What is the American Creed? That is a question David Gelernter asks in his book, America-Lite. He has been on my radio program to talk about his book and his op-ed that appeared in the Wall Street Journal.

He is a fascinating individual. He received two degrees in classical Hebrew literature, but then became a professor of computer science at Yale University. Some have called him a “rock star” in the world of computing. You might also remember that he was one of the people who was critically injured when he opened a mail bomb send by “the Unabomber.”

He believes that we need to return to the principles that made this country great. Unfortunately, he says “many of us don’t know what they are, or think they can’t work.” He blames the public schools and the academy for this failure to pass on the basic ideals that have served America so well for centuries.

He laments that: “Almost no one believes that our public schools are doing a passable job of teaching American and Western civilization.” Textbooks and class lectures in our education system today often start with the assumption that America and Western ideals are bad for civilization. He concludes that: “Many American children have never heard a good word for the United States, the West, Judaism or Christianity their whole lives.”

He also laments that our “American culture is in the hands of intellectuals” which he says are usually people “born with high IQ and low common sense.” He gives lots of examples of this. You can probably think many other examples of people that are very bright but lacking in basic common sense.

America’s creed is quite simple: “Freedom, equality, democracy and America as the promised land.” The early founders believed in America as a city on a hill, as did many presidents right up to President Reagan.

It is time to use our American creed to evaluate those who are teaching our kids and those who are leading our nation.

America is turning more into a secular society. But this post-Christian nation has not turned into a kinder, more tolerant place to live.

Peter Beinart, writing in The Atlantic, reminds us that a vast majority of Americans still believe in God, but they are fleeing organized religion in increasing numbers. The percentage of people with no religious affiliation jumped from 6 percent in 1992 to 22 percent in 2014. Among Millennials, the figure is 35 percent.

Many secular people would have predicted that this trend would end the culture wars and lead to greater harmony in society. Just the opposite has happened. “Secularism is indeed correlated with greater tolerance of gay marriage and pot legalization. But it’s also making America’s partisan clashes more brutal.”

Non-church goers have adopted a bleak view of America, more so than their churchgoing peers. He wonders: “Has the absence of church made their lives worse? Or are people with troubled lives more likely to stop attending services in the first place? Establishing causation is difficult, but we know that culturally conservative white Americans who are disengaged from church, experience less economic success and more family breakdown than those who remain connected, and they grow more pessimistic and resentful.”

I think you could make the case that without the peaceful influence of the Christian faith. Americans gravitate to a darker view of the country and of other citizens. Trust and civility decline while anger and animosity increase.

We should not be surprised that as many Americans leave the church and organized religion that the conflicts in society are intensifying rather than diminishing.

Will censorship increase or is the purge of some politicians and political content over? A few argue that now that President Donald Trump is history, and now that a few malcontents have been removed from social media, our leaders can get back to governing. But there are too many voices who seem emboldened by the purges that have taken place.

For example, the CEO of Mozilla argued that “deplatforming” people from its services was not enough. He believes that real change “requires more than just the temporary silencing or permanent removal of bad actors.” On a recent CNN program, a former Facebook officer called for carriers like Verizon, AT&T, and others to deplatform One America News Network and Newsmax.

At Forbes, the chief content officer warned companies that might consider hiring someone who worked in the Trump administration because he said, “Forbes will assume that everything your company or firm talks about is a lie.” Another editor at Forbes warned that there would be a “truth reckoning” for such companies.

Alfredo Ortiz, writing at Real Clear Politics, believes, “Big Tech’s coordinated silencing of conservative voices, including President Trump’s, signals a crossing of the Rubicon in the debate over government involvement to protect free speech.” Although those involved in this purge justify it as a way to prevent further rioting and violence, he believes it is a power grab.

Even the ACLU warns, “It should concern everyone when companies like Facebook and Twitter wield the unchecked power to remove people from platforms that have become indispensable for the speech of billions.”

It seems to me that a purge has begun. It doesn’t seem to me that it will stop any time soon. Who will it destroy, and when will it stop? Nobody really knows.

Will the federal government move to regulate Big Tech? I think that is unlikely for many reasons I will delineate in a moment. But I can’t deny that there is growing concern about censorship on various social media platforms. It started with declaimers on social media posts and has now expanded to banning politicians and commentators and even an attempt to destroy an alternative social media platform.

House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes called for a RICO investigation of Big Tech. Here’s a simple test: if no investigation takes place in the next month or so, then you can assume there will be no regulation of Big Tech.

The common argument is these social media organizations are private companies and therefore should not be governed by First Amendment protections against censorship. The authors of a Wall Street Journal op-ed argue that these companies “should be treated as state actors under existing legal doctrines.” The Supreme Court has ruled that government cannot encourage “private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.” They argue that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act which immunizes them from liability does that.

