured to be loud and proud, meaning they go for shock value, naked or nearly naked prurient participants, sexually exploitative and erotic accoutrements, debased and debauched dances, men with men and women with women doing things that should not be done at all, let alone in public. No better or I should say worse example of the phrase feral human exists than these Sodom and Gomorrah parades.

Thanks to Riley Gaines and the Trump Administration, men claiming to be trans women dominating girls’ and women’s athletics is now in retreat. Decisions by the University of Pennsylvania and the NCAA evidence a grudging drawback on trans-insanity. I say “grudging” because I think this is being done because the entities believe they will lose money, not because they have found their moral compass.

The University of Pennsylvania says it will apologize to female athletes and is rescinding athletic medals from trans individuals who got them in women’s events. At long last, common sense has returned with the NCAA stating student-athletes assigned male at birth may not compete on NCAA women's teams.

But this trans movement has not gone away, one, because universities still retain their local authority to decide these matters as they wish, two, because thousands of people have been ideologically brainwashed into this social delusion, and three, because hundreds more individuals possess some vested economic interest in maintaining a pro-trans posture.

Add to this, in the US, younger adults are significantly more likely to identify as transgender, or nonbinary compared to older adults. No surprise there. Approximately 5.1% of adults under 30 identify as transgender or nonbinary. 

This compares to 1.6% of 30–49-year-olds and 0.3% of those 50 and older. A large percentage of the transgender population, 43%, is between the ages of 13 and 24.  For now, Gen Z and Gen Alpha are coming of age in an era when biological reality is set aside for social preference. This big lie is not going away.

We’ve pursued identity politics and licentiousness, creating a spiritual and cultural vacuum at the profound expense of e pluribus unum. We are threatening Western Civilization.

We are a people “harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd” (Matt. 9:36).

The West and America need to restore a sense of transcendent purpose. America needs a revival of the moral ideals that once made this country flourish: belief in the Sovereign God, truth, liberty, individual responsibility, virtue, family. God grant that we may see this renewal.

Well, we’ll see you again soon. This podcast is about Discerning What Is Best. If you find this thought-provoking and helpful, follow us on your favorite podcast platform. For more Christian commentary, see my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s rexmrogers.com, or check my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers.

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

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2025    

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

Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 30 June 2025

When we witness chaos in our streets and public squares, what really are we seeing?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #213 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.

American society is polarized. We are daily beset with incidents in which one group, whatever the name or identity, faces another across a public square, on campuses, in the middle of highways or street intersections. These groups decry some perceived great injustice that is happening to them – or often, some other victim-group du-jour.

It seems no one is content. Certainly no one is pleased or even just optimistic.

But seemingly everyone in the street or online are unhappy and convinced they are the victim of some great if often manufactured wrong or inequity. We see this regarding social class, the Have Nots vs the Haves, regarding race, sex or gender, climate change, or just anti-Trump.

What we need to understand is that what we are seeing is the manifestation of a deeper problem. What I mean is, the issues or the cause about which American society is fighting, at least for the Progressive Left, are not really the issues or the cause at all.

An “SDS radical once wrote, ‘The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution.’ In other words, the cause — whether inner city blacks or women — is never the real cause, but only an occasion to advance the real cause which is the accumulation of power to make the revolution.”

So, what we’re saying is that the issue we see in the streets is only a means to an end, and the end is chaos, which the Progressive Left believes will lead to their power.

Now this all sounds like political or philosophic mumbo jumbo. But I assure you it is not. This is as real as it gets.

Before I proceed, there’s another thing we need to understand – that some of our old and still-used political vocabulary is out of date.

Please note there is a difference between Liberals and the New Left or Progressives of the 2020s.

Classical Liberals believe in big government, which means taxes, regulations. Liberals believe the color of a person’s skin is insignificant. Does not matter.

They are committed to racial integration, they are often pro-capitalism, and they favor free enterprise as the best way to lift people from poverty. They are usually patriotic and believe in America. Now I know so-called Liberals have been featured on media in recent days questioning all these values, but historically at least, this characterization is accurate.

Now, more often, we hear on media from the New Left, the loud and proud, people like Congresswoman Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (NY), Jasmine Crockett (TX), Ilan Omar (MN), and Rashida Tlaib (MI). There are many more than this, including former VP Kamala Harris or Gov Gavin Newsom (CA). These individuals call themselves Progressives, are sometimes called Liberals but are not.

