Viewpoints with Kerby Anderson

Kerby Anderson
Perhaps you have seen the news article, “Details about Jesus’ childhood revealed in 2,000-year-old manuscript.” The article explains this is the earliest known copy of a story about Jesus performing a miracle. The fragment was discovered on an ancient Egyptian manuscript.
What they are talking about is what has been called the “Infancy Gospel of Thomas.” This book is not a gospel and was not written by the Apostle Thomas. In fact, it should not even be confused with the so-called Gospel of Thomas. These are second century Gnostic writings that were never considered to be part of the biblical canon.
If you read the story, you will discover that it is likely that the fragment was probably written as a part of a class exercise in a school or religious community in the fourth or fifth century in Egypt. They conclude that because of the clumsiness of the handwriting.
We could stop there, but there are many other reasons to ignore this recent discovery. It is a 1,600-year-old fragment, not a 2,000-year-old manuscript. Even if we had the original manuscript, there are reasons to ignore it. It wasn’t written by an apostle or disciple nor was it accepted as Scripture by the early church.
The story spins a fanciful tale of a young Jesus turning clay pigeons into live birds. More concerning is the fact that much of the story contradicts the biblical picture of Jesus. He isn’t sinless but something of an out-of-control brat. He curses and even kills people who offend him, although he supposedly raised two of them from the dead.
There is no reason to believe that any of the story in the “Infancy Gospel of Thomas” is true. It isn’t worth your time to read or consider.

Kerby Anderson
Perhaps the most disappointing Supreme Court ruling this last session dealt with the real concern about social media censorship. The justices chose not to decide the case supposedly because the plaintiffs lacked standing. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote: “We begin—and end—with standing…. We therefore lack jurisdiction to reach the merits of the dispute.”
The other argument dealt with the issue of “traceability.” Although numerous federal agencies did attempt to censor social media posts and people, Big Tech didn’t always take their advice. Justice Barrett argues that the platforms “had independent incentives to moderate content.” That is a poor argument. As one commentator put it, the government couldn’t be held responsible “because the platforms only followed through with government flags or requests at a roughly 50% clip.”
In his dissent, Justice Samuel Alito did acknowledge that “what the officials did in this case was more subtle than the ham-handed censorship found” in another case the High Court decided. In fact, he argued, “because of the perpetrators’ high positions, it was even more dangerous. It was blatantly unconstitutional, and the country may come to regret the Court’s failure to say so.”
This is a disappointing ruling especially since we have the revelations from the “Twitter files” that show emails and subsequent decisions by Twitter and Facebook to censor content. Also, the House Weaponization Subcommittee has released reports showing federal agencies working with nonprofits to coerce Big Tech into curtailing certain forms of speech.
There will be other Supreme Court cases concerning social media censorship, but this was a missed opportunity.

Kerby Anderson
Last July, I wrote a brief commentary about what has been called Chevron deference. This is the idea that the court should always give deference to an administrative agency when it interprets an ambiguous statute.
The recent 6-3 Supreme Court ruling dealt a significant blow to the administrative state and the power wielded by federal bureaucrats. One of the legal guests on my radio program concluded that it may have been the most significant case in this session of the Supreme Court. If you think the “deep state” has too much power and has become unaccountable, you will probably agree.
The concept goes back to the Supreme Court’s 1984 opinion in Chevron v. National Resources Defense Council. They argued that the courts must defer to a federal agency’s interpretation. In the case before the high court was the argument from commercial fishermen that a government agency charged them even though Congress did not give the agency authority to do so.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion and explained that “most fundamentally, Chevron’s presumption is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do.”
The counter argument is that the courts, or even Congress, lack the technical expertise to evaluate statutes and policies. In some cases, that may be true. But it does not follow that those decisions should be made by unelected bureaucrats currently working in the bowels of the Biden administration. If they make a flawed interpretation, as I mentioned in my previous commentary, there’s nothing Americans can do to fire that bureaucrat.
This was an important Supreme Court decision, even if most Americans don’t yet understand its importance.

