Author: Kerby Anderson

Kerby Anderson
Today is Labor Day. Although this day was set aside to honor trade and labor organizations, I believe it is a day when Christians can also consider how they view work and labor. The Bible has quite a bit to say about how we are to view work, and so I devote part of a chapter in my book, Making the Most of Your Money, to a biblical view of work.
First, we are to work unto the Lord in our labors. Colossians 3:23 says, “Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men.” We may have an earthly master (or boss) but ultimately, we are working for our heavenly Master.
Second, work is valuable. Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12 to “Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life and attend to your own business and work with your hands, just as we commanded you, so that you will behave properly toward outsiders and not be in any need.” He also warns in 2 Thessalonians 3:10 that “if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either.”
The Proverbs talk about the importance and benefits of work. Proverbs 12:11 says, “He who tills his land will have plenty of bread, but he who pursues worthless things lacks sense.” Proverbs 13:4 says, “The soul of the sluggard craves and gets nothing, but the soul of the diligent is made fat.” And Proverbs 14:23 says, “In all labor there is profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty.”
The Greeks and Romans looked upon manual work as a menial task that was only for slaves (or else for people of lower classes). The biblical view of work changed that ancient view because work and labor were combined with the idea of vocation and calling.
These ideas were reinforced in the Middle Ages through the gild movement and even expanded during the Reformation. Martin Luther, for example, taught that all work can be done for the glory of God. John Calvin taught that all should work because they were to serve as God’s instruments on earth. This led to what today is called the Protestant work ethic.
Let’s use this Labor Day to teach and reinforce biblical ideas of work.

Kerby Anderson
Does it seem like so many important systems aren’t working the way they are supposed to be working? Just think of the problems associated with airlines, supply chains, and electrical grids.
We live in a complex society where so many interconnected parts need to be working efficiently. And we need competent people running them. Harold Robertson persuasively argues that “Complex systems won’t survive the competence crisis.”
He explains, “America must be understood as a system of interwoven systems; the healthcare system sends a bill to a patient using the postal system, and that patient uses the mobile phone system to pay the bill with a credit card issued by the banking system.” He concludes that, if one part of this complex system fails, you have cascading consequences for it and all adjacent systems.
The reason for these failures, he believes, is due to the changing political mores of society. We have established a system of promoting unqualified people and sidelining the competent. “By the 1960s, the systematic selection for competence came into direct conflict with the political imperatives of the civil rights movement.” For many institutions (universities, corporations) diversity is more important than competence, Therefore, we have a competence crisis. Put another way, the weakest link is often the person in charge.
We shouldn’t be surprised that formerly stable systems are having accidents at a rate higher than the system can adapt. Unless we once again select people based on meritocracy rather than diversity, the problem will go from bad to worse.

Kerby Anderson
Are there long-term cycles that affect us? Unless you study history, it is difficult to see them. In a previous commentary, I quoted investor Ray Dalio who explained in his book, The Changing World Order, that he became more aware of long-term trends in the economy and made better financial decisions once he studied history. Here are three cycles that many analysts have been talking about.
The first is a 250-year revolutionary cycle. That last hit in the 1760s with the American Revolution and the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and free market capitalism. And 250 years prior to that was Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation.
The second cycle is an 80-year financial cycle. Some commentators argue that it used to be a 58-60-year cycle but is now an 80-year cycle. During this cycle, the economy moves through four seasons. These range from innovation to economic growth to an eventual economic correction.
The third cycle is a 50-year technology cycle. From 1870 to 1930, we had the development of electricity and the internal combustion engine. From 1930 to 1980 was a mass production cycle. The 1980 to 2030 cycle involved telecommunications and computer technology.
The interesting thing about these three cycles is they are all converging about now. Each cycle will bring about changes different from what came before it. I am reminded to the famous quote from Mark Twain who observed: “History never repeats itself, but it does rhyme.”
How should we respond? Like the sons of Issachar in the Old Testament we need to understand the times with knowledge of what we should do.”

