Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 06 October 2025

It’s discouraging to me to hear that nurses are quitting their jobs because the public is so abusive – nurses, people trying to help. But this is the state of American culture.

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #228 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 elder President George H.W. Bush, 41, is remembered for several pithy phrases, among them “voodoo economics,” “1,000 points of light,” and the one that got him in political trouble later when partisan budget wrangling forced him to renege on his promise, “Read my lips: No new taxes.”

But President Bush’s phrase that I’ve thought a lot about recently came out of his run for the presidency in 1988 and his vision for what he called “a kinder, gentler nation.” Later in his Inauguration speech, Jan. 20, 1989, Bush said, “America is never wholly herself unless she is engaged in high moral principle. We as a people have such a purpose today. It is to make kinder the face of the nation and gentler the face of the world.”

I thought of this phrase immediately as I watched the 45^th Ryder Cup matches played at the Black course, Bethpage State Park, Farmingdale, New York on Long Island. The European team won the Ryder Cup, 15-13.

Crowd behavior was relatively benign the first sessions but then chaos broke loose Saturday afternoon and Sunday as a small but extremely vocal percentage of the crowd let loose with abusive comments hurled at the Europeans, particularly the golf world’s number 2, Rory McIlroy. Oft-repeated f-bombs, “Rake out the Irish trash,” “Remember Pinehurst,” “Choker,” “Leprechaun,” “Overrated,” middle fingers held high, insults questioning manhood, a beer can thrown near McIlroy’s wife, at one tee box, a guy yelled “Rory, don't let your boyfriend down!” followed by three more gay slurs that cannot be shared. “By (one) reporter's count, 30-something f-bombs had been hurled at McIlroy in the first four holes alone.” More sexually explicit comments were made throughout the day aimed at various players’ wives.

American player Justin Thomas repeatedly tried to calm the crowd as did other American golfers from time to time to minimal cooperation and eventually a handful of spectators were identified and tossed off the property.

The next day, American golfing great Tom Watson said on social media, “I'd like to congratulate @RyderCupEurope on their victory. Your team play the first few days was sensational. More importantly, I'd like to apologize for the rude and mean-spirited behavior from our American crowd at Bethpage. As a former player, Captain and as an American, I am ashamed of what happened.”

Lack of civility, including use of profane language, is now publicly commonplace in American culture. Scholars and pundits often use the term “coarsening” to refer to the trend. 

And this is also sadly true of political leaders. President Bush’s kinder, gentler “words stand in stark contrast to the incivility and name-calling that has come to define today’s politics.” This includes a growing trend of antagonistic, disrespectful rhetoric in politics, including ad hominem attacks and name-calling.

Leaving aside here any discussion of President Donald J. Trump’s politics and policies, it can be said without fear of exaggeration that Mr. Trump often critiques people he calls his “enemies” by using rather crass, at times harsh, attack-mode language.

President Richard M. Nixon’s infamous White House Watergate tapes provided audio evidence of his penchant for using ethnic slurs, foul language, and derogatory comments during meetings. Mr. Trump’s use of corrosive or caustic language is not reserved for private meetings because they make media coverage nearly every week.

Now I am not blaming Mr. Trump for the coarsening of American culture. Presidents are more often symptoms than causes of American trends. Nor am I suggesting Mr. Trump is worse than others. I’m just noting that Mr. Trump says things in what Teddy Roosevelt called “the bully pulpit” that no other president has ever said, and as the leader of the free world, he is heard and has influence.

American political leaders now regularly make videos using vulgarities, then post them on social media, or they use so-called “fighting words” or expletives in media interviews, I guess, in an effort to sound tough and sincere. No question President Joe Biden regularly used profanity when he became frustrated or wanted to sound forceful, but I thought he just sounded degraded. Democrats and the left or Progressives have been calling Mr. Trump “Hitler,” a Nazi, and a “fascist” since at least 2016, and now the same anti-Trump American political leaders have publicly labeled ICE officers “modern-day Gestapo,” “secret police,” “authoritarian,” “slave patrols,” “thugs,” and more.