Penna Dexter
New data from the Gallup organization finds just under half of U.S. adults describing themselves as religious. In the same survey, 33% say they are spiritual, but not religious, and 18% are neither.
It’s increasingly apparent that we live in a post-Christian society.
Evangelist Sam Chan explains: “This is why evangelism is so scary and awkward….What worked in the age of Christendom seems ineffective in our post-Christian age.”
In his book, How to Talk About Jesus (without being THAT guy), Dr. Chan suggests listening closely to people to “hear where they’re coming from — culturally, emotionally, and existentially” and then appropriating their language to “show them that Jesus is the one they’re looking for.”
The apostle Paul did that. Acts 17:22-31 recounts his speech to the Areopagus. These were Athenian philosophers, who would gather at a hilltop called the Areopagus, or Mars Hill. This place for discussion was the marketplace of society where men traded in ideas. Like Paul, we should think about evangelism as beginning where people are, physically, and also intellectually and spiritually.
Our guide through Greece, David Sparks, emphasized that our message should be captivating, relevant to the times and to each person’s needs and mindset. Paul told the Areopagus he could see that they were “very religious.” He mentioned their altar bearing the inscription: “To the unknown god.” He proceeded to explain who this god is, that he is our creator and that “he is actually not far from each one of us.”
Pastor Sparks said Paul “used an old and frequent pattern in the Greek language”, when he proclaimed: ”In him we live and move and have our being.”
Paul’s love for people fueled his concern that they were trapped in the idolatries of the day. Today, our idols are different. We must be sensitive as we point them out.
We can follow Paul’s pattern for evangelism in a pagan society. 

Kerby Anderson
One book that documents the Judeo-Christian foundations of America is the book, On Two Wings, written by Michael Novak. He the author of more than thirty books and was awarded the $1 million Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion.
In his preface, he says, “Although I have wanted to write this book for some forty years, my own ignorance stood in the way. It took me a long time, time spent searching up many byways and neglected paths, and fighting through a great deal of conventional (but mistaken) wisdom, to learn how many erroneous perceptions I had unconsciously drunk in from public discussion.” He concludes that “most of us grow up these days remarkably ignorant of the hundred men most responsible for leading this country into a War for Independence and writing our nation’s Constitution.”
The way American history has been told for the last century is incomplete. Secular historians have “cut off one of the two wings by which the American eagle flies.” The founding generation established a compact with the God of Israel “and relied upon this belief. Their faith is an indispensable part of their story.”
One example can be found in yesterday’s discussion of the Declaration of Independence. While secular historians point to John Locke as the source of the ideas embodied in Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, they usually fail to note the older influence of other authors and the Bible.
“Before Locke was even born, the Pilgrims believed in the consent of the governed, social compacts, the dignity of every child of God, and political equality.” By forcing a secular interpretation onto America’s founding history, these secular historians ignore the second wing by which the American eagle took flight.
It’s time to look at the two wings of our history.

Kerby Anderson
Today is the 4th of July, and I thought I would take a moment to talk about the origin of the ideas in the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson said that many of the ideas in the Declaration came from John Locke. Jefferson also gave credit to the writer Algernon Sidney, who in turn cites most prominently Aristotle, Plato, Roman republican writers, and the Old Testament.
Legal scholar Gary Amos argues that Locke’s Two Treatises on Government is simply Samuel Rutherford’s Lex Rex in a popularized form. Amos says in his book Defending the Declaration “that the ‘law of nature’ is God’s general revelation of law in creation, which God also supernaturally writes on the hearts of men.”
This foundation helps explain the tempered nature of the American Revolution. The Declaration of Independence was a bold document, but not a radical one. The colonists did not break with England for “light and transient causes.” They were mindful that Romans 13 says they should be “in subjection to the governing authorities” which “are established by God.” Yet when they suffered from a “long train of abuses and usurpations,” they argued that “it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government.”
Jefferson also drew from George Mason’s Declaration of Rights (published on June 6, 1776). The first paragraph states that “all men are born equally free and independent and have certain inherent natural Rights; among which are the Enjoyment of Life and Liberty, with the Means of Acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining Happiness and Safety.”
The Declaration of Independence is more than 200 years old. It was a monumental document at the time. Even today its words ring with truth and inspire new generations.