Kerby Anderson
Alex Berenson recently wrote about the “First Freedom.” He was on my radio program four years ago to talk about stories he was investigating after having left the New York Times. That was before he began reporting on topics related to the pandemic and vaccine that were considered forbidden.
Perhaps now you can see why he writes about free speech. He has faced social media censorship by merely reporting the truth about the clinical trials of the vaccine.
To make his point, he takes us back 82 years to a State of the Union speech given by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The president talked about four essential human freedoms. The second freedom was religious, “the freedom of every person to worship God in his own way.” The third was “freedom from want.” The fourth was “freedom from fear.”
But the most important freedom according to the president was “freedom of speech and expression – everywhere in the world.” That was the first freedom. That is the First Amendment.
But Alex Berenson goes on to say that “freedom of speech” is really “freedom of thought.” If people can’t say openly what they think, they will be forced into a shadow world. He goes on to explain, “It doesn’t matter whether the speech is right or wrong, objectively true or false. Indeed, the First Amendment makes no reference to the truth or falsity of the speech it protects.”
He is concerned that 70 percent now favor restricting “false information” online and he isn’t even sure the New York Times believes in the First Amendment. Twitter eventually banned him. One of his offenses was accurately reporting on the results of Pfizer’s own clinical trial.
Most Americans, including Democratic presidents, used to believe in free speech. That doesn’t seem to be the case anymore.

Kerby Anderson
The phrase “trust the science” isn’t as popular in the culture as it has been in the past due to the recent revelations about inaccurate scientific statements during the pandemic. And the phrase “trust the science” isn’t as accepted as it was in the scientific community due to so many retractions.
The co-founders of Retraction Watch have been monitoring this problem for years. They found that only 40 scientific papers were retracted in the year 2000. But last year, 5,500 scientific papers were retracted. They concluded that only about a fifth of the retractions have been done due to an “honest error.”
The surge in bogus papers is driven in part by the reality that scientists need to “publish or perish.” But those pressures have been on academics for decades. A larger problem is the fact that many are turning to “paper mills” that sell manuscripts and other research projects to scientists needing to publish.
People are being harmed by these bogus papers. One anesthesiologist falsified data on an ineffective blood substitute that was widely cited in the literature. Patients were harmed by this false research.
Another aspect of this problem is illustrated by the so-called replication crisis. So many of the results published in scientific papers cannot be reproduced by other researchers. The University of Virginia attempted to reproduce five “landmark” cancer studies. It failed in one case and produced inconclusive results in two others. This suggests that “the science” in all these cases might be wrong.
It is becoming more and more difficult to “trust the science” when we discover how many scientific papers and scientific statements are wrong.

Kerby Anderson
China is not only a major threat in the world, but China is dying. Those two observations seem contradictory. But, they reinforce each other. The inevitable decline of China makes it more likely that the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party will act sooner rather than later.
Ben Shapiro pulls together five serious problems for China in a recent video. Here are his arguments, along with a few of my comments.
China’s first problem is demographics. China has become the fastest-aging society in all of human history. Due to its one-child policy, China has millions more adults than children.
Problem number two is a lack of innovation. If it were a free society, it would have a robust and innovative economy. But China has no innovation so it must steal intellectual property from other nations.
Debt is a third major problem for China. In previous commentaries, I have observed that any nation with a debt to GDP ratio over 130 percent eventually defaults. China has a ratio that is approaching 160 percent.
Problem number four is the military. Yes, China is threatening other countries with its military, but it’s falling behind because it is using older, less sophisticated microchips. China’s navy is effective in coastal zones but cannot project power in deep water.
A final problem is the fact that China is a dictatorship. This is a significant reason for the other problems. The country’s leaders do not allow freedom and innovation.
The harsh truth is that China cannot change its demographic reality or its economic reality. And it won’t change its political structure. It is a threat to the world, but it also looks like a nation about to collapse in the future.

Kerby Anderson
The crime wave in the Golden State has been in the news for many reasons, but two events stand out among the many others. Perhaps you have seen the video of robbery at a Nordstroms. Nearly 50 criminals ran off with an estimated $100,000 worth of merchandise, and this was the third robbery of a Nordstroms.
The other event that comes to mind was the protest from the Oakland branch of the NAACP calling out the “failed leadership” including the movement to “defund the police.” The protesters claimed that their crime wave was due to the district attorney’s failure to “prosecute people who murder and commit life threatening serious crimes.”
Why focus on crime in California? You may not live in the Golden State, but what is happening in California will arrive in your community if you don’t learn vicariously some lessons about criminal justice.
Charles Cooke asks, “Why has this happened? At least in part, it has happened because California decided to let it happen.” Voters passed Proposition 47 which changed felonies into misdemeanors if the amount stolen did not exceed $950. That made theft and shoplifting more profitable for the criminal.
In addition, some in law enforcement don’t want to enforce the law. The Oakland district attorney says she wants to decriminalize kids. Put another way, she wants to be a social worker, not a DA.
I would point out to the protesters and to the citizens of that state that they voted for a policy and put people in office which resulted in the latest crime wave. If you live in California, you have an opportunity to make some necessary changes in the next election. If you live somewhere else in the country, you should learn what not to do. This progressive experiment in criminal justice is not going well, and you don’t need to import it to your state.