The New Left is now dominant in the Democrat Party, is the chief opposition not simply to Republicans but also to much that is historically American, and in many ways are anti-American. They focus on cultural or social issues like sexuality, climate change, and  social justice. “Their focus is on means rather than ends, and therefore they are not bound by organizational orthodoxies in the way their admired Marxist forebears were. Within the framework of their revolutionary agenda, they are flexible and opportunistic and will say anything (and pretend to be anything) to get what they want, which is resources and power.”

The New Left or Progressives is what conservatives and Christians need to learn more about. They are quite literally everywhere, at every level of government and society, and their plan to integrate and destroy from within has been enormously successful, including in education, Kindergarten to graduate school. “Propagandists, posing as teachers and professors, are brainwashing legions of hapless kids looking for purpose. Millions of kids enroll in colleges and universities looking for an education but end up with an indoctrination.”

The New Left or Progressives consider “(incidents or issues) nothing more than a convenient reason to destroy, and, more importantly, to further their goal — the destruction of Western civilization — and to fuel the incipient rise of communism in the United States.

That also means that the Progressive apparatchiks don't care about black, gay, and/or trans people. Nor do they care about ‘due process’ for illegal immigrants.”

The intellectual North Star of the New Left is a late radical political activist named Saul Alinsky who argued for “the strategy of deception he devised to promote social change.” He recommended “Don’t sell it as socialism; sell it as ‘progressivism,’ ‘economic democracy’ and ‘social justice,’ the strategy of working within the system until you can accumulate enough power to destroy it.”

“What this amounts to in practice is a political nihilism - a destructive assault on the established order.” Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Bernie Sanders are a few of Alinsky’s leading adherents. Since they are older than AOC, these pols send off a mix of old Liberalism and attempts at New Left posturing.

Radicals now work in a kind of Fifth Column infiltration, incrementalism, slow but sure revolution. “Radicals camouflage their agendas by calling themselves at different times Communists, socialists, new leftists, liberals, social justice activists and most consistently progressives.” They are willing to use any means, unethical, illegal, and immoral, even violent behavior, to accomplish their goal and the goal is always power, always the revolution. That’s why the issue we see protested in the streets is not really the issue. It’s just a means to an end – chaos – which leads to power for the revolution. The issue is the revolution.

Former radical and author David Horowitz said this about Alinsky: “Recall how Satan tempted Adam and Eve to destroy their paradise: If you will rebel against God’s command then “You shall be as gods.” This is the radical hubris: We can create a new world. Through our political power we can make a new race of men and women who will live in harmony and peace and according to the principles of social justice.” Karl Marx thought that. Progressives think that today.

No matter that the history of socialist totalitarianism in the 20^th and now 21^st Century is a record of hundreds of millions of deaths in the Soviet Union, China, and elsewhere in the world. People do not matter. Power matters. The issue is the revolution, because in creating it, the radical becomes a god.

“Conservatives think of war as a metaphor when applied to politics. For radicals, the war is real. That is why when partisans of the left go into battle, they set out to destroy their opponents by stigmatizing them as ‘racists,’ ‘sexists,’ ‘homophobes’ and ‘Islamophobes.’

It is also why they so often pretend to be what they are not (‘liberals’ for example) and rarely say what they mean. Deception for them is a military tactic in a war that is designed to eliminate the enemy.”

For radical New Left Progressives, “politics is a zero-sum exercise, because it is war. No matter what (these) radicals say publicly or how moderate they appear, they are at war. They’ve been taught to be so.

So, as we watch the chaos in our polarized streets, we should remember that what we are seeing, the issue, is not the Left’s goal. The issue is not the issue. They do not often admit it, but they are at war and in war, there is no compromise, no quarter. “One side is fighting with a no holds-barred, take-no-prisoners battle plan against the system, while the other is trying to enforce its rules of fairness and pluralism.”

Remember Dostoevsky? He famously wrote that “if God does not exist then everything is permitted.” What he meant was that if human beings do not have a conception of the good that is outside themselves, then they will act as gods with nothing to restrain them.”