Kerby Anderson
When two boys are wrestling in the living room and break something, a parent is sure to say: “This is why we can’t have nice things.” Christian Schneider applies this to society at large arguing “We Can No Longer Have Nice Things.”
He opens with a story about The Portal, which is a public technology sculpture. It beams live video from the streets of New York City to Dublin, Ireland. It was one of several planned “portals” meant to virtually teleport people across the globe. It was supposed to be “a symbol of unity and wonder that draws in crowds from far and wide.” It was built to last for centuries. It only lasted six days. People in New York and Dublin broadcast middle fingers and body parts.
This is just one example of the decline of decorum and civility in our society. America’s culture is fraying. He talked about stores having problems with self-checkout lanes. Some stores will limit the lanes to people who pay a $98 annual fee.
During the pandemic, food chains set up online systems so customers could order on their phones, pay for it, and then pick it up off the shelf. Unfortunately, many people are grabbing the meals off the shelf. That happened to me when I ordered dinner for my family at McAlister’s.
Recently, “Disneyland and Disney World had to crack down on the rapidly growing number of people who claimed disability status in order to avoid long wait times on the rides at their amusement parks.” Apparently, this trick was promoted on social media so people could game the system.
And as I write this, a news story just dropped about climate activists disturbing another athletic event. And don’t even think about letting these activists into an art museum.
When a society is in cultural decline, you can no longer have nice things.

Kerby Anderson
The other day, I saw a TV commercial for the March of Dimes which reminded me that I should do a commentary on what has been called the “March of Dimes Syndrome.” In my government classes, we often talked about it as a textbook example of goal succession. The March of Dimes was created in the 1930s to combat polio. By the 1950s, we had the polio vaccine. But instead of going out of business, the March of Dimes transitioned to other causes.
John Tierney wrote about how “The March of Dimes Syndrome” manifests itself in many social causes today. He argues that “the better things get, the more desperately activists struggle to stay in business.” We have seen this recently during pride month. If you didn’t know any better, you would think homosexuals are facing massive discrimination. After all, the Human Rights Campaign declared a “national state of emergency” last year for LGBTQ people.
Anti-sodomy laws were erased decades ago. Same-sex marriage was legalized by the Supreme Court and is supported by a majority of Americans. Gay characters can be found on TV, movies, and in commercials. And don’t you dare decline to bake a cake for a gay couple.
Another example he mentions is civil rights. There has been significant success since Martin Luther King, Jr. and others marched for equal rights and against segregation. The Southern Poverty Law Center used to sue members of the Ku Klux Klan. But then, there weren’t many to sue, so it began labelled all sorts of Christian organizations as hate groups.
There are many other examples. You can tell when a group is getting close to reaching its goal. That is when it increases its apocalyptic language and tells you the sky is falling. That’s why you need some discernment during these polarizing times.

Kerby Anderson
Is much of the transgender ideology backfiring? Consider this recent poll by Pew Research. For the last seven years, they have been asking this question: “Which statement comes closer to your views? A) Whether someone is a man or a woman is determined by the sex they were assigned at birth, or B) Someone can be a man or a woman even if that is different from the sex they were assigned at birth.”
I acknowledge that the question is a bit convoluted and even uses the term “assigned at birth.” Even so, the percentage of Americans who picked the first option (we are determined by the sex assigned at birth) rose from 54 percent in 2017 to 65 percent today. Notice that this increase from a majority to nearly two-thirds took place when Americans have been pummeled with lots of transgender propaganda.
Byron York is the chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner. He reported that at last year’s Transgender Day of Visibility, the White House released a list of 42 action and policy initiatives the Biden Administration has taken to support transgender people. He also reminds us that “the Biden White House has gone all out even at a time when doctors in Europe have expressed growing concern about the lasting damage caused by the irreversible medical treatments known in some circles as gender-affirming care.”
I am convinced that transgender ideology is backfiring. President Biden has put his full weight behind transgenderism, and the mainstream media have spent many hours promoting transgenderism. Yet the American people are less likely to accept some of tenets of transgender ideology than just a few years ago.

