
As AI safety researchers warn about the risks of superintelligence, questions about the industry's priorities are growing. Discover why technological advancement must be guided by wisdom, and how Scripture calls Christians to trust God rather than fear the future.
The artificial intelligence community just waved goodbye to yet another top safety and regulation official — and he offers a unique angle in his warning to the world.
David Robinson had been leading safety reports for OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT. Robinson resigned in the first week of October, stating that the industry’s approach to safety has been stemming from a broken culture. He penned the following words in a piece for The Atlantic, which contain more truth than perhaps he even knows: “The future depends on wisdom that Silicon Valley lacks.”
We’ll come back to that.
His departure comes on the heels of several other prominent AI safety researchers abandoning the industry. Their exits have paired with dreadful public warnings about the future of this technology, leaving the American people to grapple with the headlines and the unknown.
Take Jacob Coxon, for example. After leaving Claude developer Anthropic in September, he wrote on X that top tech labs are “gambling with our lives” by racing toward self-improving superintelligence. He went on to reveal that the people building AI “earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade.”
Comforting.
For clarity, the industry term “superintelligence” refers to a hypothetical AI system that developers believe could surpass humans in overall knowledge and capability. This could happen through recursive self-improvement (RSI) in which AI models design and continually improve their own successors.
While the Trump administration has taken to using the term as a reference to AI more broadly, Coxon used it as the industry intends: the potential nightmare of AI evolving beyond our ability to contain.
Let’s go back to David Robinson for a second. Beyond diagnosing the issue of a “lack of wisdom,” he went on in his article to describe the kind of wisdom that is desperately needed — the kind that shows us “how to handle dangerous technology and, more fundamentally … what it means to care for people.”
This kind of wisdom has only one source.
Proverbs 4:7 states, “The beginning of wisdom is: Acquire wisdom; And with all your acquiring, acquire understanding.” The natural question is, how can true wisdom be acquired? Well, it is not gained by happenstance or by any means of passivity.
The word of God teaches that wisdom is found only, “if you look for it as for silver and search for it as for hidden treasure” (Proverbs 2:4).
That same proverb states that when wisdom enters the human heart, it bears fruits of knowledge, discretion, and understanding. Knowledge is pleasant, discretion brings protection, and understanding guards the one who finds it.
If those spearheading AI labs begin searching for wisdom with the same fervency as they do innovation, capital gain, and victory in the arms race, perhaps we might reap the benefits of honing a brilliant technology for human flourishing, rather than threatening it entirely.
In the absence of wisdom, we ought not to expect flourishing. Thus, the need for appropriate guardrails toward that end is becoming increasingly dire.
Whistleblowers coming forward to expose carelessness in the industry is a good thing. Speaking up when danger is on the horizon is profitable. What is not profitable, however, is responding in fear.
The wisest man in history, King Solomon, tells us, “There is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9).
The pride of man has reared its head through the latest technology and means of production before. As soon as human beings had the chance, they took brick and mortar and built the tower of Babel, aiming to reach as high as heaven to make a name for themselves — not for the God who gave them clay, water, and sun in the first place.
Today, we are seeing the latest expression of that sinful pride: men thinking they can hold infinite knowledge without it destroying them. Casting wisdom aside, they trust in their own minds and technical ability rather than in God.
In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve fell to the temptation of wanting to be all-knowing, like God. He judged that decision then, and He will not be mocked now (Galatians 6:7).
There is nothing more urgent for the unbeliever than to humble themselves, fall on their knees, and cry out to the Creator for salvation. There is, likewise, nothing more urgent for the believer than to refuse every temptation to fear in these times — to live the joyful, abundant life offered to them in Christ.
It is not a suggestion to be unafraid. It is a commandment given us by God, time and time again throughout the Scriptures.
Do not stifle your witness to the watching world.
The book of Ecclesiastes warns us that there are many dark days in this life under the sun, and that we will encounter circumstances which are difficult, perplexing, and often don’t make sense. Yet, there are a few things that author King Solomon found to be good: “Behold, what I have seen to be good and fitting is to eat and drink and find enjoyment in all the toil with which one toils under the sun the few days of his life that God has given him, for this is his lot” (Ecclesiastes 5:18).
New threats to our livelihood may come at alarming rates, but our responsibility as Christians remains the same: Do not dread the future or fear the potential of “superintelligence.” Rather, “fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man” (Ecclesiastes 12:13).
So, keep breaking bread with those you love. Keep enjoying the toil and the lot that God has given you with a grateful heart. Regardless of the news cycle, and whatever may come out of Washington and Silicon Valley — rejoice in what you have been given.
Our lives are but a vapor, a mist, Solomon says. The years go by quickly, and soon, we will return to dust.
That need not be depressing — in fact, let it be motivating as you live the most upright, joyous, and noble life possible along the way. Be encouraged, for we have all the instruction we need to please God in every circumstance, including the ones out of our control.
God says, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end” in Revelation 22:13. If God is the Omega just as much as He is the Alpha, what is there to fear?
At the end of all things, just as much as at the beginning — He is there. And He rules and reigns at every point in between.
Human history was born from and ends in perfect wisdom, and God will tie the final bow on our story.
Not Sam Altman, or Dario and Daniela Amodei, or Donald Trump, or Xi Jinping — but Jesus Christ will do it, who is the same “yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8).
This article was written by Erica Mendel and originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.
.jpg)
Is your family’s entertainment adding value or just noise? Discover how faith-based movies, documentaries, and programs can help Christian families make intentional media choices, encourage meaningful conversations, and create a more Christ-centered home.
Entertainment has never been more accessible. A television, phone, or tablet can provide an endless stream of movies, shows, short videos, news, games, and social media without ever reaching the bottom of the screen.
But having more to watch doesn’t necessarily mean families are better served by what they’re watching.
For many households, entertainment has become noisy in more ways than one. Programs compete for attention with faster pacing, stronger language, darker storylines, sexualized content, graphic imagery, and increasingly provocative themes. Algorithms encourage one more episode or video, while families can end an evening having consumed hours of media without feeling particularly rested, encouraged, or connected.
That raises a worthwhile question: Is it time to replace some of that noise with faith-based family media?
For Christian families, the answer may have less to do with watching less and more to do with choosing better.
Noise isn’t necessarily about volume.
Media can be noisy when it constantly demands attention without giving anything meaningful in return. It can be entertainment built around shock, conflict, outrage, anxiety, or relentless stimulation. It can also be content filled with ideas and assumptions that compete with what parents are trying to teach their children.