Conservatives and Christians who believe in rules must awaken to the fact their opposition knows no rules. For New Left Progressives, the issue is not the issue. The revolution is the issue.

Well, we’ll see you again soon. This podcast is about Discerning What Is Best. If you find this thought-provoking and helpful, follow us on your favorite podcast platform. For more Christian commentary, see my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s rexmrogers.com, or check my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers.

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

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2025  

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

Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 28 April 2025

Being caught in a bait and switch is not pleasant, so its disconcerting to think many Americans are unaware that they are being duped by climate change, BLM, Planned Parenthood, and other initiatives or organizations. 

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #204 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.

“Bait and switch” is a regularly used stratagem of the American political experience, poised to mislead the uninformed or unaware. It’s happening in the climate change hysteria, it happened with the organization BLM, it’s happened with Planned Parenthood, and a lot more.

“Bait and switch” is a term for a deceptive tactic, usually in sales or marketing, where someone advertises a product or service at a very attractive price (the "bait") to draw people in, but then, once they are interested, tries to sell them something more expensive or different (the "switch").

"Bait and switch" can also describe situations where someone's expectations are intentionally set one way but then changed — like in relationships, politics, or even storytelling. For example: A store advertises a TV for $100, but when you go there, they say that model is "sold out" and pressure you to buy a $500 TV instead. Or someone creates an online dating profile presenting themselves very differently (using flattering or fake pictures and descriptions) to attract attention.

Some people consider “bait and switch” false advertising. The United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act empowers the FTC to take action against businesses that advertise a product or service with no real intention of providing it or an intent to push customers toward a different (more expensive) option.

Companies can be hit with huge fines, reputation damage, and forced refunds. For example, in 2016, Volkswagen advertised its diesel cars as "clean" and "environmentally friendly," baiting eco-conscious buyers. But it was later discovered they had installed software to cheat emissions tests — the cars were actually polluting way more than advertised. VW eventually paid billions in fines, buybacks, and compensation.

But in politics, at least recently, it seems like tolerance for misleading narratives is higher or even accepting and intentional. Borrowed from sociology, the old maxim still applies: “things are not always what they seem.”

My fear is that many people do not know what’s under the surface of given political initiatives, so they end up supporting or defending something for apparent values while the initiative proponents move forward with entirely different purposes.

Climate Change is one of the worst wolves in sheep’s clothing being touted by the left, liberal elites, and major media and entertainment. I’ve addressed climate change before in this podcast, or rather what’s now called “climate porn,” irrationality regularly pedaled by major news networks and many of the world’s leading politicians and celebrities.

In those podcasts, Climate Change: The Sky is Falling, Climate Change Now a Culture of Death, and Climate Change Threats to Freedom, I noted that certain political initiatives are embedded in the climate change movement, which feature values that run counter either to a Christian worldview or to traditional American values, among them,

1. Anti-humanity.
2. God is irrelevant, unless the earth is the deity.
3. Anti-truth or genuine science.
4. Anti-free enterprise or anti-capitalism.
5. Look to government as the source salvation and utopia.

The irony is in their grab for power climate change activists are now saying, in essence, to save the earth for humanity, we have to get rid of a lot of human beings. This is what I meant when I called climate change a culture of death.

The so-called U.S. “Climate Czar,” John Kerry, “tipped his hand, saying, ‘The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.’ Kerry is giving us a peak at the anti-family, anti-human culture of death now motivating climate elites.”

Climate change activists channel the old Malthusian idea “the theory that population growth is potentially exponential…while the growth of the food supply or other resources is linear, which eventually reduces living standards to the point of triggering a population decline.” Never mind that Malthusianism has long been discredited, climate change activists are now calling for the depopulation of the earth.

What we need to understand is that “climate change is the Left's religion.”

People like paid activist Greta Thunberg, the likes of Bill Gates, Joe Biden, Canada’s Justin Trudeau, King Charles III, the UN General Secretary, and the ever-opportunist Al Gore all promote climate change policies that trade liberty for globalist government.

But if indeed the Sovereign God is in charge, and he is, what should we think about life on planet earth? The shepherd psalmist told us: “Therefore we will not fear, though the earth give way and the mountains fall into the heart of the sea, though its waters roar and foam and the mountains quake with their surging” Ps. 46:2-3.