Penna Dexter
On a recent trip to Greece, I learned that during the Athenian Golden Age, 449-431 BC, there emerged a fervent belief in the ability of man. 
Our tour leader, David Sparks explained the development of democracy in ancient Greece, which culminated in Athens taking power from the hands of a single ruler or aristocratic ruling class and redistributing that power to all male citizens regardless of social or economic status. “Each male citizen over eighteen was allowed participation in the Assembly, the legislative body that elected magistrates and created legislation.”
It’s hard to overstate the importance of this “shift from rule-by-the-few to rule-by-the-many.” This idea, democracy, is foundational to our government and culture. Sometimes our leaders forget that.
Nine years ago this week the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a landmark ruling that violates the very principles of democracy. 
In the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, the Court struck down all state laws specifying that marriage is the union between one man and one woman, bringing legal same sex marriage to every state. 
When you get a bad decision from the Supreme Court, it’s worth reading the dissenting opinion. In this case each of the four dissenting justices wrote his own. All lamented the damage the ruling does to democracy. The dissenters agreed, the question in this case was not whether same-sex marriage is a good idea, but who should decide. It should not have been the Court, but the people and their elected legislators.
Chief Justice Roberts spoke of the sheer arrogance of the ruling, saying: 
“The Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the states and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia.” He wondered: “Just who do we think we are?”
Since then, the Left has pulled out all the stops to force acceptance of same sex marriage into law and policy.

Kerby Anderson
The latest polls show a moral slide of generations. A good example can be found in George Barna’s American Worldview Inventory 2024. He concludes that “what Millennials began, Generation Z is accelerating.” This is a generational transformation of this country’s moral landscape.
Let’s begin at the top level and then work down to specific moral issues. The percentage of Americans who have a biblical worldview has been declining over five consecutive generations. The number of adults with a biblical worldview plummeted from 12 percent to 4 percent today.
A majority of adults accept lying, abortion, gay marriage, and consensual sexual intercourse between unmarried adults. This is due in large part because they reject the concept of absolute moral truth. And less than half of all adults embrace the Bible as their primary guide to morality.
Let’s look at some specific issues. A majority (54%) of Millennials say telling a lie is of minor consequence in order to protect your personal best interests or reputation. And six in ten of Gen Z also believe that is morally acceptable. Two-thirds (67%) of Millennials endorse abortion, and a slightly higher percentage (69%) of Gen Zs endorse abortion.
Two decades ago, two-thirds of Boomers did not support gay marriage. Today more than six in ten (61%) endorse two people of the same biological sex getting married. Those percentages are even higher for Gen X, Millennials, and Gen Z. We also can find similar increasing percentages from one generation to another concerning premarital sex. This ranges from 59 percent for Boomers to 73 percent for Gen Z.
The first step back to a moral foundation is to make sure we teach biblical morality in our families and within the church.