Even material that isn’t overtly inappropriate can leave viewers feeling distracted or spiritually empty.
Philippians 4:8 gives Christians a useful standard for what deserves sustained attention, directing believers toward things that are true, noble, just, pure, lovely, and praiseworthy. That doesn’t mean every program needs to quote Scripture. But it does challenge families to think about what repeatedly occupies their minds.
The phrase “media diet” is useful because entertainment has something in common with food: what is consumed occasionally matters less than what becomes normal.
One movie is unlikely to define a child’s worldview. Hundreds of hours of stories, characters, values, jokes, and messages over many years can have a much greater influence.
Children learn from stories. They notice which behaviors are rewarded, which relationships are celebrated, which beliefs are mocked, and what characters consider normal.
Adults aren’t immune either. Constant exposure to cynicism, fear, anger, or sexualized entertainment can gradually make those things feel ordinary.
Choosing faith-based media gives families an opportunity to put more spiritually nourishing material into that mix.
Parents can spend enormous energy saying no.
No, you can’t watch that show. No, that movie isn’t appropriate. No, we’re skipping this episode.
Boundaries are sometimes necessary, but they become much easier when there is also a good answer to, “What can we watch instead?” Faith-based streaming provides that replacement.
A family movie night could feature C.S. Lewis: The Most Reluctant Convert, opening conversations about doubt, reason, and conversion. A documentary such as The Listening Road can introduce thoughtful conversations about how people from different backgrounds think about faith. 7 Days in the Holy Land can help families visually connect places in Israel with biblical events.
The goal isn’t simply to remove entertainment. It is to replace some of it with stories and ideas worth carrying into the next day.
One of the greatest advantages of watching Christian content together is what happens afterward. A program can naturally lead to questions that might otherwise feel forced:
Those conversations help turn viewing into family discipleship.
A documentary such as The Call, for example, can lead to discussion about the Great Commission and what evangelism looks like in ordinary Christian life. Way of the Master can prompt older children and adults to think about how they would talk about Jesus with someone who doesn’t share their beliefs.
The screen becomes the beginning of the conversation rather than the end of it.
Replacing noisy entertainment with Christian media doesn’t mean turning every evening into a classroom. Families still need stories, laughter, discovery, music, and relaxation.
Faith-based media can include movies, animation, travel programs, interviews, biographies, documentaries, podcasts, and conversations. Some content teaches Scripture directly. Other programs simply tell compelling stories shaped by faith, courage, forgiveness, or hope.
That variety matters because healthy family media should still be enjoyable.
The distinction is that entertainment doesn’t need to undermine a family’s beliefs in order to hold its attention.
Another benefit of intentional viewing is simply reducing the constant demand for stimulation. Mainstream digital media often encourages viewers to keep going. Finish one episode and another begins automatically. Watch one short video and dozens more appear. Attention itself has become valuable currency.
Faith-based streaming can help families establish a different rhythm.
Choose one documentary. Watch a devotional together. Listen to a meaningful conversation. Then turn the television off and talk.
Programs such as Groundworks with Steve Wiggins are particularly suited to this approach because brief, Scripture-centered episodes can provide meaningful input without consuming an entire evening. Living Fearless with Andy and Hedieh can similarly encourage thoughtful conversation about faith and everyday challenges.
The objective isn’t to fill every available minute with Christian programming. It’s to make more intentional choices about which voices receive the family’s attention.
Children eventually make their own media choices. Before that happens, parents have an opportunity to model discernment. That includes more than policing what children watch. Kids also notice what their parents consume.
If adults spend hours immersed in angry commentary, dark entertainment, or endless scrolling while telling children to make healthier choices, the message can become confusing.
Christ-centered leadership in the home means asking the same questions of adult entertainment that parents ask about children’s programming.
Those questions can gradually reshape a family’s media habits without requiring an overnight purge of every mainstream platform.
Real Life Network was created to provide a different kind of streaming environment.
Rather than placing biblical programming beside an enormous catalog of conflicting content, RLN carefully curates its library around Christian faith and biblical truth. Viewers can move between films, documentaries, podcasts, Bible teaching, cultural discussions, devotional programs, kids’ content, and live events without leaving that foundation.
That gives families something increasingly difficult to find in modern entertainment: a place where they can discover rather than constantly defend.
Parents still decide what fits the age and needs of their particular family. But the starting point is very different.
Replacing noisy entertainment doesn’t require rejecting technology, storytelling, or even every mainstream show. It means becoming more intentional about what receives a family’s limited time and attention.
Some entertainment merely fills a room. Better media can fill conversations, reinforce truth, encourage faith, and give families something meaningful to carry with them after the screen goes dark.
For Christian households, that makes faith-based family media more than an alternative. It can become one practical way to cultivate a home in which entertainment supports, rather than competes with, what matters most.
Explore biblically curated movies, documentaries, family programs, devotionals, and more anytime on Real Life Network.

As the 2026 midterms approach, national security deserves attention alongside the economy. From Iran and Israel to domestic terrorism and rising antisemitism, congressional decisions carry consequences for American families, religious freedom, and public safety.
The economy matters. Groceries, gas prices, housing costs, and the pressure on American families deserve serious attention. But national security belongs in that conversation, too. The decisions made in Washington affect more than household budgets. They shape the country's ability to confront terrorism, protect religious communities, secure its borders, and respond to threats abroad.
Those connections deserve closer examination. Through The Daniel Cohen Show on Real Life Network, the intersection of faith, national security, Israel, and American politics remains central to understanding the headlines.
The approaching November 3 midterms raise questions that go well beyond which party controls Congress. Who sets national security priorities? How should America respond to Iran and its terrorist proxies? What responsibilities do elected officials have when antisemitism and political violence reach American communities?
National security is not an abstract debate reserved for Washington. Its consequences can reach neighborhoods, schools, houses of worship, and ordinary families.
Iran remains central to the discussion about American national security and the Middle East. Its support for armed groups, including Hezbollah and Hamas, has made its regional influence a continuing concern for the United States and Israel.
Yet political disagreements over Iran and Israel often become tangled in arguments about military assistance, international law, and America's responsibilities overseas.
Michigan's Senate contest illustrates those competing priorities.
Abdul El-Sayed has argued against unconditional American military assistance to foreign governments, including Israel. In interviews, his position has emphasized applying international law consistently and restricting weapons transfers to governments accused of violating it.