Under the guise of combating climate change, proponents of globalism seek to impose restrictions on personal behavior, curtail freedom of speech, and expand the reach of government into every facet of our lives. In this brave new world envisioned by globalist ideologues, the rights of the individual are sacrificed on the altar of collective salvation.

BLM, meaning “Black Lives Matter” the organization, is another bait and switch. Now it is important to note here that I am talking about the organization, not the concept cited in the ingenious name of the organization. Who but a hater is going to say they do not think black people’s lives matter? Of course, black people’s lives matter because they are human beings created in the image of God and, like all lives matter, certainly black lives matter too.

But BLM the organization is anti-nuclear family, promotes abortion, is anti-Christian, promotes LGBTQ+, and at bottom propagates a racial view of history and racist attitude toward all who are not black, especially those who are white. And there are several cases alleging fraud in the use of donated funds.

BLM sucked in a lot of unsuspecting people who genuinely care about racial justice or non-discrimination, but this organization is a long way from what Martin Luther King, Jr. envisioned when he said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

BLM is a charade, bilking people in the name of justice while using funds to divide, sow racial animus, and attack the American values that made liberty and justice for all a possibility in the first place.

Planned Parenthood is another bait and switch organization. In the name of healthcare for women, it promotes, indeed it makes tens of millions of dollars, conducting abortions, selling body parts, destroying black culture, and undermining the American family.

Historical data indicates that Planned Parenthood affiliates received approximately $1.54 billion in Medicaid, Medicare, and CHIP payments from 2019 through 2021. This suggests that Medicaid reimbursements continue to be a significant source of funding for the organization.​

Also, in 2022, non-Hispanic Black women accounted for 39.5% of all reported abortions in the United States. This is notably disproportionate, considering that Black individuals comprise approximately 13% of the U.S. population. The abortion rate for Black women was 24.4 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44, the highest among all racial groups.

So, I am in favor of defunding Planned Parenthood, that this organization should receive no government funds whatsoever.

Other bait and switch frauds are at work in our society:  until recently, the DEI or “woke” tsunamis inundated schools and much of corporate and government America under the guise of racial social justice. But what we got was more racism and division and a destruction of meritocracy.

Some consider the United Nations a bait and switch, that is a purported organization dedicated to the promotion of cooperation internationally. But what it has been in recent decades is more often anti-Israel, anti-capitalism, anti-American leftist initiatives, which meanwhile is presented to us as the last bastion of hope for peace and prosperity. But in reality, not so much.

“Bait and switch” is a long-standing if not time-honored practice because deception is rooted in the heart of every human being. It’s one reason in economics we’re warned by the old maxim, “caveat emptor,” let the buyer beware.

We need to think, to discern, to identify values and initiatives that operate contrary to a healthy, realistic, rational Christian or perhaps conservative worldview.

We need to be like the Old Testament men “Of Issachar, men who had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do.” 1 Chron 12:32.

Well, we’ll see you again soon. This podcast is about Discerning What Is Best. If you find this thought-provoking and helpful, follow us on your favorite podcast platform. Download an episode for your friends. For more Christian commentary, check my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s rexmrogers.com. Or check my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers for more podcasts and video.

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

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2025  

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

Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 21 October 2024

Have you ever tried to discuss a controversial issue with someone and, given their horrified reaction, simply given up?

Are there certain issues or points of view that you know to avoid – don’t go there – whenever you are with certain family or friends?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #175 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.

During the U.S. Presidential campaign, back in February 2016, I stopped posting political content on social media. I just quit cold turkey. 

Before then I’d tried to post about issues. I didn’t mention just one but always several candidates, attempted to be non-partisan, and in no way attacked Democrat or Republican candidates or otherwise use my social media to campaign. In retrospect, I guess I was naïve. I actually tried to conduct a discussion about important issues. Usually, it didn’t happen.

I found that people didn’t read the nuances of what I said, and they didn’t discuss the issue. Mostly, they reacted emotionally, defending their partisan view and/or candidate—who I had often not mentioned—and frequently did so with rancor not found in my posts. People used my nonpartisan social media post as a platform to rant or to proclaim the virtues of their candidate, even when this had nothing directly to do with the issue content of my post.

