Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 26 July 2022

Have you ever stopped to think about the fact that you are, in all likelihood, a descendent of immigrants? 

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #38 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.

Immigrants are as American as apple pie.  

Unless you are a Native American, your ancestors traveled to this country at some point. They were immigrants (or for some, they were slaves). And whether they found quick acceptance or had to struggle for their place in American society, they came for a new life and new opportunity (something long denied to African Americans but rectified in a Civil War and Civil Rights Movement one hundred years apart), conditions that bless you to this day.

So why then do we hear about America’s “immigrant problem”? Short answer:  a lot of non-citizens live among us.      

Something like 1.7 million individuals entered the United States illegally during year 2020, people from 160 different countries, the most from Mexico. And about 15.5 million “undocumented” individuals (the old phrases were “illegals” or “illegal aliens”) already reside in the States, a number that has increased by 41% since 2010. More than 2 million illegal immigrants have entered the US under the current Administration.   

Long answer for why we hear about America‘s “immigrant problem” is this:  

We didn’t awaken one morning to discover millions of illegal immigrants had entered the country overnight. Porous borders, ineffective policy, lack of leadership—and will, political posturing, and sporadic enforcement have co-existed for a long time.

It’s strange that Americans, of all people, should find immigration befuddling, much less threatening. Ellis Island is literally in our DNA.  

The foundational ideals that defined and made this country strong in the first place—freedom, opportunity, individual dignity, work, desire for a better future—all contributed to America becoming a “nation of immigrants.”  

We’re about freedom, and we generally want others to experience it too.  

On the other hand, most Americans acknowledge open borders are not an unmitigated political and social good. And most Americans believe American citizenship is neither meaningless, or a right-without-responsibility. Certainly, other countries of the world are highly protective of their citizenship and who they allow to enter their countries. Why shouldn’t the U.S. be at least somewhat circumspect in this important situation, even while evidencing compassion and continuing to respect immigrants?

By this logic America can and should establish systems of admission and citizenship, then expect immigrants 

• to learn English, 
• work for the benefits this country affords, and 
• evidence a loyalty to American ideals. 

If immigrants take these essential steps, then they will be welcome to share in the American dream—now, their dream. 

The so-called "immigrant problem" and what has now become the immigrant rights movement are generating disagreement among religious leaders. Some argue for stiff penalties against illegal immigrants, along with beefed up efforts to secure U.S. borders. Many Catholic leaders call for citizenship grants and what they brand as “justice.” Some evangelicals weigh in via surveys saying immigrants are a burden and a threat to American values and stability.  

I don’t understand religious or political leaders who make illegal immigrants sound like terrorists. It’s not too much of a stretch to speculate a handful of illegal immigrants could be connected with terrorist cells, but certainly not 15.5 million of them; nor everyone in Mexico.  

And not so-called DACA kids, “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals,” many of whom are now young adults. These are people brought to the USA as children, when they had no influence or control. Now, these about 800,000 individuals who’ve known no other country but our own are being held in terminal legal limbo by partisan battles in Washington, DC. DACA kids are but political footballs, something inherently unappealing, unnecessary, and I think, un-American. To change DACA individuals’ status the legislative and executive branches need only act and provide them with a path to citizenship.

Frankly, categorical rejection of immigrants, as such, borders on ethnic prejudice and parochialism. 

So, I’m perplexed by the strong voices, including many among conservatives and among Christians, urging Congress to “Deport them” or “Send them all back where they came from.” These responses seem motivated more by nativism, bigotry, and fear than concern for American wellbeing.            

Still, I recognize our countries’ legitimate need to better police its borders and to assure as best it can that the American people remain secure. I recognize some immigrants are not “pulling their weight,” are “costing American taxpayers,” are unwilling to work, and may be involved in criminal activity. Then again, the same can be said for too many Americans-born-n-raised.    

Somehow, what one might think would be a fairly, straightforward proposition:

• define American citizenship, 
• put in place a process by which legal immigrants may become citizens, and 
• police borders to assure American security is preserved—is not straightforward at all.

In fact, it’s a political quagmire.       