Clearly, American politics has become increasingly polarized. Don Sipple, a veteran communications strategist who helped shape campaign messages for George W. Bush, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Jerry Brown, among many others, said, “Everything’s a war. Everything’s a battle. There’s no collaboration, no coordination, no civic pride.”

And another trend is important to note, the increase in political violence. “Hateful demonization clearly played a role in the assassination of Charlie Kirk—a murder victim whom the left continues to smear and attack, even after his violent death at the hands of a leftist…When people are told, on repeat, that their opposition are authoritarian Hitler Nazis, some of them will act accordingly.”

Civilization is in part built upon civility, and this is what’s gone out the window. I can remember when men would use a four-letter word in the presence of women and say, “Oh, pardon my French.” Now maybe that was disingenuous or too cute, but at least there was some sense of what should be acceptable. No more.

“We've become a mean-spirited culture. We've become increasingly rude and cruel and abusive and violent.” And I haven’t even talked about the crude and lewd, or the manufactured anger paraded in reality shows, nor the nastiness on TV talk shows, the social distance and anonymity of social media, and much of pop music.

American culture is subjected to more centrifugal than centripetal forces, pulling us apart without much glue holding us together.

We are experiencing a "decline of the American sacred canopy." This is a term coined by sociologist Peter Berger, which describes the erosion of a shared, overarching religious framework that once provided common meaning and values to society. Since America’s founding and until the last fifty years, that sacred canopy was comprised of what scholars called a Judeo-Christian moral consensus.

Our laws, mores, and morality were rooted in biblical values, even if not everyone or even most Americans were themselves believing Christians. Our culture, indeed, Western Civilization, found sustenance in this moral outlook. It gave us definition, purpose, and vision.

“The decline of faith has left a void, and people have tried to fill it with politics, social media, gaming and countless other distractions. Yet none of these substitutes provides the deeper sense of purpose we were made to seek. Over the past few decades, the erosion of religion and the rise of political polarization have gone hand in hand. As faith receded, the longing for meaning, belonging and community did not disappear -- it was redirected. Too often, that hunger has been channeled into the far less healthy pursuit of politics.”

Along the way, apparently thinking Judeo-Christian principles are too sensitive or irrelevant for schools, scouts, even religious groups or families, we discarded moral formation. Now there is no self-restraint, no ethics, no respect, no truth, no direction, no hope. They aren’t taught.

“Any sense of an objective moral order is gone. Any sense of transcendent truth is gone. We now have little more than radical individualism.” If we don’t “train up a child” as Proverbs directed (22:6), then they’ll learn their morality in the streets or on social media where they are taught that they are gods who define their own moral compass. We do what’s right in our own eyes.

“We’ve become hyper-politicized. Ideology has replaced theology, even in the lives of Christians. Good and evil aren’t about the human heart—they’re about groups: us vs. them…Morality isn’t about personal conduct, but rather where you are on the political spectrum. Much of it fueled by resentment. And that is how we got so mean.”

We’re a long way from a kinder, gentler nation.

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.

Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 29 September 2025

How do we maintain freedom of speech in an era of hate speech and ideologically unacceptable views? 

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #227 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 the past several years, the so-called cancel culture and political correctness movements put pressure on organizations, especially universities, to silence or fire people who shared or even held "unacceptable views." Somehow, freedom of speech was willingly sacrificed in the name of ideology.

Then, Charlie Kirk was murdered as he exercised his free speech on a university campus.

Following this horrific nonsensical crime, conservatives, who earlier vigorously decried how liberals and the Left worked to curtail freedom of speech via cancel culture, now cheered people being fired, or they call for them to be called out or doxxed for expressing negative views on air or online about Kirk or his politics.

Now in the interests of accuracy, we should note that many of the conservative reactions to anti-Kirk comments are pointing to those comments that endorse or call for political violence. In other words, some anti-Kirk comments celebrated his death, or called for, even named, others to be killed.

But, still, there’s a problem here. However disgusting or insensitive anti-Kirk comments may be, aren’t even these anti-Kirk media comments just “sticks and stones,” and aren’t these comments, even if ugly, still protected speech under the First Amendment?