Kerby Anderson
The latest tool of those involved in the cancel culture has been the use of “debanking.” This occurs when a prominent individual or organization is informed by their bank that they will no longer be allowed to use banking services.
Nigel Farage faced such a statement from his bank in the UK because he was perceived as a politically exposed person (PEP) due to his previous involvement in Brexit. The bank argued that their decision to close his account was because his bank account fell below is “wealth limit.” Farage admitted that his account was below the limit but said that had never been a problem in the past.
In this country, Dr. Joseph Mercola announced that his business bank accounts along with the accounts of his CEO and CFO and even the bank accounts of his family members were all closed. He has had accounts with the bank for 18 years but was shut down, he believes, because of his previous statements about the Covid vaccine.
The National Committee for Religious Freedom led by former US Ambassador Sam Brownback had its checking account canceled without notice. Although its advisory board includes former US Attorney General Jeff Sessions, former Alliance Defending Freedom President Michael Farris, and Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, the group was told they must disclose a list of donors and a list of candidates they intended to support if they wanted to the bank to reopen their account.
Perhaps you are noticing a pattern. These banks aren’t closing the accounts of progressive individuals or politically liberal groups. They aren’t prying into the rosters of any other advocacy groups.
That is why some members of Congress are ready to investigate these latest examples of debanking. They pose a threat to free speech and religious liberty.

Kerby Anderson
I recently saw an interview with E.B. Tucker, who usually talks about the economy and investments. He referred to a recent article about “The Good Old Days of 2023” in which he encouraged all of us to enjoy our families and our freedom.
The reason he wants us to enjoy ourselves now is due to his fear of a future digital dystopia, which he locates ten years from now. The Tesla 6000 we drive drops us at the office and then returns to the fleet of self-driving rental cars. Average people don’t own cars. They have eight cameras on the exterior and one on the interior collecting data on you. The same is true of your home. “It’s wired like an NSA safehouse.” He says it is more like a tattletale rather than a safe space.
But the most significant change is the use of the FedCoin. There’s still money, but most purchases are made with this digital money which tracks every dollar in existence. Suppose you want to eat some meat, not the stuff manufactured in a factory, but real cow meat. You try to buy it and your FedCoin wallet flashes a red X. You are prohibited from buying meat.
He suggests that a cyberpanic in the future ended paper money. A new federal Department of Digital Safety issued safe domains to authorized companies. The FedCoin was promoted to eliminate counterfeiting and tax avoidance. It also gave the government ultimate control because the digital money could be switched on and off.
His future scenario shows how surveillance cameras and digital money give authorities unprecedented power. All of this is promoted as a way towards a digital utopia, though it strikes me as a digital dystopia. This doesn’t have to happen, but in order to stop it, we must rein in power-hungry politicians and bureaucrats who desire to control every aspect of our lives.

Kerby Anderson
In this country, we have a division between the elite and the rest of society. In a recent op-ed in the New York Times, David Brooks asks a question of this elite class: “What if We’re the Bad Guys Here?” He has his peers consider a different story.
“This story begins in the 1960s, when high school grads had to go off to fight in Vietnam, but the children of the educated class got college deferments. It continues in the 1970s, when the authorities imposed busing on working-class areas in Boston but not on the upscale communities like Wellesley where they themselves lived.”
He reminds us that the elite have taken over whole professions and thereby locked everyone else out. He even describes his own profession of journalism. Most working in the media today come from one of the most elite universities in the nation.
He quotes Daniel Markovits whose book, The Meritocracy Trap, explains that “elite graduates monopolize the best jobs and at the same time invent new technologies that privilege superskilled workers, making the best jobs better and all other jobs worse.”
Armed with so much power, he argues that elites “support policies that help ourselves. Free trade makes the products we buy cheaper, and our jobs are unlikely to be moved to China. Open immigration makes our service staff cheaper, but new, less-educated immigrants aren’t likely to put downward pressure on our wages.”
David Brooks doesn’t believe they are the “bad guys,” but at least provides some insight into why so many Americans feel they have been left behind and live in a world that benefits the elites often to the detriment of the rest of society. This next election will determine if this changes or continues.