I also noticed that my comments about political issues, in part because they got hi-jacked for candidate campaigning or negative campaigning, divided my family, friends, and colleagues. People just couldn’t hang together for an issue discussion without quickly voting each other off the island.

At that point I decided political posting wasn’t worth dividing or losing friends. So, I stopped.

But recently, a friend said to me in a private exchange that while he had reached the same conclusion regarding no-more-political-posts, he felt badly because he struggled with knowing that silence in the face of evil (he was referring to an especially egregious issue) can make one an accessory.

My friend didn’t make the reference, but I will, a la the famous quote attributed to Edmund Burke: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Perhaps not all political debates are good vs evil and not all issues, thankfully, involve evil as such, but some do, so where does that leave us?

A while back I broke my pattern. I didn’t use social media but privately texted several friends about the children at the border issue. I did not attack then President Trump but later commented in the text chain that I thought the President could alter what was currently taking place at the border. My friends split down the middle, not about whether children were at risk but in regard to the Administration’s responsibility for this issue. That’s OK. Disagreement is part of discussion. But as the text exchange continued, friends started requesting they be dropped from the group text.

I was reminded that even my friends, like the rest of the country are politically divided to the point of polarization. I understand my friends’ desire to opt out.

As I said, in some sense, I have done the same on social media. It wasn’t that they didn’t have opinions or that they didn’t care, though perhaps some may be less politically interested than others, but that they did not want to get into a back-and-forth of hardened positions on opposite ends of the teeter-totter.

Think so-called “panels” on major television news channels. Pretty much they’ve devolved into shout fests about who can talk overtop the other, not who can provide reasoned discourse. Think, for example, the “guns” vs. “gun control” issue. Pretty much this debate is a non-starter because people on all sides are loudly talking past each other, usually citing the extremes of whatever they consider the other position.

This same kind of phenomenon showed up when my wife and I attended an after-church home-gathering comprised of people from the same church—middle class Midwesterners, most of whom who’d grown up locally and graduated from the same high school and who otherwise had much in common.

It was a very nice evening. Then someone mentioned Trump, or maybe it was just a given political issue. Just like that the group divided, incredibly, to the point of yielding a couple of prickly comments and a few negative facial expressions that stayed that way until someone changed the subject. Amazing. Good friends suddenly turn edgy when politics came up. So, the old maxim stands: “Never talk about politics or religion in polite company.”

Years ago, I wrote a book called “Christian Liberty: Living for God in a Changing Culture” (Baker, 2003). I talked about God’s moral absolutes—not a long list by the way— for all times, countries, and cultures, which we ignore at our own peril. Things like don’t lie, murder, steal, worship idols.

In that book I talked about the enormous room for discretion, or better, discernment with which God charged us as a way of making good decisions about cultural matters (Phil. 1:9-11). As long as our attitudes, viewpoints, and actions do not violate the moral will of God—as revealed in the Bible—he gave us the liberty to decide and to be different.

But I said then and I still believe it today, Christian liberty is the least understood and least practiced doctrine of the Bible. I cannot prove this, but I experience it regularly.

I started this podcast referencing year 2016. It’s now several years later, and if anything, the polarization of American culture to the point of threatening e Pluribus Unum has gotten decidedly worse. We have woke activists pressing their divisive, anti-reality, anti-science race, class, and gender ideas upon us, including our school children. These are the ones who form the core of the “cancel culture” movement, meaning if you don’t agree with them, you have no right to speak, or maybe even to keep your job. How can we discuss if expressing our values and views leads to social ostracizing, or professional punishments of varying kinds?

The abortion debate has gone from one side saying pro-life and the other side saying, “Safe, legal, and rare” (remember Bill Clinton?) to the other side now saying abortion on demand all the way to birth and, for some, even after a birth.

For the pro-abortion view, abortion is now typically equated with women’s rights. Many consider abortion a human right. A human right, to kill your children? Where in this divide is there room for discussion?

We experienced the pandemic, which was a real disease and a real threat, but in the midst of it we had elected government officials dictating what was “misinformation” or “disinformation” and working with Big Social Media to silence any disagreement with the prevailing acceptable narrative. How can we discuss if we’re not allowed to discuss?

Growing numbers of people in our country and culture do not want people to speak if their views diverge from what the dominant group considers correct.