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified 1791, states: “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.”

American freedom of speech case law allows for distasteful even despicable comments, as long as they don’t call for violence, directly threaten, or become what in the past thirty years or so come to be called “hate speech.”

One common definition of hate speech is “any form of expression through which speakers intend to vilify, humiliate or incite hatred against a group or a class of persons on the basis of race, religion, skin color, sexual identity, gender identity, ethnicity, disability or national origin.” U.S. courts have ruled that restrictions on hate speech would conflict with the First Amendment’s protection of the freedom of expression. 

So, free speech in the U.S. includes not only support for popular views but also the expression of unpopular, offensive, or controversial opinions. Remember the old maxim attributed to Voltaire? “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

An American core ideal, this protection extends to commentary on public figures, including after their deaths, again, as long as it does not cross legal lines such as defamation, threats, targeted harassment, or calls for political violence.

Maintaining a commitment to free speech gets difficult in highly emotional times like the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination—and it was an assassination, killed with deliberate premeditation using a long-range, high-powered hunting rifle.

Recently, it’s been liberals or the Left arguing they are being suppressed or silenced. Note the fooforaw regarding what late night host Jimmy Kimmel said about the Charlie Kirk assassination, his network ownership, ABC and Disney, suspending his show, then barely a week later restoring it on most ABC outlets. Kimmel advocates are screaming “Free speech violation,” yet the government had nothing to do with this decision.

And on the conservative side of things, here’s another example of free speech controversy. On a recent Fox program, host Brian Kilmeade and his cohost were discussing the unprovoked horrible murder of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska by a knife-wielding, homeless man. The cohost said if such individuals refuse mental health assistance should be sent to jail. Kilmeade responded, "Or involuntary lethal injection, or something. Just kill 'em." He later apologized, saying he made an “extremely callous” remark. Conservative Kilmeade advocates are defending him, saying it was a foolish slip-up. Liberals are arguing if Kimmel could be suspended, why not Kilmeade? Kilmeade’s comment was certainly more than callous, more than a slip-up—he called for summary execution of undesirables—he has to-date not been fired.

The tension in these situations highlight a societal confusion around free speech. For years, many conservatives criticized “cancel culture,” arguing that people were being punished socially or professionally for expressing views that deviated from progressive norms. Their concerns were warranted, for as Google just admitted, responding to pressure from the Biden Administration, the corporation suppressed conservative viewpoints on its platform and YouTube app.

So, suppression of free speech has indeed taken place. But whether suspending Kimmel or Kilmeade qualifies as a free speech matter is debatable. The First Amendment restricts government censorship, not private consequences. Employers, especially in at-will employment states, often have broad discretion to fire employees for speech that could damage the company’s image or workplace environment. So, while Kimmel’s insensitive Kirk comments and Kilmeade’s insensitive Zarutska murder comments are likely legally protected, they are not immune to social or professional backlash or consequences.

For the record, while I strongly defend and support the First Amendment and thus citizens’ right to freedom of speech, I don’t consider either the Kimmel or Kilmeade incident a bona fide free speech matter. I’d maintain Kimmel’s suspension because he is losing the network money, and I’d fire Kilmeade for his crude remarks calling for the execution of people he considers unworthy.

In essence, while hateful or bigoted speech is often deeply offensive, it remains protected unless it is directly linked to violence, threats, or illegal conduct. The U.S. legal system emphasizes protecting even “disturbing” speech to preserve the broader principle of free expression.

If we value free expression, we must be consistent—even when the speech offends us or targets someone we respect. If we argue that people shouldn’t lose jobs over political views, that principle ought to apply universally. Otherwise, “free speech” becomes a partisan tool rather than a shared democratic value. Defending only the speech we agree with is not defending free speech at all.

In the United States, the First Amendment protects a wide range of speech, including controversial, offensive, and unpopular ideas. But not all speech is protected.

Hate speech is protected under the First Amendment unless it falls into specific, narrowly defined exceptions established by the courts.

1. Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action: Speech that is intended to incite or produce immediate illegal acts and is likely to do so is not protected.
2. True Threats or Fighting Words: Speech that communicates a serious intent to commit violence against a specific individual or group is not protected.
3. Harassment or Targeted Hate Crimes: Speech that is part of criminal conduct, such as stalking or hate crimes, involving intimidation or harassment.

Meanwhile, there is growing concern among free‑speech advocates that some Western democracies in Europe have increasingly curtailed online expression — particularly around topics like immigration, gender, religion, or protests — sometimes through arrests, prosecutions, or fines.

• In Germany, authorities carried out raids and prosecuted individuals accused of spreading hate speech online.
• Sweden: a prosecution of a 70‑year‑old woman for what was deemed a "disparaging view of refugees" on Facebook.
• Poland and Germany: flagged cases where anti‑immigration content was removed.

Vice President J.D. Vance, making his first major speech in Europe, challenged leaders to show consistency: do they truly defend democratic values — including free expression — or are the limitations being applied selectively?

There is a fear that laws against hate speech, defamation, or “offensive” commentary could become tools for political control. When citizens are arrested, sanctioned, or punished not for credible threats or incitement of violence, but for expressing unpopular or harsh views (even insensitive or inflammatory ones), critics view this as a slippery slope that chills debate.

Freedom of speech, enshrined in the First Amendment, sits at the core of the American creed, as famously articulated by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. It is not hyperbole to say this freedom is quintessentially American, and no one, liberal/the Left or conservatives should play fast and loose with this ideal.

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.

Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 22 September 2025

On social media, have you been hearing on about the revivals taking place at public universities, many via football teams?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #226 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 those earlier podcasts, I noted that to discern wisely, we needed to ask questions:

• Is this revival consistent with the Word of God?
• Is Jesus Christ exalted?
• Does this revival involve confession and repentance, obedience, salvation by faith in Christ, open confession of love for Christ?
• Will God move this revival to public universities?

Asking these questions is not a masquerade for doubting God or being skeptical for the sake of skepticism but a careful stewardship of what we are hearing, determining what is true and trustworthy. In those earlier reviews of college revivals, I concluded God indeed seemed to be working and that I hoped the movement would continue.

I also noted that students coming of age in America have been sold a bill of goods. Our culture has taught youth to reject God, absolute truth, morality, even biological science. Instead, they’ve been taught cynicism, that nothing deserves their faith, that nothing and no one is worthy of their trust.

Youth are taught in school, in their music, in their celebrity worship, in their sexual confusion that nothing matters, that there is no purpose, just uncertainty, angst, disquietude.

And nothing has been put in place of this deconstruction of timeless verities. All young people have is nihilism – the idea life is absurd and meaningless. Is it any wonder that there is an epidemic of mental health issues among America’s young people?

Think about this. If you truly believed life was hollow, inconsequential, that your own life was pointless, that it had no purpose, you have no value or worth, why wouldn’t you seek escape in hedonism, lust or substance abuse? Who cares?

And if your life has no value or worth, certainly other human beings have no value or worth. If we believe this hopelessness, what’s left?

It is in this academic context that I prayed the Lord would send his Spirit upon the land beginning perhaps with the most spiritually bereft of places in America, the college and university campus. Now it appears God is doing exactly that.

While there’s no official count, a number of organizations, student ministries, media, and Christian commentators have documented dozens of events, across both public and private schools, where students gather for extended worship, prayer, confession, baptisms, and renewed commitment to faith.

Over 1,000 college students reputedly accepted Jesus this week at West Virginia University. Carson-Newman University experienced public professions of faith and baptisms of football players.

Ohio State University football players led “An Invitation to Jesus” night of praise inviting students to Christ with many coming forward to profess faith. Over 2,000 people gathered. About 50 students were baptized.

“Against the backdrop of anti-Israel protests, violence, and death chants at college and university campuses recently, some GenZers are choosing instead to uplift Jesus Christ. (Some) 8,000 students gathered on the campus of the University of Tennessee to praise His Name alone.”