That approach raises legitimate questions about American foreign policy. Military assistance is not an unlimited obligation, and elected officials have a responsibility to scrutinize how taxpayer money is spent.
But the discussion cannot stop there.
Israel faces rocket and missile threats from hostile armed groups and regional adversaries. Defensive systems such as Iron Dome exist to intercept incoming projectiles and protect civilian populations. Any proposal to restrict military assistance therefore deserves careful examination of its potential consequences for defensive capabilities as well as offensive operations.
There is also an important distinction between criticizing a government's military decisions and excusing terrorism directed against its citizens.
The March attack against Temple Israel in West Bloomfield, Michigan, brought that distinction much closer to home. A vehicle carrying incendiary materials was driven into a synagogue complex that also serves children and families. The incident prompted renewed concerns about antisemitic violence and the reach of conflicts originating thousands of miles away.
Political leaders can disagree about Israel's government, military operations, and American foreign assistance. Those disagreements do not diminish the obligation to condemn attacks against Jewish civilians and religious institutions.
No disagreement over foreign policy can justify threatening Jewish families or treating American religious communities as extensions of a foreign government.
The same principle must apply to every community. A synagogue, church, mosque, or school should never become a target because of anger over events elsewhere.
The connection between national security and congressional elections is more substantial than campaign rhetoric might suggest.
Congress controls federal appropriations, establishes statutory authorities, conducts oversight, and plays a central role in shaping the agencies responsible for national defense and domestic security. The Senate also exercises its constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent on presidential nominations requiring confirmation.
Those responsibilities make congressional debates over homeland security, intelligence gathering, immigration enforcement, and counterterrorism consequential.
An alleged ISIS-inspired plot involving the Mall of America in Minnesota offers an example of the threats federal investigators seek to identify before violence occurs.
According to the account presented by federal authorities, an 18-year-old suspect had communicated about supporting ISIS and allegedly considered carrying out an attack in the United States after plans to travel overseas did not materialize. The allegations require the usual distinction between prosecutors' claims and facts established in court.
But the broader issue remains significant: preventing terrorism requires investigative resources, intelligence cooperation, appropriate legal authorities, and effective oversight.
Protecting the public also requires precision.
Terrorist organizations are responsible for their own violence. Their actions must not become an excuse to assign collective guilt to immigrants, Muslims, or particular ethnic communities. Effective counterterrorism depends upon identifying actual threats rather than confusing religious identity or national origin with criminal conduct.
That is why national security policy requires more than slogans about being tough or compassionate.
The public deserves to understand how candidates would approach terrorism investigations, border security, intelligence oversight, civil liberties, and the constitutional limits of government authority.
Those questions belong alongside debates about inflation, healthcare, education, and taxation.
Three years after the Hamas-led October 7 attack, the anniversary remains a painful occasion for Jewish communities around the world.
Approximately 1,200 people were killed in the attack, and 251 were taken hostage. The consequences have extended far beyond Israel, including heightened security concerns and incidents of antisemitism in the United States.
New York City's response to the anniversary illustrates how difficult the public conversation has become.
Mayor Zohran Mamdani's remarks acknowledging the suffering caused by October 7 while criticizing Israel's subsequent military actions became a point of contention among activists with sharply different expectations.
The controversy reflects a larger problem in contemporary politics: expressions of sympathy, criticism, and disagreement are increasingly measured against demands for complete ideological agreement.
Recognizing the suffering of Israeli victims does not require ignoring Palestinian civilian suffering. Likewise, expressing concern for Palestinians does not require minimizing the October 7 atrocities or excusing antisemitism.
Both truths can be maintained without contradiction.
Political movements become less capable of honest debate when every disagreement is treated as betrayal. Acknowledging suffering should not depend upon whether the victims belong to a preferred political or religious community.
For Christians, Scripture establishes a higher standard than political loyalty. Human beings bear God's image, and the obligation to speak truthfully does not disappear when truth becomes inconvenient to a favored party or cause.
Proverbs 18:17 reminds readers that the first account of a dispute may sound persuasive until it is examined. That principle applies to viral videos, campaign statements, accusations of extremism, and claims about political opponents.
Christian discernment requires consistency: condemn terrorism without qualification, reject antisemitism without hesitation, and examine political claims without surrendering judgment to party loyalty.
The approaching midterms will generate enormous attention around polling, turnout, and campaign strategies. Those subjects are part of the political process, but they should not obscure the governing responsibilities attached to the offices being contested.
A Senate vote can affect national security appointments. A congressional appropriation can determine resources available to federal agencies. Legislative oversight can expose failures or strengthen accountability.
Understanding those responsibilities provides a more useful framework than treating every political development as a contest between personalities.
The same seriousness belongs in discussions about Israel, Iran, and religious freedom. American foreign policy involves real tradeoffs, and domestic security decisions can affect both public safety and constitutional liberties.
No political party possesses a monopoly on wisdom, and no candidate should be exempt from difficult questions.
The standard should remain consistent: evidence before accusations, clarity before slogans, and responsibility before political convenience.
Follow the intersection of biblical truth, Israel, national security, and American current events through The Daniel Cohen Show, streaming free on Real Life Network

California’s new workplace anti-hate speech training law is raising religious liberty concerns. Christian advocates warn that vague language could pressure churches and religious employers to provide training that conflicts with their biblical beliefs.
A newly enacted law in California that requires virtually all employers to give employees “anti-hate speech” training is raising red flags, as experts say that the mandate could force churches to provide training that conflicts with sincerely held biblical beliefs regarding sexuality, gender, and marriage.
Late last month, California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) signed into law AB 1803, a measure that requires all employers with five or more workers, including all churches and other nonprofit religious organizations, to provide employees with “anti-hate speech” instruction. But as observers like the California Family Council (CFC) are pointing out, the legislation does not define “hate speech,” instead handing the job to the state’s Civil Rights Department. The bill mandates that the training must confront workplace speech that “vilifies, humiliates, or incites hatred” against individuals based on what the state has already deemed a protected characteristic, which includes sex, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation.
The CFC goes on to observe that the statute, which will go into effect on January 1, 2028, never mentions churches or religious nonprofits and their First Amendment rights to hold sincerely held religious beliefs about sexuality and gender. It also “fails to separate protected expression from unlawful conduct,” noting that the Supreme Court held in 2017 that “the First Amendment has no hate speech exception.”
Greg Burt, who serves as vice president of CFC, further pointed out the problems with AB 1803’s vague language regarding key terms that it says constitute “hate.”