The answer to opposing views is not a free and open debate on the merits of the argument but to silence, somehow to keep the other view from being heard.

If it is heard, then the solution is to react with emotional diatribe, victim-claiming, accusations of political incorrectness, or attacks on the character of others who hold the “wrong view.” The First Amendment’s guarantee of Freedom of Speech is itself, dishearteningly, no longer considered a sacred political ideal for whom men and women have given the last full measure of devotion to protect.

We’ve come to a point in a so-called post-truth or fake news culture in which polarization is so pronounced we can no longer communicate, resulting in a virtual inability to discuss, much less debate, any social-political issue without becoming defensively partisan, ideological, or upset.

Don’t get me wrong. Social media is loaded with political commentary, but it’s usually one-sided, a way to get one’s view out there. OK, but is there room for consideration? Discussion, at least public discourse, is still dead-on-arrival.

One positive way to try to address this problem is to ask questions. Ask others what they believe and why? Do not make your own assertions, which invites pushback. Just ask questions, which signals respect. Then wait. Be quiet, which is hard for me to do, and see what comes back. This may open the door to a genuine discussion.

This said, I think the death of discussion is a real and a sad phenomenon, a capitulation to a disappearing understanding among the public of what Freedom of Speech means in a constitutional republic. The trend, whether from Left or Right, is not good for the future of this country.

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, check my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s rexmrogers.com. Or check my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers for more podcasts and video.

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

©  Rex M. Rogers - All Rights Reserved, 2024.

*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 YouTube @DrRexRogers, or connect with me at linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers or x.com/RexMRogers.

Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 18 July 2024

Is America becoming a banana republic, one where political opponents take shots with bullets not just words?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #159 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.

Saturday, July 13, at a Butler, PA campaign rally, a young man fired his rifle multiple times toward former President Donald J. Trump, injuring him and two others in the crowd, and sadly killing a firefighter attempting to shield his family.

It brought back memories of Mar 30. 1981, the last time a President was injured in an assassination attempt when President Ronald Reagan was shot at short range, rushed to a Washington, DC, hospital, and survived a bullet that had narrowly missed his heart.

Reagan looked at doctors in surgery and said, “I hope you all are Republicans.” Standing near the foot of the operating table was [chief of surgery] Joe Giordano, who happened to be a die-hard liberal. “Today, Mr. President,” Giordano said, “we are all Republicans.” Later, the President told his wife, “Honey, I forgot to duck.”

Trump’s in the moment, “Fight, Fight, Fight,” is reminiscent of this earlier time when a leader proved his mettle under duress. Some media coverage since have tried to make this comment, together with Trump’s raised fist, into some kind of fascist rallying cry. But “the crowd at the rally chanted ‘USA! USA! USA!’ in response, the sense of unity and determination was palpable. This intriguing reaction demonstrated the deep connection between Trump and his base, even in the face of violence and danger.”

While the first president, George Washington, was elected unanimously in 1789, American presidential political campaigns since have been rough and tumble affairs. These campaigns have sometimes been marked by vitriolic rhetoric and political violence:

1. Election of 1800 (Thomas Jefferson vs. John Adams):
   • Thomas Jefferson was labeled an atheist and accused of wanting to undermine the morality of America.
   • Though not directly related to the campaign itself, the charged political atmosphere contributed to the duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr in 1804, resulting in Hamilton's death.
2. Election of 1828 (Andrew Jackson vs. John Quincy Adams):
   • Andrew Jackson was accused of being a "jackass" and a barbarian, with allegations regarding his inadvertently bigamous marriage to Rachel Donelson – Jackson and Rachel thought her former husband had secured a divorce when it turned out he had not. Rachel died just days after Jackson’s election, and she never served as First Lady. Jackson believed his political opposition’s cruel comments about his wife led to her early death and he never forgave them.
3. Election of 1860 (Abraham Lincoln vs. multiple candidates):
   • Abraham Lincoln was called a "black Republican" and was accused of being an abolitionist who would incite racial equality and violence.
   • Lincoln was ultimately assassinated by John Wilkes Booth shortly after his re-election in 1864.
4. Election of 1968 (Richard Nixon vs. Hubert Humphrey):
   • The year was marked by significant political violence, including the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy.
   • The Democratic National Convention in Chicago was marred by violentclashes between police and anti-war protesters. 
5. Election of 1972 (Richard Nixon vs. George McGovern):
   • The campaign included the Watergate scandal, leading to political turmoil and Nixon's eventual resignation.
   • On May 15, 1972, third party candidate George Wallace was shot while campaigning in Laurel, Maryland. One bullet lodged in his spinal column leaving him paralyzed from the waist down the rest of his life.