Auburn University: A revival event there drew 5,000 students, resulting in over 200 baptisms. Florida State University: Another Christian service saw 4,500 students attend, with around 350 baptisms. Nebraska University and University of Cincinnati football players united in prayer after the game. The University of Alabama quarterback Ty Simpson recently shared his faith in Christ with media. Pennsylvania State University players prayed in endzone before the game. A UniteUS event at the University of Oklahoma drew nearly 9,000 students in early September 2025 to worship, pray, and hear evangelistic preaching.

Many universities experiencing revivals. Arizona State Georgia Bulldogs, Auburn Tigers, Miami Hurricanes, Boise State, and others have been doing this for years but not to this extent.

Earlier in 2025, at University of Kentucky, UniteUS held a large revival: ~8,000 students in attendance, ~2,000 responded to the gospel message. At Ohio State in spring, ~6,500 students gathered, nearly 2,000 made first‑time commitments, many baptisms were conducted even in severe cold. Purdue University had a revival‐style event; about 4,500 attended and hundreds responded. Baylor University also hosted a “72‑hour prayer tent” event, continuous prayer and worship, part of the UniteUS / campus ministries outreach.

The UniteUS movement is a major organizer behind many of these events. These revivals often combine: worship music, evangelistic preaching, altar calls/decision points for Christ, baptisms (sometimes spontaneous, even outdoors or in unconventional setups like tubs or trucks). Student‐athletes are increasingly visible participants. There seems to be momentum early in the fall semester with “kickoff” events, likely because new students and returning students are gathering, and events are timed to the start of term. OSU’s “Fall Kickoff” is a case in point.

Before college football kickoff, Tim Tebow led a stadium of 100,000 in prayer, sharing the Gospel plainly and pointedly, praying people would respond. His prayer elicited an ovation and cheers.

UniteUS began, September 12, 2023, when “thousands of college students gathered at Auburn University’s Neville Arena with one singular focus–to lift the name of Jesus. What began in Auburn, Alabama has continued to grow into a movement reaching college campuses across the nation. Unite exists to see college students gathered to lift the name of Jesus. Every Unite gathering has three main objectives:

SALVATION
For non-believers to hear a clear presentation of the Gospel in a welcoming environment. Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9
FREEDOM
For believers to know and experience true freedom from sin and burdens on their hearts. Galatians 5:1
COMMUNITY
For students to find community and discipleship through connection to local ministries and the local church. Ephesians 4:1-6.”

UniteUs is itself a phenomenon, founded by Tonya Prewett, in a little more than two years it has become a national force in the Christian evangelism of Gen Z. To assure fidelity to the Word and avoidance of faddish religion or easy-believism, the questions we asked of earlier of Christian college revivals should continue to be asked of UniteUs revivals: Are these revivals consistent with the Word of God?

Is Jesus Christ exalted? Do these revivals involve confession and repentance, obedience, salvation by faith in Christ alone, and open confession of love for Christ? At this point, early and continuing testimonials are consistently affirmative.

“Despite the fact the events are held on secular college campuses, every place UniteUS goes they're finding thousands of students desperate to know Jesus and eagerly jumping into fountains, lakes, and the backs of pickup trucks in order to be baptized. One of the keys to the UniteUS events is their partnership with local churches that help disciple the students who come to the events and dedicate their lives to Jesus.” One pastoral supporter of UniteUS said, “Universities are pregnant with revival.”

Several public universities experienced revival sessions during 2024, and when I say “several” I mean a lot, and it appears this is continuing in 2025. Some are saying, “Aside from what we have been seeing take place on social media, there is undeniable evidence that the Holy Spirit is moving in this place. Gen Z is hungry for truth, seeking an anchor to put their hope in, and ready to give their lives to the one person who can set them free.”

Clearly, Christian revivals on American university campuses are being reported with increasing frequency, and many if not most of these events are cited on social media. They are driven by a mix of spiritual craving, societal stresses, desire for meaning, and, I believe, the Lord’s Spirit choosing to work in the lives of young people.

If you want something positive to pray about, pray for more genuine Christian spiritual revivals or awakenings specifically on American university campuses.

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.

Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 15 September 2025

When people say, “Our thoughts and prayers are with you,” do they mean it?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #224 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.