Kerby Anderson
This country received a financial downgrade earlier this month. In one sense it was justified. In another, it was absurd. Fitch Ratings reduced America’s financial status because of the increasing amount of national debt piled up by Congress and the president.
This is no small issue. The other day, I read that nearly all (98%) nations that have surpassed a 130 percent debt-to-GDP ratio in the last 225 years eventually defaulted. We exceeded that percentage for a short time a few years ago. The Congressional Budget Office expects federal government debt held by the public to reach 115 percent of GDP this decade.
Although the downgrade was justified, it is also absurd because it supposedly is based upon the ability or inability of a nation to meet its debt obligations. The likelihood of the federal government going into default is non-existent, at least for now. The Treasury and the Federal Reserve can create money to pay back sovereign debt.
The $2 trillion from the CARES Act helped to rescue the economy. But this administration didn’t want to go back to normal. Instead, the American Rescue Plan, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and the so-called Inflation Reduction Act pumped trillions more into the economy, setting off nine percent inflation. There is no evidence that this administration is willing to cut back spending.
Perhaps the most puzzling part of the Fitch downgrade was the concern over the “debt-limit political standoffs.” Yet, those are often the only times when some members of Congress use the threat of default to restrain spending.
The financial downgrade should be a wake-up call but unfortunately, the president and many in Congress merely hit the snooze button.

Kerby Anderson
Tim Busch begins his commentary with this quote: “We don’t want to convert the young people to Christ or to the Catholic Church or anything like that.” He then asks, who said this? Not an atheist. Not a defender of the separation of church and state. Not even a member of another religion.
It was spoken by a leader in the Catholic church. No matter what your denominational background (Catholic, Protestant, etc.), you can probably see the issue. We have a loss of courage and conviction. He observes that “many religious believers are losing the courage to defend their beliefs. Yet modern society desperately needs vibrant faith communities that stand strong for timeless principles and deeper truths.”
We are facing threats to the sanctity of human life and threats to the institutions of marriage and family. We are facing threats to our ability to practice our religious beliefs, though we have recently enjoyed many victories for religious liberty in the courts. And he concluded that one of the biggest threats facing modern society is the rise of transgenderism.
His question is appropriate: “Will religious believers take the heat without melting? Many are, but others are not.” He points to religious hospitals facing pressure to accept transgenderism and concludes that we “make clear that changing genders is impossible and wrong.”
His observations and conclusions are what we have been discussing on radio for the last few years. It has become even more important for Christians to develop biblical discernment when so many issues and principles are up for debate. And it is equally important for Christians to develop biblical courage to act on those biblical convictions.
I agree with his assessment that religious believers need to address these social issues that will determine the direction America takes. It is time for Christians to show courage.

Kerby Anderson
Is the idea of “The Great Reset” merely a conspiracy theory? That seems unlikely given the fact that if you type in those three words in a search engine, you will find more than 900 million hits.
Last year the founder of the World Economic Forum co-authored and published a book called COVID-19: The Great Reset. The authors see the current situation in the world as a means of dealing with the “weaknesses of capitalism” supposedly exposed during the pandemic.
But to understand the history of “The Great Reset,” you need to go back to 2010 when urban studies scholar Richard Florida wrote a book with that title. He argued that the 2008 economic crash was the latest in a series of great resets that included the Great Depression of the 1930s. A few years later, the book and its ideas became the basis for wanting to “push the reset button” on the world economies.
Today, it is probably fair to say that the phrase “The Great Reset” means different things to different people. Environmental groups want to reset how we use resources and focus on sustainability. Business leaders want banks and corporations to use an ESG index (environmental, social, and governance index). Globalists want to reset the economy and move us toward what has been called “stakeholder capitalism,” or what others have called “communist capitalism.”
Critics talk about some of the other factors associated with “The Great Reset.” That would include such things as the promotion of uncontrolled immigration along with significant money printing. That results in problems like open borders and uncontrolled inflation.
The phrase “The Great Reset” may mean different things to different people. And as you can see, some of the ideas associated with it are bad for our country and us.

