George Barna has been doing an extensive inventory of the worldviews of Americans through the Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University. He was on my radio program last week to talk about two of his most recent surveys dealing with truth and morality.

Past generations of Americans viewed God as the basis for truth. Not only has that changed for the general population, it is also changed significantly within the church. He found that there were certain groups that rejected the idea of absolute truth. That would be members of the LGBT community, political liberals, spiritual skeptics, Democrats, and young people under the age of 50.

By contrast, those most likely to see God as the basis of truth are the group called SAGECons. That stands for Spiritually Active Governance Engaged Conservative Christians. Nearly nine out of ten (87%) point to God as the source of truth and more than six in ten (62%) recognize the existence of absolute moral standards.

In his next report, he decided to see how we apply moral principles in real life situations. The questions ranged from telling a “white lie” to failing to pay back a loan to speeding to abortion. It was troubling to see what percentage of Americans felt that some of these behaviors were not even a moral issue. In some cases, a significant percentage might have believed it was a moral issue but that it was morally acceptable in today’s society.

Another troubling finding was what Barna calls a “seismic shift” in Christian views about morality. For example, born-again Christians in the survey were three times as likely to say they rely on the Bible for primary moral guidance. But less than half (48%) actually do so.

The latest Barna surveys are a reminder to pastors and other Christian teachers that we need to make the case for moral absolutes based on God’s Word.

Over the last few weeks, the term “Marxism” has been used quite a bit to describe the philosophy of both individuals and organizations. But what does this term mean? Marxists come in different variations. I saw that when I took a graduate level class on Marxism with students from different countries who were Marxist.

If there is one central, unifying principle, it is the writings of Karl Marx that is best articulated in The Communist Manifesto. Jon Miltimore reminds us in a recent column that Marx wanted more than the “Abolition of private property.”

He also wanted the “Abolition of the family.” His argument was that the bourgeois family was based on capital and private gain. He predicted the family would vanish once property was abolished.

Marx also believed that individuality was contrary to the equalitarian vision that he had for the world. He believed that individuality was a social construct of a capitalist society and also had to be abolished.

Nations also would be abolished. His argument was that the working man would have no country. As the proletariat grew in power, there would be no need for nations, especially since hostilities between people of different backgrounds would recede.

Marx also rejected the idea of eternal truths. He argues that the “ruling ideas of each age have been the ideas of the ruling class.” He predicted that “Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality.”

Coupled with this idea is a belief that Marxism would abolish the past. Marx saw tradition as a tool of the bourgeoisie. In that society, “the past dominates the present.” Instead, “in Communist society, the present dominates the past.”

Karl Marx wanted to abolish the family, individuality, countries, eternal truths, and the past. That’s quite a list.

Dinesh D’Souza has written about The United States of Socialism. It provides a good overview of the influence of socialism in our world today with good responses to the arguments used to support socialism and to criticize capitalism. He also introduces the concept of “identity socialism” which attempts to cobble together various victim groups in an effort to promote a socialist revolution.

Millions of young people in our country today are convinced that socialism is superior to capitalism. But is that really true? Dinesh D’Souza proposed two test cases. The first is the difference between East Germany that was socialist and West Germany that was capitalist. At the time of reunification, the GNP of socialist East Germany was about a third of the what existed in capitalist West Germany.

A better example is North and South Korea because the separation has lasted longer and continues to this day. Capitalist South Korea is more than 20 times richer than socialist North Korea. South Koreans are obviously freer than North Koreans. South Koreans are also taller, healthier, and live about 12 years longer than North Koreans.

Dinesh D’Souza also draws upon his own experience growing up in India that was influenced by the Fabian socialism of England and then adopted Soviet-style five-year plans when India became independent. His family had a ration card which specified the paltry amount of sugar or cooking oil they could purchase. There was a seven-year waiting period to get a phone.

Not only does this book document the problems with socialism, but I also appreciate that it provides a moral basis for capitalism and a plan to defeat socialists seeking to transform America.