Meanwhile, some 80% of illegal immigrants come to this country, stay, pay taxes, maybe gain educations, but don’t complete a citizenship process.     

Children complicate the matter further. Some observers claim pregnant women enter the States illegally, then birth their children on American soil so the children will automatically earn “birthright citizenship.” These “anchor babies” make it possible for Mom to stay.     

In frustration, some politicians are suggesting this so-called “birth tourism” be stopped by changing the longstanding definition of citizenship stated in the Fourteenth Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”        

All this is a rather sad state of affairs getting to the heart of the fact that Americans no longer agree on what an American is. Some people, responding with compassion or other motives to the millions of illegal immigrants already here, seem to want to blithely throw the concept away as if it has no value. What of citizenship? Why does it matter? We’re all one and one for all? Anyone may come, the government will pick up the tab, and somehow it will all work out in the end.     

It’s a wonderful utopian vision however misguided and ungrounded in reality.      

Ultimately, “the government” is us. We pick up the tab, and truth be told, a system built on the backs of a few to pay for the many simply doesn’t work.

A recent comprehensive fiscal cost study, illegal aliens are likely imposing a net fiscal burden of at least $143.1 billion, an increase of approximately $9.4 billion over the past year.     

In terms of national interest, defining American citizenship allows it to become a boon and blessing to all. It makes sense. Other countries define what it means to be a citizen. Why can’t America do this without being accused of bigotry, racism, or worse?  

On the other hand, the anti-birthright citizenship movement is a kneejerk reaction that undermines some of the most precious principles in the American story. Nearly all Americans in this immigrant-nation come from somewhere else. It’s part of the genius of America’s free and open society, a land of opportunity, a land where one worships, works, and pursues happiness freely. Progress and plenty must be earned, but they are open to all. Lawyering away a baby’s citizenship because the mother is from another country flies in the face of what it means to be an American, not to mention the fact such a law would create an enforcement nightmare.    

While both Republicans and Democrats posture on Capitol Hill offering quick “solutions,” the “immigrant problem” calls for statesmanship, rationality, and measured response.      

Immigration is nothing new. We’ve developed reasonable legal processes before in our history. We can do it again. At a minimum, Congress should do the following:   

1--Recognize that the vast majority of immigrants do not want to come to the United States to blow it up. They want to come to secure the prospects of a better life for them and their children. They want freedom. So, stop demonizing immigrants for short-term political gain.     

2--Secure American borders from those who wish to do us harm. Reasonable response proposals already exist, awaiting leaders who can present and implement the ideas. Democrats need to get their heads out of the sand and acknowledge a real-world challenge exists. Republicans need to quit with extremist ideas like electrified fences.   

3--Develop a guest worker program that makes sense and is easy to administer. Everyone would win, immigrants, businesses, the American economy.    

4--Create a process through which illegal immigrants presently in this country can work systematically toward American citizenship and require them to do so. Workable reform proposals sit gathering dust awaiting Representatives and Senators with common sense and moral courage.    

5--Develop a better approach to teaching English as a second language and require immigrants seeking American citizenship to enroll, learn, and pass conversational English tests. This is not a form of cultural imperialism. It’s a practical economic and social necessity. Those who do not learn English are forever hindered in their ability to better their condition and support themselves.

The recently named “immigrants rights movement” needs to demonstrate leadership and established values as well. 

6--Convey immigrants’ desire to become Americans, not simply legally recognized residents of the United States. There’s a huge difference. Recognize assimilation is not a bad thing and doesn’t mean a person must reject his or her heritage. It means the person who wants to become a citizen works to develop basic knowledge and skills allowing him or her to function productively in this free country.   

I believe America’s shores should remain as open to freedom-loving and freedom-seeking people as, in a day of terrorism, we can make them. I do not believe that immigrants “drain our economy” or that they are “threats to the American way of life.” Perhaps a few maybe, but the flipside is that most immigrants bring talent, dreams, work ethic, and hope. Immigrants enrich the American culture and economy with their presence and contributions.      

I know it sounds hokey, but I still believe with Emma Lazarus, whose poem graces a plaque within the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty, that America remains a special place on earth:   

"Give me your tired, your poor, 

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, 

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. 