Kerby Anderson
Let me introduce you to a word that is probably new to you but will probably be used much more in the future. Decades ago, when I talked about concepts like “secular humanism” or the “New Age Movement” on radio, I think most listeners wondered why I was talking about such philosophical concepts. But they soon learned how important they were.
The word is “panopticon.” It is used in two YouTube videos I’ve seen and is used many times in one of the books I am reading. The idea was formulated by the philosopher Jeremy Bentham, who wanted to construct a way in which a watchman could keep an eye on lots of prisoners in a prison. A central tower was surrounded by cells with a bright light shining from it, so the prisoners were unable to see the watchman. Therefore, they had to assume they were always under observation.
The word panopticon is now being used to describe our world of digital surveillance. You might think that this is merely another way to describe “Big Brother” in the book, Nineteen Eighty-Four, but there is a significant difference. The primary tools in that totalitarian state were posters and huge “telescreens,” which were a constant reminder you were being watched.
The Big Brother metaphor fails to capture what is happening in our current age of surveillance. We never know who is listening or when they are listening. People in China know the government is watching and listening and even giving them a social credit score. In this country, we know government and corporations are watching and listening to us through our phones, computers, smart watches, and even through security cameras. But we are never sure who is watching and when because we live in a digital panopticon.

Kerby Anderson
Belief in God is back. That is the claim that Justin Brierley makes in his book, The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God. He was on my radio program recently to talk about his book that will be out next month.
He has welcomed atheists and agnostics on his Unbelievable program and heard the arguments against the Christian faith. He has also noticed that these arguments, often voiced by the New Atheists, have not made the impact these skeptics assumed they would make. They expected that their arguments would end Christianity permanently.
The standard view has been that a “long withdrawing roar” of the “Sea of Faith” would be swept away by a rising secularism in society. While that has been true in a general way, Justin has noticed that the tide may be coming back again. He points to such notables as Douglas Murray, Jordan Peterson, Tom Holland, and Dave Rubin. They have found themselves surprised by the continuing resonance and relevance of Christianity.
I also find it interesting, and discussed this with him on the program, that we see many people leaving the faith and “deconstructing” their faith at a time when we have the best evidence for our faith. Evidence for the reliability of the Bible comes from archaeology and biblical manuscripts. Evidence for the existence of God comes from scientific discoveries of the fine-tuning of the universe and the intricate design in biological systems.
His book documents the decline of the New Atheism and the revival of faith coming from science, history, and culture. Much of this new wave of faith is coming from the search for meaning in this 21st century world. The tide is coming, and the church needs to be ready.

Kerby Anderson
Greg Koukl was on my radio program recently and has a book coming out next month that will help you better engage non-believers in conversations on several different topics. The title of the book is Street Smarts and is a follow-up to his best-selling book, Tactics.
His Tactics book has been so helpful to Christians. It equips them to be diplomatic by asking questions that not only gather important information but also help point out logical flaws with the ideas expressed by non-Christians. Engaging others in controversial conversations is difficult and challenging. His previous book provides a conversational roadmap for those conversations.
In Street Smarts, Greg Koukl begins by explaining the difference between the harvesting approach (reaping) and a gardening approach (sowing). J. Warner Wallace, in his endorsement of the book, uses a baseball metaphor and contrasts trying to hit a home run with hitting singles and doubles. This strategy enables you to engage in conversations that you never thought you would have by asking others to defend their positions and consider a viewpoint they may never have considered.
The following chapters provide specific examples from discussions you might have “on the street” with friends, family, neighbors, or coworkers. I found the sample mini-dialogs helpful because they showed how you might ask questions to gain more information or how you might use questions to identify flaws in other’s logic or parry their attacks on Christianity.
Whether you are an experienced evangelist and apologist or merely an inexperienced new Christian, you will benefit from both books. I would encourage you to pre-order Street Smarts. I have already done so and know you will benefit from the years of experience that resulted in this book.

Kerby Anderson
The “world is on fire.” That is the repeated claim of environmental activists who claim that fires are increasing worldwide due to climate change. But is that statement true? Satellites have (for more than two decades) been recording fires on the surface of this planet. We know more about the global phenomenon than ever before.
Bjorn Lomborg reminds us that the “data are unequivocal: Since the early 2000s, when 3 percent of the world’s land caught fire, the area burned annually has trended downward.” In the last year (2022) for which we have complete data, the world hit a new record low in terms of burned area. Of course, you wouldn’t know this by reading news accounts or watching television news programs.
Three years ago, I devoted a commentary debunking the claim that the terrible brush fires in Australia were made worse by climate change. At the time, I suggested a simple test. If the pattern in Australia was due to climate change, then you might expect to see the same pattern worldwide. A global survey of wildfire activity back then found less fire activity, not more.
The Canadian wildfires this year certainly got our attention since the smoke covered large parts of the northeastern US. The Canadian prime minister and the US president blamed climate change. But you find the same phenomenon I mentioned years ago. Yes, more land was burned this year in North America, but the rest of the world has seen lower burning.
The latest headlines about fires are reminiscent of the previous headlines about the future extinction of polar bears due to climate change. We don’t hear much about the polar bears these days perhaps because they are more populous than at any time in the last half-century.
The “world is on fire” makes for a scary headline, but it isn’t accurate science.