The latest cancel culture tactic is to publish the name and amount of charitable donations. Concerns about revealing the names of donors has been a problem in the past. One example often cited is Brendan Eich, the Mozilla CEO who was removed from the company when critics discovered that he has donated to the California Proposition 8 campaign in 2008.

Given our toxic political culture, you can imagine the impact revealing donor names would have on future donations. Posting the names and donations to conservative causes and Christian ministries invites intimidation and harassment from the political left.

One group, with the name “Unmasking Fidelity,” wants to expose donors by demanding the Fidelity Charitable publicly reveal contributions to key organizations. Those include the Family Research Council, Turning Point USA, and Alliance Defending Freedom. The group argues that these organizations don’t deserve privacy since they are fascist and promote “white supremacy.”

The goal is to hurt these groups by targeting their donors. In fact, the ADF recently argued against a California law that effectively “doxed” donors and thereby exposed them to harassment and intimidation.

This targeting began before the recent Supreme Court decisions in favor of religious liberty and the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. This group (along with others with a similar desire) is even more eager to punish conservative groups and Christian groups.

If Fidelity were to cave to these demands, it is likely that other financial institutions would follow. That’s my I am thrilled that thousands of financial advisors and investment professionals have spoken out against this attempt at intimidation.

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 work at the time. Even today its words ring with truth and inspire new generations.

Several progressive organizations have become paralyzed due to the woke activists within their organizations. Jim Geraghty writes about this and provides lengthy quotes from leaders of these organizations who have been crippled from pursuing their mission because of in-fighting within their organizations.

One leader documents the inability pro-abortion organizations like “Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America” to be effective because they have “been locked in knock-down, drag-out fights between competing factions of their organizations, most often breaking down along staff-versus-management lines.”

But the same problems have surfaced in other organizations that “have seen wrenching and debilitating turmoil in the past couple years.” In fact, he concludes that it is hard to find a Washington-based progressive organization that hasn’t been affected by this internal strife that even reached the National Audubon Society.

The internal battles surface because woke activists take offense at some slight within the organization. Tensions rise as the group grapples with the charges of hierarchy, patriarchy, race, gender, and power.

Another leader said that the strife almost felt like a plot to cripple the organization. He concludes that the leaders of these groups must focus so much time on fighting within these organizations, that they are ineffective in the public arena.

In the past, we have talked about how the woke ideas on campus have made their way into government, media, and business. Here is another example of what happens when these woke activists in the same organizations spend more time attacking each other while ignoring the issues they should be affecting.

The Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of religious schools. The decision in Carson v. Makin written by the Chief Justice made it clear that religious parents should have the same freedom as non-religious parents. The state of Maine provided funding for parents but restricted parents from using it for religious schools.

Two earlier precedents provided the foundation for the decision. In Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer, the court ruled that the state could not refuse a grant (used for playground resurfacing) to the church’s preschool and day care center. In Espinoza v. Montana, the court ruled that it was constitutional to allow private-education tax credits to be used for religious schools.

While we can celebrate each of these victories, the latest criticism of the Supreme Court’s decision illustrates we have more educational work to do. Critics argue that this decision is one more attack on the “separation of church and state.” If you have been listening to my commentary for any time, you know that the phrase “separation of church and state” is not in the First Amendment.

You might be tempted to assume that people using the phrase “separation of church and state” are just people ignorant of American history and jurisprudence. But listen to the dissent written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. “This court continues to dismantle the wall of separation between church and state that the Framers fought to build.” She says she even feared that theses decision would lead “to a place where separation of church and state is a constitutional slogan, not a constitutional commitment.”

As you can see, we have some educational work to do when even a Supreme Court justice repeats a phrase not even found in the Constitution.

One of the questions that seems to stump otherwise intelligent people is the question, “What is a woman?” Another apparently difficult question surfaced in California. That is the question, “What is a bumblebee?” A California court ruled that bumblebees are fish and can be protected by the California Endangered Species Act.