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, 

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

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, 2022   

*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.  

Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 22 July 2022

Can you remember a schoolteacher that made a special impact upon or contribution to your life? Did you know this kind of teacher is becoming increasingly rare?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #37 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.

Public education today, from kindergarten to graduate school is in serious trouble, and in many examples, moral free-fall.

Once a destination for international students the world over, due to the excellence in teaching, scholarship, and learning to be found there, now public institutions – in general, which is to say most of them – are hothouses of ideological discontent and sources of propaganda rather than truth, something many no longer even believe exists.

Public education today has been co-opted by the Left in ways I’m thinking the average person has no clue. And why would you?  

Unless you have children or youth in school now, unless you take the time to investigate—which since the online schooling that occurred during the lockdowns, began to happen—parents, and even more-so those with no connections to education, just don’t know how fast and how far public education has fallen.

Allow me to take a moment to emphasize that I am not, most definitely not, impugning the integrity or values of every teacher or professor or staff person serving in public education. Far from it.  

Among those who are standing firm for truth, critical thinking, First Amendment liberty, and morality, I think they are our new “First Responders.” These diligent teachers, professors, and staff members are the ones in positions to help children and youth before they are overwhelmed values contrary to science, history, religion, and common sense.

And not every school has surrendered its educational philosophy to the ideological Left to the extent of other schools.  But the exceptions are an endangered species.

Public education from kindergarten to graduate school is now home to: 

• equity of results not equality of opportunity, 
• LGBTQ orthodoxy and drag queen story hours, 
• gender as a social contract, 
• sexually explicit curricula in elementary schools, 
• climate change propaganda, 
• critical race theory promoted by the organization Black Lives Matter, a theory that oddly teaches racism as a means of eliminating racism, then argues endlessly for the absolutized values of diversity, inclusion, and equity, labeling anything not to their liking as white supremacy, 
• Woke political correctness and so-called micro aggressions, 
• Extensive politicization of sports, 
• hostility toward Christianity, 
• victim mentality, promoting victim hood, 
• casting aside science, reason, history, and biology, and often repress freedom of speech and diverse opinions.

Honestly, it is so bad in many public universities that I find it sad and disconcerting when I can’t get excited at the announcement that a friend’s son or daughter has gained entrance at a certain Public U. Some of the big-name schools are better known for their football programs—a sport I enjoy—than their academic programs, many of which have succumbed to anti-Americanism, promotion of abortion on demand and unfettered sexual expression, the class conflicts of cultural Marxism, and the worship of race.

Liberal education in American education was once an engine of free civilization and economic development. But liberal education—a concept once defined as "a philosophy of education that empowers individuals with broad knowledge and transferable skills, and a stronger sense of values, ethics, and civic engagement ... characterized by challenging encounters with important issues, and more a way of studying than a specific course or field of study” is now fast fading from the educational landscape.

Take this example: critical thinking was once a primary goal of liberal education. But now, in many public educational institutions, “critical thinking” really isn’t—or at least it isn’t what employers mean when they use the term. Organizations want people who can be objective and analytical, using logic and reason to solve problems. 

That’s what the term ‘critical thinking’ means to them, and what it has meant to most of us for decades…”

“Today, however, that is not at all what colleges and universities mean—or perhaps I should say, what most professors mean. ‘Critical thinking,’ for them, is a Marxist exercise in ‘critique,’ what Marx himself called ‘the ruthless criticism of all that exists.’ It seeks not to solve problems but to break down, or ‘deconstruct,’ all aspects of society, beginning with but not limited to language.”

So, colleges and universities are teaching students to deconstruct, to tear down, to reject traditional values, to rely on emotion over reason or evidence, to be victims, to believe life and society are unfair though they are entitled, to be in a continual state of anxious anger. Logic, reason, dispassionate observation, hypothesizing, experimentation, problem solving, and a search for truth are all passe, out the window.

Take this second example of the decline of liberal education: debate has given way to “dialogue.” There was a time when evidence, reason, and logic mattered. So genuine debate could take place. “Not so with the new orthodoxy. Here disagreement is an intolerable personal affront. It is construed as a denial of others, of their experience of who they are. It is a blasphemous assault on that most high god, “My Identity.” Truth-as-identity is not appealable beyond the assertion of identity.” 