So American presidential politics has always been a raucous time, yet there is no question that the rhetoric and vitriol in the campaigns of the new millennium have gotten uglier. 

Can we change this?  I hope so, but as I said in a SAT-7 USA blog about the assassination attempt, I believe we’re dealing not so much with a political as a spiritual problem.

We live in a fallen world, and we know that since at least the 1960s, American culture has aggressively and rapidly secularized in many ways and paganized in others. 

Both Christian and conservative observers have been noting threatening developments, among them:

• rejection of the Sovereign God of the Bible, 
• embracing moral relativism, 
• emphasis upon feelings,
• celebrating cultish values regarding race, sexuality,
• promotion of happiness or the self as the ultimate measure of wellbeing in life, 
• trading a Christian for a utilitarian view of life, thus a baby may be discarded if not wanted,

These trends help to create a culture that is anxious, pessimistic, and looking for someone, i.e., others, to blame for our problems. Add to this a significant increase in end-of-the-world climate change alarmism, fear of global viruses, terrorism, and doomsday population projections, and one gets a culture that is confused, chaotic, backward, and characterized by an ill-defined rage.

Our political leaders reflect some of this. In an angry age, is it then any wonder that President Joe Biden and Former President Donald J. Trump can be rather nasty in their comments about their opponents? It’s not good, but it is predictable.

One interesting aftermath of the assassination attempt is the number of people, including Mr. Trump and members of his family, along with favorable media figures, who are saying the bullet missed because of the providence of God. 

People are saying God is not through with Donald J. Trump, that he was spared by a direct act of God in order to help restore America to its former ideals and bounty.

Now I have no problem with people, least of all the candidate and those around him, acknowledging God’s presence, blessings, and providence, because I believe the Sovereign God of the Universe is indeed involved in our daily lives. God was there in Butler, PA, and he was not surprised by what occurred. Yes, I believe he has a will and a plan for Mr. Trump, for America, for all of us.

I do have a problem, though, with some memes – images developed for sharing online – I’ve seen that, to me, cross over into what scholars call civil religion. These memes feature Mr. Trump in various god-like scenarios, perhaps being uplifted by angels or kneeling while wrapped in the US flag as divine light from above shines down on him. Some memes portray Mr. Trump as a savior, and sometimes seem to worship him. These memes look like and remind me of icons of saints that I’ve seen in churches.

So, God providentially protected Mr. Trump. OK, I then wonder what people would be saying if Mr. Trump had been slain. Would they then be talking about God’s providence? 

We know this in our own lives when we or a loved one is very ill. We pray for their healing, and sometimes God answers that prayer affirmatively. But sometimes God answers that prayer negatively and we or our loved one advances in the illness, at times even unto death. Did God love and protect us when he healed but not love and protect us when he did not heal?

Again, I am not against acknowledging God’s engagement in American culture and politics. Nor am I knocking, much less making fun of, those who praise God for his providence in sparing Mr. Trump’s life. During his recovery, Mr. Reagan made similar observations about God’s will, and Mr. Reagan’s life and purpose. If anything, we should obey more of the Lord’s Word and seek his engagement. I am simply cautioning us not to baptize any political figure as other than the man or woman that they are.

Like us, American presidents are not perfect. We are commanded to pray for our leaders: “I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way” (1 Tim 2:1-2).

But Scripture also reminds us who really is in charge of our future, saying, “Put not your trust in princes,in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation. When his breath departs, he returns to the earth; on that very day his plans perish” (Ps. 146:3-4).

May God grant the USA and its political leaders providence, protection, peace, and prosperity.

Well, we’ll see you again soon. This podcast is about Discerning What Is Best. If you find this thought-provoking and helpful, follow us on your favorite podcast platform. Download an episode for your friends. For more Christian commentary, check my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s rexmrogers.com. 

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

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2024     

*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 connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers or https://twitter.com/RexMRogers.