Kerby Anderson
How effective will the political campaigns this fall appeal to young voters? Most don’t like the fact that 2024 looks like 2020. And as one of my radio guests explained: “I am 28, and I am not excited about having a candidate running who is the reverse of my age (82).”
New polling from Democratic firm Blueprint shows how skeptical and disillusioned young voters are about their choices for president and members of Congress and the state legislatures. Registered voters 18-30-years-old were polled by asking them to respond to a series of questions.
Nearly a majority (49%) agreed to some extent that elections in this country don’t represent them. And a majority (51%) agreed to some extent that the political system in the US “doesn’t work for people like me.”
These comments match what I mentioned last month when I quoted Scott Galloway who reminded us that, “the last two generations are making less money on an inflation adjusted basis.” He argued that the social contract in America has broken because “for the first time in the US’s history a 30-year-old is no longer doing as well as his or her parents were at 30.”
An even more significant finding from the survey was the fact that nearly two-thirds (64%) agreed that “America is in decline.” And the same percentage agreed that “nearly all politicians are corrupt and make money from their political power.”
We shouldn’t be surprised at that answer. Just read one of the many books by Peter Schweizer (Profiles in Corruption, Clinton Cash, Red Handed, Blood Money). He has been on my radio program for the last few decades documenting corruption at every level of government.
It appears that candidates this fall will have a major challenge to convince young voters to elect them.

Kerby Anderson
We know that many of our public schools are failing. Therefore, it is encouraging to hear a success story. That is what John Stossel brings in a recent video. Although the public schools in his home state of New York are producing kids with below average scores, he points to one exception.
The school is aptly named the Success Academy. It succeeds, he explains, where government-run schools fail. The chain of 50 schools is run by a former Democratic City Councilwoman. On math scores, they outperform every school in New York State, even though the kids mostly come from low-income families.
They also do things differently. At Success schools, principals spend time in every classroom, giving tips to teachers. Some teachers may not like being watched, but a principal will be able to point out things a teacher may not see. Schools get better and the students improve and are more successful.
Another difference is the school day. Success Academy students typically stay until 4:30pm. Some may stay even longer. You can accomplish much more with the longer school day. John Stossel was surprised that the students said they “look forward” to school.
Lots of parents are desperate to get their kids into Success Academy. Almost 13,000 more families apply than there is space. The schools hold a lottery, and the video shows the sadness on the faces of parents and kids who don’t get into the school.
One last point is cost. The government gives charter schools like Success Academy $18,000 per student. Government-run schools get almost $36,000. In other words, Success Academy does better with half the money.
If we want to have an educated citizenry, we need more success stories from the public schools like this one.

Kerby Anderson
When the Southern Baptist Convention met a few weeks ago, the messengers adopted a resolution about in vitro fertilization (known as IVF). While it is unusual for the nation’s largest Protestant denomination to debate medical ethics, they felt a need to respond to the recent ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court on IVF.
The mainstream press reported this as an attempt to condemn the practice. The actual statement was to “reaffirm the unconditional value and right to life of every human being” and asked that doctors “only utilize reproductive technologies consistent with that affirmation.”
When I wrote my book about genetic engineering in the 1980s, I started to hear from infertile women (the modern-day Hannahs) wondering about the ethics of IVF. If you are interested, you might want to obtain my recent booklet, A Biblical View on Genetic Engineering.
Let me also point you to the work by Dr. Jim Denison, who have been on my radio program. He has an excellent white paper on, “When does life begin? Frozen embryos, IVF, and the sanctity of life.” He is the Theologian in Residence for the Baptist General Convention of Texas and serves as Resident Scholar for Ethics with Baylor Scott & White Health.
He reminds us that “at the moment of fertilization, the embryo possesses the chromosomal makeup of a distinct human being with all inheritable factors.” And we also know that all persons are equal in their right to life (Psalm 139:13–16).
This perspective would therefore call for the careful and moral application of IVF. The Southern Baptist Convention resolution is not radical but based on sound biblical and medical information.