“What does it mean to vilify? What speech actually humiliates?” he wondered during “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” Tuesday. “[M]any times legislators consider many Christian beliefs when they’re expressed — especially regarding sexuality or gender — they accuse us of hating people. That’s [the] farthest thing from my mind. But we are simply advocating for our view that sex is determined by biology, and God created us both male and female. Well, to many people that is humiliating and that incites hatred. And so that’s the problem with this legislation.”
Burt went on to clarify that AB 1803 is being folded into a previously enacted statute that mandates sexual harassment training, which already specifies that using accurate biological pronouns constitutes “harassment.” “[Businesses are] already required to go through sexual harassment training, and we found out several years ago they redefined what sexual harassment means to include gender identity,” he explained. “… [The] California Civil Rights Department says misgendering is harassment, and so this training is on top of that already egregious training.”
As for how employers can fulfill the required training, Burt noted that hiring outside trainers is allowed, but the state-provided training that includes pro-LGBT messaging is free. “Right now, the state puts together a free curriculum — that’s how they do it with sexual harassment training, but you’re not required to use that training. You can come up with your own. But we don’t know exactly what ‘anti-hate’ is going to include, right? [Their] definition of speech that ‘humiliates’ — what does that mean? It really depends on the person who’s receiving the language.”
Burt further urged churches and other religious organizations in the Golden State to push back vigorously against the mandate. “What I think the state is doing is it’s trying to intimidate churches into following through with this,” he lamented. “They should not be receiving any kind of ideological training from the state on any moral issue. That’s why what churches need to be doing is asking for religious accommodations. The federal law and the state law already require businesses to accommodate people’s faith if they’re being required to do something that violates their faith. … [T]his is one of those points in history here in California where civil disobedience is going to be necessary.”
Burt concluded by emphasizing that state officials in California are counting on churches to kowtow to their demands instead of standing up for the constitutional freedoms, which has already proven to be a winning strategy.
“I’m sure they’re already thrilled that they get to retrain the entire population to believe what they believe regarding gender identity,” he reflected. “And so once we get accustomed to this and say, ‘Well, this is just what California requires, I guess we have to do it.’ No, you don’t. Folks, you’ve got to resist, and that includes individual employees. That’s what we are encouraging people to do. And we are having success. We have some attorneys we’re working with, and when people have been asking for religious accommodations, they have been accommodated.”
This article was written by Dan Hart and originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.

As loneliness and unhappiness rise among young Americans, research links religious faith and marriage with greater happiness, stronger relationships, and better educational outcomes, while Christian leaders urge Gen Z to put biblical truth into practice.
Social science data continues to emerge showing that America’s young people are increasingly non-religious, isolated, and unhappy. But the data also shows that young people who are religious are thriving, with higher levels of happiness, more friends, are more likely to be married, and better educational outcomes than their non-religious peers.
Research released by the Institute for Family Studies (IFS) notes that since 2000, reports of unhappiness among young people aged 20 to 35 has more than doubled, surging from 11% to 23%. This has coincided with an era where young people are isolating at unprecedented levels as they immerse themselves in screens, pornography, social media, video games, and AI chatbots. “Socializing among young men and women is down more than 50%, from 12 hours to 5 hours per week,” IFS observes. Unsurprisingly, this has led to a precipitous decline in relationships and dating, with two thirds of young people not in serious relationships and teen dating down 50%.
As unhappiness and loneliness has risen among young people, so too has secularism. In March, Arizona Christian University’s Cultural Research Center reported that only 1% of Gen Z (ages 18 to 22) and 4% of adults in general has a biblical worldview (defined as “individuals whose beliefs and behaviors are consistently aligned with biblical principles”). The figure is down significantly since 1994, when 12% of adults reported a biblical worldview.
But married and religious young people seem to be largely escaping the unhappiness trap, with 50% saying they are “very happy” compared to just 16% of their secular, unmarried peers. As IFS points out, “faith and family remain two of the strongest bulwarks against loneliness and despair.”
For young men in particular, religion appears to be the hinge that catapults them into a future of contentment and success. Data shows that religious men are more likely to desire and attain marriage than those who are non-religious. They are also almost twice as likely to report feeling “very happy” and to say that life feels “purposeful/meaningful” than secular men. Religious men also report less mental health issues, anxiety, and depression. They also have bachelor’s degrees at far higher rates than non-religious men (46% vs. 16%) and report finishing trade school/apprenticeships at 29% (vs. 14% of secular men).
Where a happier minority of young people find meaning and purpose in religion, a far larger percentage appear to hold politics and government as their primary focal point, especially with the rising popularity of socialism.
“[M]y generation has grown up in a very hyper political age,” Counteract USA Founder and CEO Abigail DeJarnatt contended during “Washington Watch” Friday. “… [Many believe that] government can be the arbiter of morality. That’s what happens when Marxism infuses into our society. And that’s just what we’ve grown up with. So when you’re online and you’re on TikTok [watching] recipe videos, there’s also political ideologies that are being pushed on and talked about amongst Gen Z. So it’s not surprising at all that this is where we’re at, and I think we’ll just continue to see a lot more of it among young people.”
DeJarnatt further explained how her ministry is attempting to engage Gen Z with truth. “The primary thing that we’re focusing on with Gen Z Christians is teaching them a framework of biblical critical thinking,” she explained. “Because the reality is, a lot of Gen Z’s world is unfolding online. A lot of the conversations, online friendships, relationships. … What we’re trying to teach Gen Z to do is look at what they’re seeing online and ask, ‘Is it true? Is it not?’ … We’re trying to tell Gen Z [to] ask questions as fast as we’re scrolling online. Slow down. … And as Christians, we have to weigh that against the Bible itself.”
DeJarnatt went on to argue that a sense of self entitlement undergirded by Marxism has heavily influenced young people to abandon a solid biblical ethic. “[T]his Marxism that’s invaded our culture, just the hyper individualism in Gen Z,” she emphasized. “[Much of] Gen Z is [saying], ‘We aren’t happy with either political party.’ I think we have this idea that we can have it all. [It’s the] same framework of pick and choose our own ideology to the Bible. … [W]e think, ‘I like this, I don’t like this. I’m going to choose this. I’m not going to choose this.’”
DeJarnatt concluded by urging young believers to move beyond their comfort zones in order to spread the gospel to an isolated and unhappy wider culture.
