There are just a few things that hold America together. One is our common interests and ideals. The other is our social fabric. But you have probably noticed that the social fabric has been fraying.

Ben Shapiro wrote about this after attending the recent Super Bowl. People were wildly cheering for their team but weren’t attacking other people who were cheering for the opposite team. It was a perfect example of a “great American cultural celebration. Unfortunately, such experiences are becoming rarer and rarer.”

He then goes on to share his own experience, which is typical of the younger generation. News, information, and entertainment in his life (and the lives of most millennials) are personalized. What young people watch on their computers and smartphones is tailored to their tastes and interests. That means we no longer have the same cultural ground anymore.

The Winter Olympics may be one more common experience. But soon the events will be over, and Americans will retreat into their private spaces once again. The social fabric will once again fray since we don’t spend much time with each other and don’t have very many common cultural experiences. And when we don’t know each other and don’t interact with each other, it is easy to dismiss one another.

Arthur Brooks (American Enterprise Institute) talks about a study about discrimination against Chinese-Americans from the 1930s that illustrates this point. The study followed a Chinese couple as they visited hotels and restaurants across the country. They were only denied service once. The researcher then sent questionnaires to the various establishments asking whether they would serve a Chinese couple. All but one said they would not. Brooks concludes that, “People are more hostile to others in the abstract than when they meet them in person.”

There’s a lesson here. More communal events and shared cultural experiences are ways to re-stitch the social fabric.

The debate and discussion about transgender issues will continue because of a transgender ideology that has developed that is actually harmful to kids. That is one of the conclusions of the book by Ryan Anderson with the creative title: When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment.

The transgender ideology promotes the opportunity for children to change their gender with surgery and drugs. And parents “are told that puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones may be the only way to prevent their children from committing suicide.”

Ryan Anderson counters that the best studies of gender dysphoria have found “that between 80 and 95 percent of children who express a discordant gender identity will come to identify with their bodily sex if natural development is allowed to proceed.” He also goes on to document that even children going through “transitioning” treatment still have an extraordinarily high rate of suicide attempts compared to the general population.

He reminds us that we should be tolerant and loving toward children (and adults) who struggle with their gender identity. But we should also be aware of the potential harm when transgender identity is normalized.

Unfortunately, we are living in a world where transgender activists want more than tolerance and kindness. They demand affirmation. We aren’t allowed to question whether using medical treatments to aid in transgender transformation is positive for children.

In his new book, Ryan Anderson shows that the best biology, psychology, and philosophy support an understanding of sex as a bodily reality. As he puts it, “Biology isn’t bigotry.”

I hope the American people will trust the best scientific evidence and not reject it in favor of the transgender ideology.

The first year of the Trump administration has been a good year for religious liberty. That is what Kelly Shackelford (First Liberty Institute) documents in a recent column that appeared in National Review. He talks about five major actions by the president that have defended religious liberty.

First, and perhaps the most lasting, are the judicial appointments by the president. That certainly includes Justice Gorsuch, but it also includes many other judges that will have a strong adherence to originalism and the rule of law.

Second, the president signed an executive order on religious liberty. This provided a framework of guidelines issued by the Attorney General that helped clarify how religious liberty should follow the First Amendment.

Third, the president also ended years of wasteful litigation over the HHS contraceptive mandate. It is still hard to believe that the previous administration wanted to force Catholic nuns to pay for contraceptives.

Even more significant was the decision to create a division within HHS that would protect conscience and religious freedom. As I have mentioned in previous commentaries, laws passed by Congress to protect religious freedom have been ignored by the previous administration.

Fourth, the president rescinded the arbitrary FEMA rule that prevented houses of worship from receiving emergency relief. As I have said in previous commentaries, hurricanes and floods didn’t cherry-pick their victims; FEMA shouldn’t cherry-pick who it helps.

Fifth, the president’s Justice Department has been willing to defend various religious liberty cases in the courts. They are defending such issues as the parsonage allowance as well as actively supporting people like baker Jack Phillips in his case before the Supreme Court.

Last year was a good year for religious liberty because of actions taken by the Trump administration.