When someone passes or suffers some tragedy it’s become common in American culture to say, “Our thoughts and prayers are with you.” This conventional phrase has become a socially accepted expression of sympathy.

There is nothing wrong with this phrase as such, especially if the person saying it really means it. Will they really think about the person experiencing grief? Will they actually pray for them? If they do not follow through, thinking and praying for the aggrieved, then this statement is little more than a ritualized expression, what linguists call a phatic expression—language meant more for social bonding than for literal meaning.

I’ve wondered about this phrase along the way, even catching myself when I was thinking of saying it. Do I mean it or is this a polite throw-away phrase that gets me past an uncomfortable moment?

Or maybe you’ve been the recipient of this sentiment during your time of trial. Did you believe the person saying it, or did it not matter what they said as much as they bothered to be there and express some sympathy for your feelings?

“Thoughts and prayers” made national news in the aftermath of the tragic mass shooting in Minneapolis wherein a shooter ruthlessly shot at children through the stained-glass windows of a Catholic Church while the students and their teachers held a beginning of the year chapel. He killed two innocent children and injured twenty-one others.

Following this horrific bloodbath, in what is usual and expected fashion, various political leaders made public statements. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey told media, “Don't just say this is about thoughts and prayers right now. These kids were literally praying." 

On CNN, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobachar said, "Forget about thoughts and prayers. These kids were literally praying when they were murdered through a church window.” On her X account, MSNBC host Jen Psaki caused the most stir when she rather vehemently posted, “Prayer is not freaking enough. Prayers do not end school shootings. Prayers do not make parents feel safe sending their kids to school. Prayer does not bring these kids back. Enough with the thoughts and prayers.”

Other notables weighed in with similar statements, but for the most part their comments were not really about thoughts and prayers but about gun control.

Gov. Gavin Newsom put it bluntly in his post on X: “They were in their church praying when this happened. What they need is gun control.”

Now there are various ways we could analyze this. We could focus upon gun control versus other ways to stop mass shootings. But that debate is not my interest here. I’m more intrigued by what these and others mean, including me, when we say, “our thoughts and prayers are with you.”

I cannot speak for what’s in the heart of those who seemed to dismiss the efficacy of prayer, but I can point to other things they believe that could be at the root of their views on prayer.

Take for example Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine’s comments last week about the source of human rights and law. While considering an administration appointee during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting, Sen. Kaine responded to the candidate’s assertion that “all men are created equal because our rights come from God, our creator; not from our laws, not from our governments.” To this, Sen. Kaine said, “The notion that rights don't come from laws, and don't come from the government, but come from the Creator...That's what the Iranian government believes. It’s a theocratic regime that bases its rule on Shia law and targets Sunnis, Bahá’ís, Jews, Christians, and other religious minorities. They do it because they believe that they understand what natural rights are from their Creator. So, the statement that our rights do not come from our laws or our government is extremely troubling.”

I’d say the fact what’s extremely troubling is that Sen. Kaine thinks the idea our rights come from our Creator is extremely troubling. It’s ironic indeed that Sen Kaine represents Virginia, the home of the man, Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the first draft of the Declaration of Independence wherein he said, and the Second Continental Congress ratified, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

You’ve heard the expression, “He said the quiet part out loud.” This is what Sen. Kaine just did. He is admitting that he does not believe our unalienable rights come from our Creator and he argues instead that government is the source of our rights. This is telling and scary to say the least. It is also un-American.

Now back to “thoughts and prayers.” As I said, I do not know these peoples’ hearts, but I do think that anyone who discounts prayers in such a snarky manner – Remember, Psaki said “Prayers are not freaking enough,” using an f-word substitute that everyone recognizes. But if a person does not comprehend the purpose, power, and efficacy of prayer, then it suggests what is in their heart, and what’s in their heart is likely what Sen. Kaine said out loud: God is not sovereign.

The secularizing trend of America’s political and social and academic elite has been evident for some time, at least to the 1960s and perhaps back to WWII.

Calling into question a public leader’s statements about God still doesn’t tell us what exactly the attitude and belief is of his or her heart, Democrat or Republican. We know this. But one can say they believe in God, and probably Sen Kaine does, while simultaneously living and working like what I call a practical agnostic.