“We see so many young Christians who are taught all these amazing things and their amazing churches that are Bible-based,” she noted. “They’re in Bible-based families that are going back to Scripture, but we need to teach Gen Z to take all the things that they know and actually apply them to the key conversations happening around us, having the conversations, just getting Gen Z to talk to each other … articulating those beliefs so that they actually become effective in wielding the sword of the spirit in the spiritual battle that’s raging all around us. They have the tools. They just need to know how to use them well.”
This article was written by Dan Hart and originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.

A woman’s account of being forced to take abortion pills is fueling renewed scrutiny of mifepristone, mail-order prescribing, state abortion laws, and shield laws protecting providers who send the drug across state lines.
Like a lot of girls her age, Rosalie Markezich knew the standard talking point about mifepristone. Don’t worry, the online sites say. It’s just like taking a Tylenol. “Well, I’ve taken a lot of Tylenol in my lifetime,” she tells people now, and “it has never killed my child. It has never ruined my life, and it has never made me bleed for over a week.”
Unlike most moms, Rosalie never got the chance to hear that lie from her doctor, because she didn’t ask for a prescription in the first place. Her boyfriend ordered the pills in her name, and without any sort of ID or verification, the drugs magically showed up at her house. “I told him, ‘No thank you. I do not want you to do that, and I do not want them.’ Well, [he] found the website. He filled it out all with my personal information that I did not give him to use … [and] $150 later, he successfully ordered abortion pills through the mail from a [California] doctor named Remy Coeytaux, shipped directly to my doorstep.”
When he forced her to swallow them, her plan was to go inside and throw them up. But it was too late. “That night, I laid on a blood-soaked towel by myself, choking on my own breath. I remember my body rejecting it, rejecting its own breath — the one thing that it needs. I was praying to God, ‘Please take me too.’” Now, filled with grief and anger at how the government has robbed her of everything the Left insists this debate is about — choice, privacy, and safety — she’s fighting back.
“The FDA was wrong,” Rosalie said emotionally at the Pray Vote Stand Summit. “They allowed these drugs. They allowed them to go through the mail. They knew the warnings. They knew what could happen. And yet they are still sending them through the mail after seeing firsthand what it has done to women and children.”
We’re talking about a drug, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall (R) reiterated, “that is facilitating domestic abuse and even murder.” And yet, four years ago, he shook his head, pro-lifers were at this same event celebrating the overwhelming victory of Dobbs, a success story a half-century of prayers and activism in the making. “But I don’t think any of us that were on that stage left the stage believing that we would have more abortions today than we had at that time.” All because of mifepristone — and the presidents since 2022 who have turned a blind eye to the violent consequences.
“It’s why, frankly, [we] are still amazed at this administration — which talks about being the most pro-life administration — simply burying their head in the sand on what we know is going on around us.” With a single signature, President Trump could turn this whole situation around, Marshall insists. “The data is there. … They have the capacity to be able to do it. The question is whether or not they have the political will.” And so far, they have not.
Instead, they’ve created a black market for abortion drugs that not only puts women who voluntarily take the pill in life-threatening situations, but sets fire to every pro-life state law in America. Right now, it doesn’t matter whether you live in Louisiana or New York, abortionists are illegally flooding every zip code of the country with mifepristone — and getting away with it.
If the Trump administration had the nerve to enforce the federal laws already on the books, Rosalie would be the happy mom of a two-year-old right now. Under the Comstock Act, the Justice Department should be cracking down on anyone shipping abortion pills through the mail — let alone to pro-life states whose voters have already made their voices heard on the issue. But instead, for reasons no one who witnessed the first Trump term can understand, Republican attorneys general like Louisiana’s Liz Murrill (R) are having to fight their way to the Supreme Court just for the right to have their laws respected.
Murrill, who’s already battling the FDA over its ridiculously lax standards on the drug, is expanding the war to states that are knowingly protecting the criminals sending pills into pro-life states. Together with Marshall and Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin (R), the trio is suing New York, California, and Massachusetts to try to dismantle the “shield laws” in blue states that refuse to punish anyone mailing mifepristone.
“They shield the doctor, they shield the pharmacist, they shield anybody who is involved with what I call the pill pipeline, sending those pills into our state,” Murrill told Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on “This Week on Capitol Hill.” “And they are doing it for a political purpose. They are doing it because they disapprove of the laws that our state has passed. And so they want to flood our state with those pills illegally.”
To get away with it, the prescribers leave no trace on the bottles. “They sanitize it. And so, you will never you may never know who actually prescribed those pills. … [They’re] filling the prescription bottle and sending it into our state with no name on it, no pharmacy on it, no recipient name.”
Murrill explained that her team actually tested the current market, having agents order drugs online. Asked if there’s any kind of consultation with a medical person, she replied no. “There’s none. They’re not even verifying who’s even buying them. … They mail them to anybody who basically fills out a form on the internet. So it’s extraordinarily irresponsible.” Not to mention, she added, that “they are directly trying to nullify our laws.”
And regardless of whether the women are coerced or ordering these of their own will, the AG sadly acknowledged that the number of emergency room visits is skyrocketing — mainly because no one is adhering to the FDA’s 10-week limit for the drug. “Is any other drug treated like this?” Perkins wanted to know. “None,” Murrill replied. “None,” she repeated. “That’s why I say over and over again … this is not health care. There is nothing about this that is health care. I mean, there is no situation in the medical field where they would do this with drugs or patients.”
That’s why red-state AGs sued the FDA in the first place, because it’s so shocking and unconscionable that a pill sending 10% of women to the ER doesn’t even require a doctor’s visit or approval. “Those rules are not in place anymore. And so, you know, it really poses a significant risk to women all over the country.”
Imagine, she emphasized, if blue states “mailed us cocaine or they mailed us fentanyl.” There would be legal consequences. Or, Perkins suggested, “What if … Louisiana said, ‘You know, we’re not going to work with California and New York on anything related to the Second Amendment. I don’t care what your laws say. We’re not going to support you in that.’” It’s like saying, “I’m going to mail guns to anybody who wants them,” Murrill agreed. “… They have laws that restrict gun ownership and possession in ways that we don’t. … [What if] I decided to violate those laws? And they wouldn’t be able to enforce them if we had a shield law similar to that. But we haven’t done that.”