Kerby Anderson
An increasing number of Americans believe that “force [is] justified to restore abortion rights.” A survey from the University of Chicago’s Project on Security and Threats found that the percentage of Democrats willing to use violence to promote abortion rose from 8 percent to 16 percent since January. Put another way, that means that 31 million Americans support the use of violence to reinstate pro-abortion laws.
Ben Johnson, writing about this in the Washington Stand, reminds us that these numbers are more than just theoretical support for abortion-based violence. “There have been at least 67 attacks against pro-life pregnancy resource centers since the still-unsolved leak of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision last May.” On my radio program, I documented many of these attacks and interviewed pro-life leaders at these centers.
Churches have also been attacked. Family Research Council has documented a total of 543 attacks against churches between January 2018 and March 2023. It also has estimated that at least 57 of those attacks have been abortion-related assaults.
Even more disturbing was the statement from the Department of Homeland Security. It “warned that churches face an elevated threat of violence until at least the 2024 election, 15 months from now, due to their stance on sociopolitical issues.”
The survey also discovered that a majority (52%) of Americans believe “elections will not solve our most fundamental political and social problems” and that constitutes a dangerous “deep distrust of democracy.” If you see abortion as your right and aren’t convinced that the next election will change anything, it is easy to see why leftists promote violence.

Kerby Anderson
Can you be fired for teaching basic biology? That seems to be the case with Professor Johnson Varkey who was fired for “teaching standard principles about human biology and reproduction.” First Liberty Institute is defending him and has filed a complaint with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) naming St. Philip’s College in San Antonio, Texas.
On my radio program, we talked with several of the lawyers from First Liberty about the case. The professor has taught Human Anatomy and Physiology to more than 1,500 students since 2003. He has always received positive student feedback.
But the student world is changing. You can be considered bigoted for teaching that sex is determined by X and Y chromosomes. Students walked out of his class, complained, and he received a letter of termination in January. Teaching basic biology was labeled as “discriminatory about homosexuals and transgender individuals.”
Although Professor Varkey is a Christian, it is worth noting that many non-Christians are frustrated with attempts by faculty and students to misrepresent basic biology. Back in February, I did a commentary about a secular, evolutionary biology professor at Williams College frustrated that some of her fellow science professors were teaching that sex (not gender) is on a continuum. She pointed to an obvious fact of biology: “sexes are defined by the size of their gametes—that is, their reproductive cells. Large gametes occur in females, small gametes in males.”
The complaint to the EEOC argues that what was done to him by the college is wrong and that he should be able to get his job back. Colleges should not be firing professors for teaching actual science, even if that teaching also aligns with the professor’s religious beliefs.

Kerby Anderson
The latest survey done by Pew Research documents that most Americans don’t care about free speech. The share of US adults who say the federal government should restrict false information rose from one-third (38%) in 2018 to more than a majority (55%) this year.
If you dig into the demographics of the survey, you also find that Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (70%) are much more likely than Republicans and Republican-leaners (38%) to support the US government restricting information online. It is also worth mentioning that there was virtually no difference between the two parties in 2018.
Dennis Prager adds several conclusions based upon this survey. First, the most important human freedom is freedom of speech. He explains that “free speech is what makes the pursuit of truth possible and makes the advancement of science possible”.
Second, he observes that “America has been the freest country in the world for all of its history.” Unfortunately, this survey illustrates why many of us believe that is changing.
His third and fourth observations fit together. “Free speech is seriously threatened for the first time in American history” and “The threat to free speech comes entirely from the Left.” These observations might sound radical, but I have discussed the basis for them in previous commentaries.
Dennis Prager has documented these observations many times in his writings. He also adds that, “There is no example in history of the Left attaining power and allowing free speech,” and gives numerous historical examples to prove his point.
We should be concerned when a majority of our fellow citizens feel it is appropriate for politicians and bureaucrats to censor what they may deem as false information.