The person may believe in God or a god, yet believe we cannot know God, and then live accordingly, i.e., live as if God is not there, is not engaged, and is not one to whom we are accountable. In that view, one is free to do what is right in their own eyes. This description might describe most leaders in much of the USA and Europe.

The real impact of this beginning presupposition is at the next level. If there is no God that we can know who is involved in our lives, then there is no definition for righteousness and sin, good and evil. Men and women are not inclined to sin but basically good at heart, thus the real culprit causing our social problems is not individual moral choices but society, systemic “out there” forces that do us in.

Bad behaving human beings are not, therefore, irresponsibly making immoral choices but just unlucky victims of the system. So, working to change the moral framework of youthful upbringing, reinforcing the positive values of a family with Dad and Mom guiding kids’ lives, or if young adults still make wrong choices, holding them accountable—these remedies are not considered, only endless conversations about the need for mental health programs or more stringent gun control.

If the shooter is trans, which several mass shooters have been, then don’t talk about it, for to recognize this evidence from the crime scene is to somehow demonize all trans individuals. If the shooter is an illegal immigrant and the victim is white, then don’t acknowledge this because it doesn’t fit the preferred ideological narrative. If the killer uses a gun, talk about that, not the innocent victims, but by all means talk about mental health.

“Of course mental illness is real. But not every evil act can be swept into the category of ‘disease.’ Some people do wicked things because they are wicked.

And leaders who refuse to acknowledge evil allow it to fester. Delayed justice encourages more injustice. Refusing to punish wrongdoing breeds more wrongdoing. That’s not just common sense; it’s biblical wisdom.”

Ecc. 8:11 says, “Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed speedily, the heart of the children of man is fully set to do evil.”

Now back again to “thoughts and prayers.” I don’t buy the jettisoning of thoughts and prayers as a political tactic to jump to gun control, but I do acknowledge that saying “our thoughts and prayers are with you” may not be sufficient.

Scripture talks about faith and works, not works to earn faith, for this is not possible, but works because of our faith. What is it that we can do in addition to extending sincere thoughts and prayers? There are many things, e.g., be present and assist in life needs among them. And protect children? Hardening security in schools, training and arming school staff, holding offenders accountable when they commit lesser crimes before they escalate to bigger crimes.

Our country does indeed need our thoughts and prayers. And it needs our actions too.

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.

Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 11 September 2025

What has the recent killings of a young Ukrainian refugee and conservative activist Charlie Kirk taught us?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #225 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.

“Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska looked up at her killer with terror in her eyes after he repeatedly stabbed her with a pocketknife, as no light-rail passengers came immediately to her aid.”

“The Aug. 22 attack on the Lynx Blue Line train in Charlotte, North Carolina, shows the 23-year-old cowering in fear and covering her face with her hands after the shocking, unprovoked attack, allegedly carried out by homeless repeat felon.” The entire horrible violence is available for all to see on train video, including her collapse to the floor and the killer’s aimless walking about the train for several minutes as other passengers simply watch. Only one man eventually tried to help Iryna.

Sept 10, 2025, Charlie “Kirk, the conservative activist and co-founder of Turning Point USA, was giving a presentation at Utah Valley University when he was fatally shot” from long distance with a high-powered rifle. He was sitting under an open-air tent canopy responding to a student question in front of a crowd of some 3,000 students. The entire horrible violence is available on video, including Charlie recoiling from the hit, bleeding, and falling to the ground.

Understandably, these killings, more than others that occur every day, have captured America’s attention. Why is that?

One, because they are on video. This isn’t cinema; it’s real. And two, because both these bloody assaults on human life portray senseless, sad, sick, sinful, unprovoked violence that could happen to any of us.

Iryna was simply riding a commuter train, reading her phone and was attacked from behind. Charlie was a public figure in a public venue.

He was doing what all those anchor people on cable news, celebrities, entertainment figures, and politicians regularly do—speaking into a microphone with nothing between him and a bullet. The news anchors know this, especially the ones on Fox News who knew Charlie well. This could be them. Understandably, you can hear the frustration and fear in their voices. As Bret Baier said on his evening report, “This one feels different.”