The late Christian philosopher Francis A. Schaeffer pointed out this trend in the 1970s. He said, “’All A is A and all Non-A is Non-A and therefore A cannot be Non-A and Non-A cannot be A.’ This is the concept of thesis and antithesis. The concept that there is an absolute objective linear truth and that thesis and antithesis make a contrast.”

But the philosopher George Wilhelm Friedrich “Hegel showed up and said that thesis and antithesis shouldn't equal contrast, they should equal synthesis.

In other words, there are no absolute truths, there is no "right" thesis, only many ideas that may result in synthesis.”

“The loss of antithesis in American culture led to what Dr. Schaeffer coined the ‘line of despair’ or giving up all hope of achieving a rational unified answer to knowledge and life.”

As Schaeffer saw it, “Thesis is met by antithesis, and instead of one having to be true and the other false, both are reconciled to develop a synthesis. ‘The conclusion is that all possible positions are relativized and leads to the concept that truth is to be sought in synthesis rather than antithesis.’”

So, debate, a search for truth based upon merits of an argument, long one of the building blocks of real education, is now no longer acceptable, only dialogue =  endless discussion in search of consensus and some synthesized understanding of life. The problem with this is that it leads nowhere, only to power plays or despair.

Theologian Erwin Lutzer described the problem this way: “If we think we can fight against deceived culture by winning the war of ideas, we are mistaken. The best ideas do not win very often in a culture obsessed with empty utopian promises…The America we thought we knew is no more.”

This is the sad state of public education. It exists to educate but no longer remembers how, or why.

Again, to quote Lutzer: “In a time of universal deception, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

This is where the First Responders come in—teachers, professors, staff member, and yes, parents who have the courage of their convictions, who will stand for truth against ideological and intentional error. What’s at stake are the hearts and minds of our children and youth. What’s at stake is the soul of this country and the potential of its future.

I admire and salute public education First Responders who are standing in the face of a tsunami of philosophies intended to tear down rather than build up. Pray for and support these First Responders—public educators and staff members who know truth and still seek to make it known. They are standing in the gap for the future of our children and youth.

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, 2022   

*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.  

Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 19 July 2022

Can you remember your childhood pet like it was yesterday? Has any friend brought so much joy to your life?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #36 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 my wife was three and one-half years old and her sister just over seven, older sister witnessed to younger sister about accepting Jesus into her heart. “Let the little children come to me,” Jesus said, and little sister responded to the divine call. Though she was tender in years my wife the little sister has never doubted her salvation from that day till this.     

Older sister later continued her evangelistic efforts. Wanting to assure the entire family would be in heaven together some day, she enthusiastically witnessed to Shep, their beloved family dog. I’ve been told Shep lived a long and happy life but sadly no record remains attesting to his spiritual inclinations.

This is one of my favorite stories, partly I guess because it involves both the innocence of children comprehending profound truth and an animal. It’s an odd combination, I know, but one that’s poignant and amusing. Of course, the amusing part is picturing a child trying to lead a dog to the Lord.

I’ve loved animals as long as I can remember. Maybe it was growing up in a small town with my grandfather’s farm five minutes away in the nearby hills. Plenty of animals there. Or maybe it was our series of family pets. At one time or another we had a fish aquarium, cats, turtles, rabbits, and best of all, a sequence of dogs, Spunky, Peppie, and another Peppie.   

The last Peppie lived 13 years and was my dog, grade school to college. She was a mixed breed Beagle and Fox Terrier, so she was white with brown spots, floppy-eared like a Beagle but square-faced and wire-haired like a Fox Terrier. Peppie (Mom chose the name. Don’t Moms always name the pets?) was a good dog who disappeared immediately whenever someone, me, fired a gun. So, a hunter she was not. But she was a great companion who went everywhere else with me. She died when I was in college, and I still have her red collar. To this day, something periodically triggers, and I can miss that dog.    

A lot of people can relate stories like this. Animals, pets in particular, play a huge role in many of our families’ experiences. Animals, I think, are a gift from God.