At the end of the day, this is not a minor issue, the FRC president argued. Not for the baby, not for the mother, not for the constitutional process, and certainly not for state sovereignty. “You know,” Marshall underscored, “we can solve [this] problem right now. We have the ability to do it with the administration that’s in place. And it’s why not only is our prayer so important, but also our ability to stand together is so critical. Because the reality is it’s not about Republican or Democrat. It’s about protecting women’s health and preserving life. That’s our issue. That’s important — and on it, we’re right.”
This article was written by Suzanne Bowdey and originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this visit Real Life Network.
The artificial intelligence community just waved goodbye to yet another top safety and regulation official — and he offers a unique angle in his warning to the world.
David Robinson had been leading safety reports for OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT. Robinson resigned in the first week of October, stating that the industry’s approach to safety has been stemming from a broken culture. He penned the following words in a piece for The Atlantic, which contain more truth than perhaps he even knows: “The future depends on wisdom that Silicon Valley lacks.”
We’ll come back to that.
His departure comes on the heels of several other prominent AI safety researchers abandoning the industry. Their exits have paired with dreadful public warnings about the future of this technology, leaving the American people to grapple with the headlines and the unknown.
Take Jacob Coxon, for example. After leaving Claude developer Anthropic in September, he wrote on X that top tech labs are “gambling with our lives” by racing toward self-improving superintelligence. He went on to reveal that the people building AI “earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade.”
Comforting.
For clarity, the industry term “superintelligence” refers to a hypothetical AI system that developers believe could surpass humans in overall knowledge and capability. This could happen through recursive self-improvement (RSI) in which AI models design and continually improve their own successors.
While the Trump administration has taken to using the term as a reference to AI more broadly, Coxon used it as the industry intends: the potential nightmare of AI evolving beyond our ability to contain.
Let’s go back to David Robinson for a second. Beyond diagnosing the issue of a “lack of wisdom,” he went on in his article to describe the kind of wisdom that is desperately needed — the kind that shows us “how to handle dangerous technology and, more fundamentally … what it means to care for people.”
This kind of wisdom has only one source.
Proverbs 4:7 states, “The beginning of wisdom is: Acquire wisdom; And with all your acquiring, acquire understanding.” The natural question is, how can true wisdom be acquired? Well, it is not gained by happenstance or by any means of passivity.
The word of God teaches that wisdom is found only, “if you look for it as for silver and search for it as for hidden treasure” (Proverbs 2:4).
That same proverb states that when wisdom enters the human heart, it bears fruits of knowledge, discretion, and understanding. Knowledge is pleasant, discretion brings protection, and understanding guards the one who finds it.
If those spearheading AI labs begin searching for wisdom with the same fervency as they do innovation, capital gain, and victory in the arms race, perhaps we might reap the benefits of honing a brilliant technology for human flourishing, rather than threatening it entirely.
In the absence of wisdom, we ought not to expect flourishing. Thus, the need for appropriate guardrails toward that end is becoming increasingly dire.
Whistleblowers coming forward to expose carelessness in the industry is a good thing. Speaking up when danger is on the horizon is profitable. What is not profitable, however, is responding in fear.
The wisest man in history, King Solomon, tells us, “There is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9).
The pride of man has reared its head through the latest technology and means of production before. As soon as human beings had the chance, they took brick and mortar and built the tower of Babel, aiming to reach as high as heaven to make a name for themselves — not for the God who gave them clay, water, and sun in the first place.
Today, we are seeing the latest expression of that sinful pride: men thinking they can hold infinite knowledge without it destroying them. Casting wisdom aside, they trust in their own minds and technical ability rather than in God.
In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve fell to the temptation of wanting to be all-knowing, like God. He judged that decision then, and He will not be mocked now (Galatians 6:7).
There is nothing more urgent for the unbeliever than to humble themselves, fall on their knees, and cry out to the Creator for salvation. There is, likewise, nothing more urgent for the believer than to refuse every temptation to fear in these times — to live the joyful, abundant life offered to them in Christ.
It is not a suggestion to be unafraid. It is a commandment given us by God, time and time again throughout the Scriptures.
Do not stifle your witness to the watching world.
The book of Ecclesiastes warns us that there are many dark days in this life under the sun, and that we will encounter circumstances which are difficult, perplexing, and often don’t make sense. Yet, there are a few things that author King Solomon found to be good: “Behold, what I have seen to be good and fitting is to eat and drink and find enjoyment in all the toil with which one toils under the sun the few days of his life that God has given him, for this is his lot” (Ecclesiastes 5:18).
New threats to our livelihood may come at alarming rates, but our responsibility as Christians remains the same: Do not dread the future or fear the potential of “superintelligence.” Rather, “fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man” (Ecclesiastes 12:13).
So, keep breaking bread with those you love. Keep enjoying the toil and the lot that God has given you with a grateful heart. Regardless of the news cycle, and whatever may come out of Washington and Silicon Valley — rejoice in what you have been given.
Our lives are but a vapor, a mist, Solomon says. The years go by quickly, and soon, we will return to dust.
That need not be depressing — in fact, let it be motivating as you live the most upright, joyous, and noble life possible along the way. Be encouraged, for we have all the instruction we need to please God in every circumstance, including the ones out of our control.
God says, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end” in Revelation 22:13. If God is the Omega just as much as He is the Alpha, what is there to fear?
At the end of all things, just as much as at the beginning — He is there. And He rules and reigns at every point in between.
Human history was born from and ends in perfect wisdom, and God will tie the final bow on our story.
Not Sam Altman, or Dario and Daniela Amodei, or Donald Trump, or Xi Jinping — but Jesus Christ will do it, who is the same “yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8).
This article was written by Erica Mendel and originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.
As AI safety researchers warn about the risks of superintelligence, questions about the industry's priorities are growing. Discover why technological advancement must be guided by wisdom, and how Scripture calls Christians to trust God rather than fear the future.

This article is adapted from a recent episode of Rose Unplugged featuring former Congressman Louie Gohmert — a former judge who served 18 years on the House Judiciary Committee.
Every so often, it's worth pausing to step away from the noise and lean into what's real. Right now, that means taking a hard look at two things: judges who think they answer to no one, and a culture that wants to erase the heroes who don't fit the modern mold.
They look unrelated. They're not. They're the same problem wearing two different masks. One is a refusal of accountability. The other is a refusal of honesty.
Scripture doesn't leave the subject of judges to guesswork. In Exodus 18, when Moses is drowning in disputes, his father-in-law Jethro tells him to appoint leaders — “able men who fear God, men of truth, those who hate dishonest gain.”