Although Donald Trump and a number of members of Congress called for the repeal of Section 230, I doubt that will happen under this administration that is already showing itself to favor Silicon Valley and the influence of Big Tech. Even if some day Congress were to remove those protections, I think it likely that these huge companies could probably withstand any court challenge.

Big Tech has become a social media Leviathan with unchecked power to ban people from their platforms and censor content. But I don’t see much courage on the part of this new administration or Congress to challenge its actions.

Last week I talked about how divided we are as a nation. That is the conclusion of David French in his book, Divided We Fall. I have been struck by the number of other commentators who have been making the same point.

In one of his opening monologues, Tucker Carlson admitted that “you may have nothing in common with people on the other side of the country, but you’re stuck with them.” His dismissed the idea that “groups of Americans will break off into separate, peaceful nations of like-minded citizens.” After all, there is no such thing as a peaceful separation.

Scott Morefield starts his column by noting there are some things all of us can agree on. “Murder and rape are bad; love and kindness are good.” But then he quickly moves to all of the things left and right can’t seem to agree on. “Things like liberty, taxation, varying degrees of wokeness, critical race theory, free speech, abortion, self-defense, immigration, the Second Amendment.”

Is there a solution to all of this? Is this country headed to a “two-state” solution? Some use that phrase to describe what might be possible in Israel with the Palestinians. Most of us know it will never work there. It really isn’t possible here either.

As I have discussed on radio, even if you thought this would work, how would you divide America? We don’t exactly have a Mason-Dixon line. The blue states are generally on the coasts, with red states in the center of the country. Even red states have blue cities, and blue states often have vast red sections.

Although we are a divided nation, we are tied to one another. Tucker Carlson said we are “inseparably intertwined” and like “conjoined twins.”

Let’s face it. Separation isn’t an option, even if we are a divided nation. These wise commentators are reminding us that we need each other.

As even school children know, the British monarchy preceded the American republic. The framers wanted to change many aspects of their previous government so they wrote in Article 6 of the Constitution that no title of nobility should be granted by the federal government. But in other areas, they continued the British tradition of the king. One example is in Article 2 that grants the president the power to grants pardons.

The framers justified it as a way to restore peace and tranquility. And it certainly provided some of that when clemency was given to Confederate soldiers after the Civil War. But so often the pardon power of the presidency has been misused.

President Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon, hoping to move the nation past the Watergate crisis. It probably cost him the election with Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter pardoned nearly 200,000 Vietnam draft dodgers.

Perhaps the greatest abuse of the pardon power came from Bill Clinton, who pardoned convicted terrorists with the Weather Underground along with Patty Hearst, who joined a domestic terrorist group. The pardon most people remember is the pardon he gave to Marc Rich, a racketeer, in large part because of his donations to the Clinton library and other democratic candidates.

We may appreciate some of the pardons President Trump gave to people like Dinesh D’Souza or Michael Flynn. But he has also pardoned Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, and Charles Kushner (father of Jared Kushner). And since I am writing this before Donald Trump has left office, the list may include many others pardons for other questionable recipients.

Today the criminal justice system provides numerous opportunities for citizens who faced an injustice. Convictions can be vacated and expunged. That is why I think it is time to reign in pardon abuse.

Today is the presidential inauguration. In previous years, this day was a day of celebration with little controversy. But 2020 and now 2021 are not normal years. In fact, there was some controversy four years ago. This year, the controversy erupted into an attack on our capitol.

For a moment, it is worth reflecting on our inaugural history. George Washington took office in 1789 in New York City to the sounds of ceremonial artillery and church bells ringing. He made his way through the large crowds to Federal Hall to take the oath of office.

Thomas Jefferson was the first president to be sworn in as president in Washington, D.C. By the time of his second inauguration, Jefferson rode on horseback from the Capitol to the president’s house. The procession that followed him eventually grew into the inaugural parade we will see today.

Who the president selects to join him in an inaugural parade can make a statement about his views and beliefs. Abraham Lincoln, for example, invited African Americans to march with him during his second inauguration.

The format for the oath of office can be found in Article II of the U.S. Constitution. It is reported that at the end of the oath, George Washington added the words “so help me God.” That tradition continues to this day.

James Monroe was the first president to give an inaugural address to a crowd. Since that time, presidents have used the occasion to speak directly to the American people.

Unfortunately, a cloud hangs over this inauguration day that is even greater than the cloud that hung over it four years ago. Nevertheless, we can still celebrate that in this country we have a transition of power that generally has been peaceful and pray that peaceful transitions will happen again in the future.