In the Garden of Eden, God brought all the animals of creation to Adam, and Adam named them all (Genesis 2:19-20). Putting aside for the moment what this account implies about Adam’s IQ, let’s think about the animals.  

The Bible records God’s creation of animals, including birds and sea-faring creatures. The Bible indicates both before and after the flood that God placed animals within human care. The Bible provides detailed accounts of how God’s chosen people, the Israelites, shepherded, hunted, and sacrificed animals and then used animal products to develop food, clothing, and other useful material goods.

Further and importantly, the Bible gives us a glimpse of God’s attitude toward animals, saying, “For every animal of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills. I know every bird in the mountains, and the creatures of the field are mine” (Psalm 50:10-11).   

The Psalmist observes, “Even the sparrow has found a home, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she may have her young—a place near your altar, O Lord Almighty, my King and my God” (Psalm 84:3).

The book of Matthew records Jesus’ words:  “Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father” (10:29). And finally, during the end of the age, Isaiah tells us, “The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, but dust will be the serpent’s food. They will neither harm nor destroy” (65:25).

Animals are important to God. He created animals for his glory and for human enjoyment and sustenance. Animals are part of God’s ownership and our stewardship. Animals may be domesticated, cultivated, even hunted, yet must always be respected as God’s creatures.

With due respect to my sister-in-law’s youthful theology, though, I do not believe the Bible indicates that animals possess a God-consciousness, are capable of distinguishing right and wrong, thus capable of sinning, or are in need of forgiveness and salvation.  

Animals are animate, to state the obvious, but they are not human beings. Nor are human beings, animals. This is a distinction that’s sometimes blurred today, often with the good motive of caring for animals.

I’ve always been a little suspicious of people who don’t like animals—unless they have an allergy they can’t help. Don’t get me wrong. It’s a free country and God has blessed us with Christian liberty, so if you don’t like animals, it’s not a moral issue. Go and be well. But still, I hope you recognize how essential animals are to human life. 

Nature without animals would be as uninteresting as pizza without tomato sauce.  Think about it. No lightning bugs on summer evenings. No birds at the seashore. No old dog to come home to—who doesn’t care what kind of day you’ve had.  Without animals we could not live, and we certainly would not live as well.    

Animals are part of our human responsibility for stewarding the environment. So, cruelty of any kind is by definition needless and inappropriate. Wanton destruction, like the Old West practice of shooting bison from the train for fun, is immoral.  

Slaughtering animals to near extinction, like the African elephant or rhinoceros, for purposes of commercial greed is a form of robbing our children.    

Animals are capable of remarkable commitment even heroics based on instinct, but they do not worship in a church of their choice, do not develop civilization, and do not worry about retirement.  

Without animals, animal husbanding and farming, animal hunting, and animal research, human history would conceivably not have developed. Because of animal products we are better clothed, eat better meals, have developed disease-thwarting medicines, and in some cases have our lives extended. Animal products provided one incentive, and animals made possible, geographic exploration in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. They make possible biomedical exploration today.

A few times along the way I’ve seen pet cemeteries, often with considerable acreage and ornate monuments dedicated to the memory of Dog and Kitty. I’ve also read of individuals who’ve left considerable sums of money in their estates for the maintenance of their pets.   

I’m not necessarily opposed to Dog and Kitty receiving an expensive send-off. I certainly understand the sentiment a person can develop after years of relationship with a favorite pet.

When our kids were young, we had a big, especially tall, yellow Labrador Retriever. Pepsi lived to 13 years of age. He was a good, deep-voiced dog, who used to walk on the golf course across the road, “retrieve” rolling balls in his mouth, and run off with them. This practice, as you can imagine, endeared him to golfers. But a time came when he developed arthritis in his hips and could hardly get up and down. It was a sad trip to the veterinarian when the day finally came. So, I understand the feelings associated with loss of a favorite pet.

A joke that survives from the Old West is that a cowboy loved two things, his girl and his horse—he just wasn’t sure which he loved more. Animals get to us.       

What concerns me about the pet funeral and burial phenomenon is what it may say about our culture’s understanding of the afterlife and the value of an animal relative to a human being.      