Kerby Anderson
Depending on the news source you have, you may or may not have heard about the arrest of eight individuals from Tajikistan who are suspected terrorists. In case you are unfamiliar with that country, it is at least 95 percent Muslim and located near Afghanistan, Pakistan, and communist China. Put another way, they come from a country that has been a hotbed for radical Islamic terrorism.
The FBI and other intelligence agencies believe these eight illegal aliens were planning a terrorist attack like the attack at the Moscow concert hall. At least four of the men involved in that attack were from the group ISIS-K. All eight of these men are connected to ISIS-K.
How did they get into the US? First, let’s remember that President Joe Biden and Homeland Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas assure us that people crossing our border have been vetted. Second, we now know that at least one of these individuals used the app provided by the Biden administration that allowed people to get in the country. Third, some of the others were apparently intercepted by Border Patrol, supposedly vetted, and sent on their way.
Let that sink in for a moment. These men were not the “gotaways” I sometimes talk about in my commentaries. Yes, 8 million have crossed the border since President Biden took office, and another 2 million are “gotaways” that I usually suggest may be involved in trafficking or terrorism and did not want to be caught.
But these men were confident they could “game the system.” They didn’t even try to avoid being caught. And I might mention that another potential terrorist was caught in New York City with a full arsenal of weapons in his vehicle (such as loaded magazines and body armor).
This is the danger America faces from an open border and a vetting process that is broken.

Penna Dexter
I recently returned from a trip to Greece. One cannot go far in that country without being confronted with evidence of the rise and fall of great civilizations.
We spent a day in and around Corinth, a wealthy ancient Greek city, destroyed by the Romans in 156 BC.
The Romans killed all the men in Corinth and enslaved the women — and the children. The victorious Roman army sacked the city, utterly destroying it.
In 146-144 BC, Julius Caesar settled Corinth as a Roman colony. The Romans rebuilt it.
The Corinth the apostle Paul visited was Roman — again a great city which, because of its location, was the crossroads of civilization. Paul started from Athens and went to Corinth to end his second missionary journey.
At that time, Corinth was the commercial center of the world. Our tour leader compared Athens to Boston. But Corinth, he told us, was like New York City. He likened the ceramic earthen vessel, the main receptacle for storage and transport in this prosperous society, to the ubiquitous cardboard box which characterizes commerce today.
Corinth was filled with carnality and corruption. Ancient Gods, both Greek and then Roman, were corrupt. Greece’s most beautiful women worshipped Aphrodite through their bodies in temples dedicated to her. People indulged their vices.
Paul was an urban evangelist. When Paul got to Corinth, he had to teach people what sin is.
Rod Dreher’s newsletter recently referred to William Ophuls’ book, Immoderate Greatness: Why Civilizations Fail. There comes a time for them when, “The majority lives for bread and circuses; worships celebrities instead of divinities; takes its bearings from below rather than above; throws off social and moral restraints, especially on sexuality; shirks duties but insists on entitlements; and so forth.”
William Ophuls continues: “The society’s original vigor, virtue, and morale have been entirely effaced. Rotten to the core, the society awaits collapse, with only the date remaining to be determined.”
We must ask: How near are we to this?

Kerby Anderson
Nuclear war may be unthinkable, but we need to think about it, so it doesn’t occur. Recently at a China-Russia summit, General Secretary Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin proclaimed, “There can be no winners in a nuclear war, and it should never be fought.” While we can take comfort in their statement, we also need to realize these two leaders have threatened the use of nuclear arms in the past.
In his latest book, The End of Everything: How Wars Descend into Annihilation, Victor Davis Hanson explains that war can settle disputes, topple dictators, and bend the trajectory of civilizations. But he also warns there have been times when war ended in utter annihilation.
He provides four historical examples: the city-state of Thebes, ancient Carthage, Byzantine Constantinople, and Aztec Tenochtitlan (tuh/noch/te/lan). The leaders believed their illustrious pasts would be enough to prevent their destruction. Alexander the Great, Roman Scipio, Muslim Mehmet, and the Spanish conquistador Cortés proved them wrong. Each of them didn’t just attempt to defeat their enemy but were successful in destroying them and their culture.
There are many ways that nations and people can vanish from history. Sometimes natural causes like earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, or plagues wipe out a population. His book provides four examples of how wartime destruction of a culture and civilization have taken place in the past. His book is an important warning that it could happen again.
What is striking is how quickly the transition from normality to the end of days can take place. This rendezvous with finality was unexpected. Their leaders failed to assess their military and cultural weaknesses. This needs to be a warning for us today.