It was like that after 9/11, the anniversary of which ironically came the day after Charlie was martyred. I remember watching David Letterman and Dan Rather talking on air a night or two after. Tough-persona Dan was visibly shaken, and prince of goofiness David was uncharacteristically quiet. This was too close. Their world had been shaken. They did not know what to say or do, had no explanations.

This Charlie Kirk tragedy is like that. As Bret said, “This feels different.”

I’ve written and presented two podcasts along the way called “The Death of Discussion” and “Revisiting the Death of Discussion.” In those podcasts, I noted that we now live in a “post-truth culture in which politics and polarization are so pronounced we can no longer communicate, resulting in a virtual inability to discuss, much less debate, any social-political issue without it exploding into defensive partisanship, ideological condemnation, or lack of civility.” And that “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.”

How do we conduct discussions in fear of our lives?

The murder of Iryna Zarutska feels like the death of public safety. The assassination of Charlie Kirk feels like the death of free speech.

Political violence, once the experience of Third World countries, is increasing in the United States.

Shortly after Kirk was shot, former Democratic Rep Gabby Giffords said, “Democratic societies will always have political disagreements, but we must never allow America to become a country that confronts those disagreements with violence.” Giffords herself was shot in the head by a gunman in 2011. In the 14 years since, attacks and threats against political figures have surged. Just three months ago, a masked gunman shot two Minnesota state lawmakers, killing one.

Two months before that, an arsonist set fire to the Pennsylvania governor’s mansion while Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro and his family slept inside…In the heat of the (2020) presidential campaign, (then candidate Donald J.) Trump was twice targeted by serious assassination attempts,” one coming within a centimeter of taking his life.

The murder of “Charlie Kirk marks a watershed moment in a surge of U.S. political violence, one that some experts fear will inflame an already-fractured country and inspire more unrest…In the first six months of the year, the U.S. experienced about 150 politically-motivated attacks — nearly twice as many as over the same period last year…Last year at least 300 cases of political violence across the U.S. between the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and the 2024 presidential election, marking the most significant and sustained surge in such violence since the 1970s.”

As they often do about school shootings, political leaders generally end their comments about these tragic shooting and killing events with the statement, “This has to end.” Agreed. But what is causing it and how do we stop it?

We can point to multiple sources of such crimes: polarization in the American political system, increasingly heated political rhetoric that takes on tones of personal animosity, more people in the US who do not embrace fundamental American values about life and liberty, a growing tendency to hold political viewpoints with a “religious,” i.e., uncompromising, morally superior, zeal, and a philosophy that divides American society into oppressors and the oppressed or victims.

From a Christian perspective, we may conclude that any culture like our own that rejects God and denies the existence of truth, i.e., embraces moral relativism, will begin to fall apart.

Prov. 29:18 says, “Where there is no prophetic vision the people cast off restraint, but blessed is he who keeps the law.” Without a foundation for our public moral consensus, there is no consensus. We’re left with no center, just centripetal forces tearing us apart.

And in recent years, like Europe before us, many American leaders have promoted the weak philosophy of “multiculturalism,” the idea that all cultures, values, and practices, are relative and none can be judged or determined to be wrong, bad, or unhealthy. This along with open borders means we end up with a mish mash of people who hold disjunctive worldviews, some of which are dangerous, even deadly, and, well, there’s not much we can say or do about it.

We just need to tolerate, live and let live.

Problem with this is that some of those cultures do not themselves believe in tolerance, live and let live, and adherents from time to time act out their views in crime and violence. This is what’s happening now in Europe, and this is what’s beginning to happen in the USA.

But this country was founded and flourished upon clearly understood Judeo-Christian values that valued life and liberty, believed in the Ten Commandments and certainly considered murder a reprehensible wrong, believed in accountability and justice, and promoted freedom of speech.

Charlie Kirk believed in these things and in the providence of God gave his life for them.

We need to recover our moral center, for without it there will be more unrest and more violence. God grant America a spiritual great awakening, and a revival of biblical values and civility.

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.