Deuteronomy 16 goes further, instructing judges, “You shall not distort justice; you shall not be partial.” That's the standard. Fear God. Reject dishonest gain. No favoritism. No corruption.
Now hold that up against what's happening in our own courts today — judges with undisclosed conflicts of interest, judges reportedly using AI to manufacture case law that doesn't exist, judges quietly reprimanded behind closed doors for conduct that would getanyone else fired.
This isn't a partisan gripe. It's a bench that has drifted from “good behavior” into something Scripture would call exactly what it is — corrupt judgment.
And this is not some abstract, inside-the-Beltway squabble. This is the unelected, unaccountable administrative state in black robes. We're talking about activist judges legislating from the bench, single district judges issuing nationwide injunctions to override the will of the American people and their duly elected president, and a judiciary that has quietly built itself into a fourth, untouchable branch of government.
That should alarm every single one of us, regardless of party, because a Republic where judges answer to nobody isn't a Republic anymore.
Here's what gets missed: accountability for judges isn't a modern political invention. It's baked into the oldest legal tradition we have. In 2 Chronicles 19, King Jehoshaphat appoints judges and warns them plainly, “Consider what you are doing, for you do not judge for man but for the Lord.”
A judge was never meant to be untouchable. A judge was meant to answer to a higher standard, precisely because of the power he holds over other people's lives, liberty, and property.
Isaiah 1 doesn't mince words either: “Learn to do good; seek justice.” Judgment is supposed to protect people, not shield the judge from consequence. When a judiciary polices itself for forty-plus years and the abuses keep piling up anyway, that bargain has failed.
Unchecked power, whether it's sitting on a bench or rewriting a history book, doesn't correct itself. That's not cynicism. That's what
Scripture has always told us about the human heart — and it's precisely why the Founders built in checks in the first place. They didn't build three co-equal branches so that one of them could operate with zero checks. And our faith doesn't teach us that any man — king, judge, or committee — gets a permanent pass from scrutiny.
And it's not just the courtroom. We're watching the same instinct — the refusal to be honest and the refusal to be accountable — show up in how the culture treats its own history. Britain is erasing Winston Churchill from its currency because a focus group calls him “divisive.”
This is the same woke revisionism we see here at home — knock down the statue, rename the school, cancel the man.
But there is exactly one perfect man who ever walked the earth, and none of us are Him. Scripture is remarkably unsentimental about its own heroes. It tells you David committed adultery and had a man killed to cover it up — and still calls him a man after God's own heart. It tells you Noah got drunk, Moses disobeyed God at the rock, and Peter denied Christ three times. The Bible doesn't airbrush its heroes. It shows the whole man, flaws and all, because the point was never that these men were flawless.
That's the opposite instinct of what we're watching happen with Churchill. Modern cancel culture wants a spotless résumé or it wants erasure. Scripture never asked us to pretend our heroes were flawless. It asks us to tell the truth about them — the good and the bad — and let the record stand.
A nation that can't hold “Churchill saved civilization” and “Churchill had serious flaws” in the same breath isn't practicing justice. It's practicing amnesia.
So let's be honest about what's at stake here. This isn't about one bad ruling or one bad headline out of London. This is about whether we still believe in a Republic of laws, or whether we've quietly let ourselves drift into rule by unelected robes and unelected editors of history.
Judges answering to no one and a culture rewriting its own history are two sides of the same coin — a slow, quiet abandonment of truth and accountability. That should matter to every conservative, every Christian, every American who still believes truth is truth regardless of what a focus group or a black robe says about it.
If we let the judiciary and the culture police themselves without any accountability to God or to “We the People,” we will wake up one day and not recognize the country our Founders risked everything to build. As citizens, we don't get to sit this one out. This is one to lean into, not scroll past.
I want to say this plainly: men like Louie Gohmert don't get nearly enough credit for the work they do long after the cameras and the Capitol Hill office are gone. Eighteen years on the House Judiciary Committee, a career on the bench himself, and he's still out there walking the halls of Congress, folder in hand, doing the unglamorous, unpaid, unnoticed work of trying to hold power accountable. That's not politics. That's public service in the truest sense of the word, and we don't say thank you for that kind of thing nearly often enough.
Whether it's a judge who thinks he answers to no one, or a culture that thinks history should answer to a marketing survey — the answer is the same. Truth, judged rightly, doesn't need to hide from scrutiny, and it doesn't need to erase the past to feel comfortable. It just needs someone willing to say it plainly.
So keep your faith steady, your focus clear, and keep moving forward — because you are here for such a time as this.
Watch or listen to the full conversation with former Congressman Louie Gohmert on Rose Unplugged: Rogue Judges, Erased History, SCOTUS Graded — Louie Gohmert Holds Nothing Back
What happens when judges escape accountability and historical figures are erased for their flaws? Explore the biblical call for justice, integrity, and historical honesty, and why both judicial oversight and preserving history matter for America's future.

Entertainment has never been more accessible. A television, phone, or tablet can provide an endless stream of movies, shows, short videos, news, games, and social media without ever reaching the bottom of the screen.
But having more to watch doesn’t necessarily mean families are better served by what they’re watching.
For many households, entertainment has become noisy in more ways than one. Programs compete for attention with faster pacing, stronger language, darker storylines, sexualized content, graphic imagery, and increasingly provocative themes. Algorithms encourage one more episode or video, while families can end an evening having consumed hours of media without feeling particularly rested, encouraged, or connected.
That raises a worthwhile question: Is it time to replace some of that noise with faith-based family media?
For Christian families, the answer may have less to do with watching less and more to do with choosing better.
Noise isn’t necessarily about volume.
Media can be noisy when it constantly demands attention without giving anything meaningful in return. It can be entertainment built around shock, conflict, outrage, anxiety, or relentless stimulation. It can also be content filled with ideas and assumptions that compete with what parents are trying to teach their children.
Even material that isn’t overtly inappropriate can leave viewers feeling distracted or spiritually empty.
Philippians 4:8 gives Christians a useful standard for what deserves sustained attention, directing believers toward things that are true, noble, just, pure, lovely, and praiseworthy. That doesn’t mean every program needs to quote Scripture. But it does challenge families to think about what repeatedly occupies their minds.
The phrase “media diet” is useful because entertainment has something in common with food: what is consumed occasionally matters less than what becomes normal.
One movie is unlikely to define a child’s worldview. Hundreds of hours of stories, characters, values, jokes, and messages over many years can have a much greater influence.