There’s nothing in Scripture that suggests heaven will be an animal-free zone. We don’t know whether God will include animals in his eternal city; actually, I hope he does. We do know, as far as God has revealed, that Dog and Kitty don’t “go to heaven.” When an animal dies its existence ceases. Not so for a human being.    

When a human being dies, his or her soul lives on eternally. And according to the Bible this afterlife will take place either in heaven or hell, depending upon whether the departed has accepted Jesus Christ as Savior. Dog and Kitty may get their own graveyard in an affluent culture. But people live beyond the grave.  

The animal kingdom is part of God’s creation. As long as human beings steward animals wisely, as long as we respect them as a gift from God, and as long as we apply the knowledge gained from animals for God’s glory, we are acting properly. Animals, like all of creation, are to be enjoyed forever.       

We need not treat animals humanly but always must treat them humanely. We are not animals, but we should all be animal caretakers.  

Praise God for animals.  I still miss my childhood dog.

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, 2022   

*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.  

Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 11 July 2022

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling on the constitutionality of abortion, have you noticed the increasing heat aimed at Christianity and Christian? Has this ruling made it easier or more difficult for Christians to express their political views?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #35 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.

In the aftermath of the recent Supreme Court of the United States’ 6-3 decision in Dobbs vs Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the case that reversed the 1973 Roe v Wade abortion decision, those who oppose the decision have had a field day naming all the culprits responsible for what they consider a horrible step back in women’s rights. Among the principals considered a source of this move toward the “wrong side of history” are, of course, Prolife groups, Republicans, and Conservatives.

Still, I’ve noticed a marked increase in the vitriol and vehemence aimed at Christians. Some writers claim an anti-abortion perspective is simply religious fanaticism, that the Court itself is now on some kind of conspiratorial path toward turning America into a theocracy.

Others cite the Christian Nationalism movement, suggesting this push to declare Christianity America’s religion, eliminate separation of church and state, and wrap the Bible in the flag is the real source of America’s backward trends.

One writer said, “The wave of forced-birth zealotry at the Supreme Court and in state legislatures exemplifies the Christian nationalist view that the government should impose religious values (e.g., personhood begins at conception) on others, regardless of decades of precedent and of modern America’s moral, social and political values…The country will head further down the road of Christian nationalism unless the American people reject this theocratic crusade.”

According to those who fear the worst, the Dobbs ruling will embolden Christian groups to pursue their moral viewpoints, all of which are apparently inimical to a free, pluralistic society.

Still others somehow equate the Dobbs decision as a win for White supremacy, which recent race theorists have said are rooted in U.S. Christianity.

And there is a growing resistance to what have been called traditional or family values and morality. These values are not looked upon anymore as a strengthening source of moral social order but as restrictions, denials of freedom, even ipso facto anti-civil rights.

This view that access to abortion is now a civil right, synonymous with women’s or human rights is not unique to the United States. For example, shortly after the Dobbs decision, the European Union Parliament “overwhelmingly condemned the end of constitutional protections for abortion in the United States and called for such safeguards to be enshrined in the EU’s fundamental rights charter.” 

Abortion advocates want to make abortion integral to constitutional law in several countries so that it does “not fall victim to momentary changes in politics.” 

Journalists on the Left argue there exists a “'dark money' global empire of the U.S. Christian right, which is exporting its legal strategy, army of lawyers, and resources overseas to forestall and reverse international progress on abortion access.” All of the supporting organizations they mention, e.g., Alliance Defending Freedom, Family Research Council, the Federalist Society, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, and Focus on the Family are labeled Far Right or extremist organizations.

Rhetoric and political pushbacks are intensifying. The Dobbs case overruling Roe is something most abortion advocates never thought possible. They are frightened, shocked, and according to their views, righteously angry. So, their response is tapping every available tactic: exaggeration, deception, cancel culture, calls for protest and borderline calls for violent or at least aggressive acts against not only the Supreme Court as an institution but against individual Justices themselves, like recent stalking outside justices’ homes and harassment at dinner.

Lest I be guilty of a less than honest observation, though, I should add that prolife proponents have also, at times, been guilty of similar political excesses.