This is merely a linguistic trick to expand the government’s reach, but there is growing evidence that several of the many woke ideas being applied to humans are now being applied to animals.

You can find headlines about “Checking privilege in the animal kingdom” and suggest that “Squirrel privilege is real.” Even the New York Times reported a few years ago that “Even Hermit crabs have wealth inequality.”

Perhaps the best example came from the court case in New York. The Nonhuman Rights Project has been trying to establish “legal personhood” for “great apes, elephants, dolphins, and whales.” They wanted to establish a precedent by declaring Happy the elephant at the Bronx Zoo a legal person. They were rebuffed in a 5-2 decision by the New York State Court of Appeals.

While we can agree with the decision, my colleagues and I wonder about the two justices that apparently wanted to declare that Happy the elephant is a person. An elephant is an elephant and not a person even if Happy might be more intelligent than some people.

An observation often attributed to G.K. Chesterton is, “When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing anything.” When our secular society rejects God and the belief that humans are created in the image of God, the logical next step has become woke animal rights.

Abigail Shrier has written an essay “In Defense of Political Escalation.” You may remember that she is the author of the book, Irreversible Damage, that documents the sudden rise in young people, especially teenage girls wanting to transition. Even if you don’t accept her conclusion, her essay is worth reading because she documents so many cases of censorship that are rarely even covered by the media.

Ryan Anderson and his co-author lost their ability to offer pre-order of their pro-life audio book when the book’s distributor dropped them for ideological reasons. In previous commentaries, I talked about how his book, When Harry Became Sally on the transgender movement was erased by Amazon. Even third-party sales of his book were banned from Amazon and all the sites they control. This is significant because half of all US book sales flow through its channels

She discussed the decision by Target two years ago to delete her book. At the time, there was a public outcry, and they reversed the ban. But they once again deleted the book when no one was watching. She concludes that we have become so used to censorship that we are like the characters in Fahrenheit 451 that simply accept a censorship as part of daily life.

Why aren’t people on the left speaking out? She says that most liberals will be content to allow institutions to punish conservatives if they remain unscathed. And they can see what happens when brave souls like J.K. Rowling, Elon Musk, or Joe Rogan speak out.

She concludes, “Those waiting on the mythical pendulum to swing back, should stop holding their breath.” She makes a good case for political escalation that we need to thoughtfully consider.

A bi-partisan group of US senators have been discussing and debating gun control legislation. Democratic members of Congress and former members are heralding it as a legislative milestone.

Senator Schumer is “pleased that, for the first time in nearly 30 years Congress is on the path to take meaningful action to address gun violence.” Senator Murphy hailed the breakthrough agreement as “the first in 30 years.” Gabby Giffords says the measure will “be the first time in 30 years that Congress takes a major action on gun safety.”

Is this really the first time any action has been taken on guns in 30 years? No, that isn’t true. First, it’s obvious to me that every Democrat is faithfully reading off the talking point that this is “the first time in 30 years.”

Second, I wondered if these Democrats forgot all the gun legislation passed five years ago. For example, Senator Murphy explained to the press that the 2017 bipartisan gun legislation was “an important milestone that shows real compromise can be made on the issue of guns.”

He hasn’t forgotten. Charles Cooke refers to this in a recent commentary as “Gun Controller’s Tactical Amnesia.” This is a game certain members of Congress play with us. He even reminds us ABC News proclaimed back in 2008 that the congressional response to the massacre at Virginia Tech was the “first major federal gun control measure in more than 13 years.”

If you have been paying attention, here is the pattern. First, use a horrific shooting to advocate for stricter gun-control laws. Second, proclaim the bill as unprecedented and significant breakthrough. Third, pass the bill into law. Then wait a few years to restart the cycle.

Even if the proposed legislation is passed, expect that five years from now we will be given another bill that will be a breakthrough “for the first time in 35 years.”