Kerby Anderson
The world keeps getting increasingly more dangerous. Robert Clark provides several examples. There is the “war in Ukraine; China’s increasingly bellicose actions in the South China Sea and its little-talked-about nuclear proliferation; and Iranian aggression that threatens the existence of Israel, the lives of U.S. forces and their allies in the Middle East, and the security of global shipping lanes.”
All of that is enough for any of us to avert our eyes and focus on something else. But his argument is “The World Needs the West.” We may not want to think about foreign policy, but the future of a stable world depends on us electing the right politicians and appointing the right cabinet officers.
After the Cold War, we enjoyed a “peace dividend.” That allowed many European countries, along with this country, to reduce defense spending. This loss of military capability led to a loss of a credible deterrent. Many Americans don’t want to go to war. Perhaps the best way to avoid war is to have enough military might that will deter aggression.
The editors of the Wall Street Journal put it this way: “Mr. Biden talks about a world at risk from autocracies, but he acts like this is 1992 and the Soviet Union just collapsed. The world today is more like the late 1930s, as dictators build their militaries and form a new axis of animosity, while the American political class sleeps.”
The editors are also aware of our national debt and argue that what is currently spent “for defense in 2025 is a fraction of what Congress has blown on social programs over the past three years.” They argue we need an informed debate about priorities.
During this election year, we need to remember what is at stake not only in this country but around the world.

Kerby Anderson
When school is out, that is a time when administrators should establish needed policies before schools and colleges reconvene. High on the list is to develop policies concerning student walkouts.
In a recent article, Stanley Kurtz reminds us how the country has been swept up in successive waves of disorder and lawlessness on campuses. These range from protests about racism to protests about the election of Donald Trump to high school walkouts about guns to recent pro-Hamas demonstrations.
He reminds us that missing from all of this is any trace of accountability. Speakers are shouted down. Jewish students and conservative students are threatened. And high school students not only walk off campus but are often praised and even authorized by faculty.
In many cases, civic education in the schools has been co-opted and converted into a pretext for political activism under euphemisms like “civic engagement” or “action civics.” Students are not only encouraged to protest but are often given course credit for protesting or lobbying.
The Supreme Court has ruled in Tinker v Des Moines that students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse door. But that case involved students wearing black armbands to class, not allowing students to just walk out of class and head to a protest off campus without any supervision from the school.
Also, that case assumed that the public schools would be neutral, but we now have cases of schools promoting protests and taking sides. Students face teacher pressure and peer pressure, along with pressure from outside the school. And there is a concern over student safety and the school’s liability.
It is time for accountability. It is time to develop and promote policies concerning student walkouts.

Kerby Anderson
Whenever I am out speaking and take questions, there is one question I can assume will be asked. Aren’t you concerned about the possibility we will soon have a central bank digital currency? Financial leaders in other countries are calling for the implementation of these CBDCs, and concerned Americans wonder if they are coming to this country.
My first response is to mention that I have written about CBDCs, which is usually followed by an encouragement to do it again. Hence, this commentary. My second response it to point to the upcoming election. President Biden signed an executive order encouraging the Federal Reserve to study the feasibility of digital currency. Former President Trump is on record opposing CBDCs.
Why should we be concerned? With CBDCs, every transaction could be tracked by the government. The government and the federal reserve would know even more about you, your family, your clients, and your charities. Although some critics fear we would lose our privacy, I fear a greater issue.
CBDCs would make it easier for governments to freeze financial resources. The Canadian government prevented the protesting truckers from accessing their bank accounts, but that would be made much easier with CBDCs. And CBDCs can be programmed. This could be used to prohibit people from buying certain goods or at least place a limit on how much they might purchase.
Proponents believe CBDCs would give central banks a new opportunity for monetary policy. It would be easier, they say, to undertake “helicopter drops of money.” But they also add that it would be possible to implement negative interest rates by shrinking balances in CBDC accounts. That is bureaucratic speak for taking money out of your account.
In many ways, this election will determine the future of CBDCs.