Several thoughts come to mind:

1. Not all Christians who oppose abortion are involved with or otherwise support Christian nationalism or various forms of so-called Christian extremism. Indeed, many reject these movements as unwise, unbiblical, and unconstitutional. So, abortion advocates smearing everyone who opposes abortion with this affiliation are being disingenuous.

2. It would be helpful if the public learned not to confuse Christians with Christianity. In other words, don’t make the mistake of thinking because Christians think or do something, including me, that this is representative of biblical Christianity. Lots of Christians, or those who nominally identify as such, hold a host of views and behave in ways that are not consistent with a biblically Christian worldview. So, the fact that some Christians have treated prochoice advocates in an egregious manner is sad and perhaps itself sinful. So, while Yes, it grieves me that Catholics President Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi advocate abortion rights, still, Christians, including me, need to apply the words of Scripture: “first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye” (Matt. 7:5).

3. Americans are increasingly and broadly supportive of abortion access. Multiple polls demonstrate this, and the support comes in all demographics, While discouraging this is not entirely unexpected because the American people are evidencing less understanding of biblical teaching and history, less interest in a Christian worldview, and less commitment to Judeo-Christian values each year.

4. The abortion battle is part of a larger worldview civil war that I have mentioned before in this space. Our country is split between those who believe in God and the Judeo-Christian values upon which the country was founded and from which it flourished v. those who either believe in a distant, uninvolved God or no God at all, either way yielding a moral relativism with no right and wrong, no truth, just temporal do what makes you happy.

I wish I could say that it’s all going to get better soon, that a new day will dawn when Americans one and all celebrate and protect life from the womb to the tomb. But I don’t think this will happen.

I wish I could say that acrimony and animosity will give way to amity. But I don’t think this will happen.

I can say that Christians have lived in and stood firm in difficult times before. I can say that Christ is coming, but not yet. And I can say that in the now, it is our time to let our light shine in darkness.

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, 2022   

*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.  

Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 07 July 2022

Have you wondered how in the world The Walt Disney Company, with its unsurpassed reputation for outstanding family entertainment, could come to believe its mission is to lead children to question their gender identity? Or how Disney determined that radically politicizing its image is somehow good for its “most admired company” bottom line?

Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #34 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. 

Founded in 1923, the Walt Disney Company is an American institution. Children and adults alike worldwide have enjoyed its entertainment products from cartoons to long-running favorite TV programs to feature films creating some of the most notable film characters in history.

Disney was a family company, launched and operated by brothers Walt and Roy, and developing experiences for family enjoyment on film and in their famous parks, copied but never really equaled.  

Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Goofy, Cinderella, Winnie the Pooh, Tigger, and Eyore, Pluto, and many more. The Mickey Mouse Club, Davy Crockett, Swiss Family Robinson, Old Yeller, Mary Poppins, The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast. The list of shows and movies and beloved characters are a playback of our lives for the past century. 

For the most part, what these productions had in common was their family-friendly content. If not always wholesome, certainly for the major part Disney programming was uplifting, morally suitable, patriotic, respectful, and classic Americana at its best.

But in recent days Disney has taken a hard left turn. What was once trusted family fare is now immorality masquerading as human rights.

For months, Disney incurred “a negative backlash for its choosing to enter the political fray of the Florida parental rights law…(and) Disney elected to spot-weld a same-sex kissing scene into “Lightyear” following the conflict in Florida, during the release.”

This didn’t just happen. It was not a mistake. Disney knew exactly what it was doing. The company followed the entertainment industry in which commercials now regularly feature same-sex couples in intimate arrangements, television programs and films portraying LGBTQ+ sexual relationships, and even comic books presenting characters whose sexuality is a topic in their stories.

Most of this entertainment media promotion of LGBTQ+ relationships is focused upon adults, but what makes Disney’s new emphasis especially egregious is its focus upon children. 

Disney “executives recruited the company’s most intersectional employees, including (and these are their words) a “black, queer, and trans person,’ a ‘bi-romantic asexual,’ and ‘the mother of one transgender child and one pansexual child’ and announced ambitious new initiatives—seeking to change everything from gender pronouns at the company’s theme parks to the sexual orientation of background characters in the company’s films.”