The recent vote on an abortion ban after 20 weeks and a recent column illustrate how extreme the Democratic position has become on the issue of abortion. The Senate voted down the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

One Democratic senator tweeted, “If women made up 51% of Congress, do you think we would still be fighting to protect a woman’s right to choose?” Actually, a Gallup poll shows that vast majority of Americans (including most women) believe abortion should be illegal after three months of pregnancy. Another poll found that 80 percent of the country opposes abortion in the final months of pregnancy.

During the debate, one Republican leader tried to point out how extreme the Democratic position was on late-term abortions. He explained that only seven countries permit elective abortion after 20 weeks, including the US, China, and North Korea.

The vote and the debate caught the attention of David Brooks, columnist for the New York Times. He wrote an “Abortion Memo” to the leaders of the Democratic Party. He understands that the Democratic donors “want to preserve a woman’s right to choose through all nine months of her pregnancy.” But he wonders if that extreme position is what is preventing Democrats from winning elections and enjoying congressional majorities.

Well, the harsh reaction to his op-ed has been overwhelming. Feminists, abortion activists, and party leaders have called him all sorts of awful names (none of which I can repeat here) and many have taken to various outlets to tell him that he doesn’t understand about the issue and what’s at stake for women.

As one commentator put it, “The message was simple: dissent over abortion won’t be tolerated.” Instead of thoughtfully considering his warning, it appears that Democratic leaders are doubling down and digging in. I think this next election will show that David Brooks was right and the Democratic leadership was wrong.

Last week, I talked about the decision by the Department of Health and Human Services to create the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division. Because of some of the controversy surrounding it, I wanted to revisit the topic.

The division was created to protect doctors, nurses, and other healthcare providers “from being coerced into participating in activities that violate their consciences.” That would include such medical procedures as abortion, sterilization, or assisted suicide.

The editors at the New York Times argued that this additional governmental agency was unnecessary. They argued that Christians have “unfounded fears” about this issue. David French in a recent response finds that amusing since the Supreme Court (during this latest session) is considering two cases that involve “demands by state authorities that Christians violate their conscience.”

The first is the case of Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop. The state of Colorado wanted to force him to use his artistic talents to design a cake for a homosexual wedding. The second is a case out of California that is attempting to force a pro-life pregnancy resource center to advertise free or low-cost abortions. Both of these cases want to compel Christians to violate their conscience.

The New York Times also attempts to characterize the issue as the Bible versus the Hippocratic Oath. Really it is a battle between constitutionally guaranteed liberties versus liberal, progressive public policies.

Michael Berry (First Liberty Institute) reminds liberals that not so long ago they believed in conscience protections. In the 1960s, the Supreme Court acknowledged that an individual who was a conscientious objector could “claim the status based only on moral objections, rather than religious beliefs.” Back then, liberals “proudly positioned themselves on the front lines of expanding conscience rights.”

Over the last few weeks, President Trump has been touting his economic successes. In Davos, Switzerland he proclaimed, “America is open for business, and we are competitive once again.” He went on to remind those who gathered for the conference that “There has never been a better time to hire, to build, to invest, and to grow in the United States.”

At the State of the Union speech he said, “We have created 2.4 million new jobs, including 200,000 new jobs in manufacturing alone. After years of wage stagnation, we are finally seeing rising wages.” He added that “Small business confidence is at an all-time high. The stock market has smashed one record after another, gaining $8 trillion in value.”

I often say on my radio program that presidents frequently take too much credit for economic successes and are given too much blame for economic problems. But it is also clear that President Trump’s policies over the last year have begun to restructure the American economy. Slashing individual and corporate tax rates have also had a significant impact. More than 250 American companies have provided bonuses to their employees and have announced huge investments in their companies.

All of this seems positive for the American economy and the American people. But you wouldn’t know it from the comments made by Trump’s critics. Leading Democrat leaders refer to the $1,000 bonuses being given out as “crumbs” that are “insignificant.”

That’s not what they said in 2011 when it looked like the payroll tax cut might expire by the end of that year. At the time, they said that $40 per paycheck equals almost $1,000 per year and was very significant to American families.

I predict that President Trump will continue to talk about the benefits of tax reform and a growing economy while his critics will attack Trumponomics. Voters during this election season will get to vote on which view they favor. I think I already know the response.