“Executive producer Latoya Raveneau laid out Disney’s ideology in blunt terms. She said her team was implementing a ‘not-at-all-secret gay agenda’ and regularly “adding queerness’ to children’s programming.” Another speaker indicated Disney has created a “tracker” to ensure enough trans, asexual, and bisexual characters are created. 

“Corporate president Karey Burke said she supported having ‘many, many LGBTQIA characters in our stories’ and reaffirmed the company’s pledge to make at least 50 percent of its onscreen characters sexual and racial minorities.” (City Journal).

The latest illustration of this company vision is “a scene from ‘Baymax!’ a Walt Disney Animation Studios production…raising eyebrows for normalizing the radical notion that men can have periods.

As noted earlier, the animated film “Lightyear” features a kiss between a same-sex couple. “At least 14 Middle Eastern and Asian nations have refused to release the film, while China has not yet said whether it will allow the movie unless the kissing scene is cut, which so far producers have refused to do.”

“What’s more, Tim Allen was replaced as the voice of Buzz by Chris Evans, who called those objecting to the smooching scene ‘idiots.’”

Meanwhile, “The Walt Disney Co. is the worst-performing stock in the Dow Jones Industrial Average for the past year. The stock plummeted 31 percent in the last 12 months. Disney has seen its stock drop the most on a percentage basis compared to the other 30 companies that comprise the Dow.”

Disney used to be a place of innocent fun, aspiration, a place where you could wish upon a star and lose yourself in a dreamworld of color and imagination. But no more. 

Parents are interested in a safe place for their children, so much so we’ve coined the phrase “safetyism” to indicate just how far young parents are willing to go to isolate their children from any conceivable threat. But Disney is attuned to this trend only insofar as it fits their new woke prime directive.

“Somewhere along the line Disney executives decided family values weren’t cool anymore. While they’ve been slowly purging those trusted values, we’ve grasped at anything good there was left to hold onto. But there is little to hold on to when Disney executives are no longer just purging family values, but aggressively attacking them altogether…They have been ill-advised, bullied, and intimidated into believing abandoning their core mission and alienating their consumer base is the “cool” thing to do.”

Disney’s eagerness to embrace identity politics and to virtue signal its views with moral superiority are writ large. It seems Disney executives believe they know better than parents or the public what’s best for children.

Disney leaders even admit they are trying to groom children. They have yielded to pressure from LGBTQ activists arguing that discussing detailed sexuality with children 5 to 9 years old is somehow a human rights issue.

And what Disney leaders want, like so many in media, is the accolades of their peers, most of whom have long since demonstrated they live by an areligious, amoral, “Do what’s right in your own eyes” worldview. 

Disney’s Magical Pride Days and LGBTQ Pride March are other examples of the company’s wholesale embrace of LGBTQ orthodoxy.

“Disney World and Disneyland have decided to ban the use of "gender greetings" within their parks — so the terms "boys and girls" and "ladies and gentlemen" will no longer be uttered by employees on Disney grounds.”

The company suggests that it must thread a needle of extreme political polarization of its staff and its customers. But this is only because it has bought into the idea it must speak on all matters of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” and that all sexual identity matters are civil rights issues. But once a company takes this fork in the road, it is no longer able to please everyone or anyone. Disney would be better off if it adopted the non-political stance most corporations and business tycoons historically observed, including Walt Disney himself.

Disney should “learn from the sports industry and realize American consumers don’t want agendasshoved down their throats, they just want to enjoy a good game and have fun at a park.”

Disney is the highest profile casualty so far in the worldview civil war. The company’s actions and continuing defensiveness aligns it with those who promote a worldview thoroughly at odds with the Judeo-Christian values upon which America was founded and flourished.

Disney is no longer a safe place for your children. It proselytizes for a set of values that are more about a kind of religious fervor for the sexual revolution than politics or civil rights.

In the end, though, it may be good to remind us all that Disney, like politics in general, is downstream of culture. What Disney is becoming, American culture already is. 

So, while boycotting Disney films or parks may be a defensible, even a good or wise option for some, this action won’t fix the problem. What we really require is revival in American culture.

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, 2022   

*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.