The contemporary issues of abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, transgenderism, and the hookup culture seem very different. But they all illustrate in different ways a secular hostility to the human body. That is the premise of the new book by Nancy Pearcey with the title Love Thy Body. She was on my radio program recently to explain how each of these issues go back to a flawed perspective of our bodies.

Supporters of abortion say that the fetus is not a person, even though it is biologically human. Personhood theory attempts to split facts and values by ignoring basic biological facts.

Homosexual activists disconnect sexuality from biological identity. This is not liberating but actually denigrates who we are as persons. Transgenderism detaches gender from biology and also has the tendency to demean the body.

The hookup culture is often criticized for putting too much value on the physical dimension of sex. Actually, it put too little because it only focuses on the physical and not the emotional and spiritual as well.

Nancy Pearcey wrote this book to call out those who try to argue that Christians and conservative people are anti-science. Actually, it is the secular, progressive worldview that has to turn away from science in order to maintain its worldview.

She also wrote the book to help Christians get beyond negative responses. Often, we are known for what we are against. We say: “it’s wrong” and “don’t do it.” We need to offer a positive message, and that is another value of the book.

We should also realize that these false ideas of the body aren’t just outside the church. They are found inside the church as well. She provides various statistics and examples to illustrate the need for all Christians to think biblically about every area of life.
This book will help you go beyond the politically correct slogans of our culture and begin to see the world from a biblical perspective.

Last month, the Department of Health and Human Services announced the creation of a new division within its Office of Civil Rights. There will now be a Conscience and Religious Freedom Division.

The division will protect doctors, nurses, and other healthcare providers “from being coerced into participating in activities that violate their consciences, such as abortion, sterilization, or assisted suicide.” The proposed rules will empower the division to enforce multiple statutes that have been passed by Congress and signed by presidents of both parties. Unfortunately, the Obama administration unilaterally (and unlawfully) ignored and otherwise undermined these regulations.

The ACLU, as you might imagine, has criticized the formation of the division and even threatened legal action. Last year, the ACLU filed numerous lawsuits attacking religious accommodations in a number of cases ranging from birth-control mandates to adoption.

Another group that protested the announcement was Lambda Legal, fearing this would have a negative impact on the LGBT community. That makes no sense since the division is to enforce existing law concerning healthcare and has nothing to do with homosexual or transgender issues. John Stonestreet and Breakpoint took the time to read the announcement. The rule mentions “abortion” 155 times and “suicide” 29 times. How many times does it use the words “LGBT” or “transgender?” That would be zero.

This new division does not deserve this criticism. It will be empowered to enforce laws that have been on the books for decades but were ignored or sometimes even rewritten by the previous administration. The head of this new division understands religious liberty because he previously worked for the First Liberty Institute. He and his agency will bring a needed corrective.

Healthcare workers should not be compelled to take innocent life, even if abortion is legal. They should not be forced to participate in assisted suicide, even if it is legal in some states. That is why we need this new division.

With another set of elections on the horizon, it is time to consider how to clean up the voter rolls. As I’ve mentioned in previous commentaries, we do have a problem. A report that came out in September found that there are 248 counties in this country that have more names on their voter rolls than the total number of people of voting age in those counties at the time of the 2016 election.

Last month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a case from Ohio that has implemented what I would think is a common-sense approach to cleaning up the voter rolls. The state attempts (over a four year period) to contact voters if they have failed to vote in the last few elections. If they respond to any of the notices or vote even once during that period of time, they remain registered. They are only removed if they failed to vote over six years and failed to respond to any mailing.

Although that seems like basic common sense, the plaintiffs in the case argued that they shouldn’t be penalized for not voting (perhaps because they don’t like a candidate). They also point to the 1993 National Voter Registration Act (often called the “motor voter” law) that prohibits canceling registrations solely for not voting. But the same federal law also allows names to be removed from the rolls when a voter does not respond to mailings from the state.

I have a question for the critics. If missing three consecutive election cycles and ignoring the various mailings from Ohio is not sufficient for removal from the rolls, what should be the standard? Hopefully some of the justices who want to strike down this state procedure will have a suggestion.

The voter rolls in a number of counties and states are inaccurate. They are filled with people who have moved, who are deceased, or have duplicate registrations. There is too much potential for mischief unless we clean up the voter rolls.