Children learn from stories. They notice which behaviors are rewarded, which relationships are celebrated, which beliefs are mocked, and what characters consider normal.
Adults aren’t immune either. Constant exposure to cynicism, fear, anger, or sexualized entertainment can gradually make those things feel ordinary.
Choosing faith-based media gives families an opportunity to put more spiritually nourishing material into that mix.
Parents can spend enormous energy saying no.
No, you can’t watch that show. No, that movie isn’t appropriate. No, we’re skipping this episode.
Boundaries are sometimes necessary, but they become much easier when there is also a good answer to, “What can we watch instead?” Faith-based streaming provides that replacement.
A family movie night could feature C.S. Lewis: The Most Reluctant Convert, opening conversations about doubt, reason, and conversion. A documentary such as The Listening Road can introduce thoughtful conversations about how people from different backgrounds think about faith. 7 Days in the Holy Land can help families visually connect places in Israel with biblical events.
The goal isn’t simply to remove entertainment. It is to replace some of it with stories and ideas worth carrying into the next day.
One of the greatest advantages of watching Christian content together is what happens afterward. A program can naturally lead to questions that might otherwise feel forced:
Those conversations help turn viewing into family discipleship.
A documentary such as The Call, for example, can lead to discussion about the Great Commission and what evangelism looks like in ordinary Christian life. Way of the Master can prompt older children and adults to think about how they would talk about Jesus with someone who doesn’t share their beliefs.
The screen becomes the beginning of the conversation rather than the end of it.
Replacing noisy entertainment with Christian media doesn’t mean turning every evening into a classroom. Families still need stories, laughter, discovery, music, and relaxation.
Faith-based media can include movies, animation, travel programs, interviews, biographies, documentaries, podcasts, and conversations. Some content teaches Scripture directly. Other programs simply tell compelling stories shaped by faith, courage, forgiveness, or hope.
That variety matters because healthy family media should still be enjoyable.
The distinction is that entertainment doesn’t need to undermine a family’s beliefs in order to hold its attention.
Another benefit of intentional viewing is simply reducing the constant demand for stimulation. Mainstream digital media often encourages viewers to keep going. Finish one episode and another begins automatically. Watch one short video and dozens more appear. Attention itself has become valuable currency.
Faith-based streaming can help families establish a different rhythm.
Choose one documentary. Watch a devotional together. Listen to a meaningful conversation. Then turn the television off and talk.
Programs such as Groundworks with Steve Wiggins are particularly suited to this approach because brief, Scripture-centered episodes can provide meaningful input without consuming an entire evening. Living Fearless with Andy and Hedieh can similarly encourage thoughtful conversation about faith and everyday challenges.
The objective isn’t to fill every available minute with Christian programming. It’s to make more intentional choices about which voices receive the family’s attention.
Children eventually make their own media choices. Before that happens, parents have an opportunity to model discernment. That includes more than policing what children watch. Kids also notice what their parents consume.
If adults spend hours immersed in angry commentary, dark entertainment, or endless scrolling while telling children to make healthier choices, the message can become confusing.
Christ-centered leadership in the home means asking the same questions of adult entertainment that parents ask about children’s programming.
Those questions can gradually reshape a family’s media habits without requiring an overnight purge of every mainstream platform.
Real Life Network was created to provide a different kind of streaming environment.
Rather than placing biblical programming beside an enormous catalog of conflicting content, RLN carefully curates its library around Christian faith and biblical truth. Viewers can move between films, documentaries, podcasts, Bible teaching, cultural discussions, devotional programs, kids’ content, and live events without leaving that foundation.
That gives families something increasingly difficult to find in modern entertainment: a place where they can discover rather than constantly defend.
Parents still decide what fits the age and needs of their particular family. But the starting point is very different.
Replacing noisy entertainment doesn’t require rejecting technology, storytelling, or even every mainstream show. It means becoming more intentional about what receives a family’s limited time and attention.
Some entertainment merely fills a room. Better media can fill conversations, reinforce truth, encourage faith, and give families something meaningful to carry with them after the screen goes dark.
For Christian households, that makes faith-based family media more than an alternative. It can become one practical way to cultivate a home in which entertainment supports, rather than competes with, what matters most.
Explore biblically curated movies, documentaries, family programs, devotionals, and more anytime on Real Life Network.
Is your family’s entertainment adding value or just noise? Discover how faith-based movies, documentaries, and programs can help Christian families make intentional media choices, encourage meaningful conversations, and create a more Christ-centered home.
.jpg)
If voters are trying to imagine what the nation would look like under the socialist policies of a Democratic majority in Congress, look no farther than California.
Governor Gavin Newsom (D) and the Democratic supermajority in both chambers of the state legislature offer an extensive list of policies flowing from the same socialist and Marxist ideology being championed by the ascendant wing of the Democratic Party.
The latest example is AB 1803, signed by Governor Newsom last week. Authored by Assemblyman Josh Lowenthal (D), the law requires employers with five or more employees to add training on hate speech to the growing list of California’s harassment-training laws.
Lowenthal said, “California must make meaningful progress to train Californians on the danger of hate speech not only in the workplaces, but in society as a whole.”
The law describes speech covered by the training as speech that “vilifies, humiliates, or incites hatred” against people based on protected characteristics.
And what are those protected characteristics? They include religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, and reproductive health decision-making — which includes abortion.
There are others, but those are enough to raise serious questions for Christians and religious organizations.
First, there is no clear legal definition of hate speech. Whatever the intent, the effect is to give the term enormous elasticity. Who decides when a deeply held religious conviction crosses the line from disagreement into “humiliation” or “vilification” and is then defined as hate speech?
Second, California law does not make sufficiently clear how this new mandate applies to churches and religious ministries. That ambiguity itself should concern anyone who values religious freedom, because the protected categories include subjects on which biblical Christianity makes unmistakable moral and theological claims.
Jesus said in Matthew 19 that the Creator “made them male and female,” and then described marriage in terms of a man and a woman. Does teaching those words humiliate someone who rejects the biblical understanding of sex and marriage?
What about Jesus’s words in John 14: “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me”? Christianity is inherently exclusive in its truth claims. Could that someday be deemed vilifying toward another religion?
This is why California’s law should concern the church and everyone else, for that matter. When state officials declare the state needs to train society on what is appropriate speech, all of society is in trouble. Frankly, the state of California should not be instructing the church — the church should be instructing the government on what is right and wrong.
For Christians, this is an Acts 4 moment. When Peter and John were ordered not to speak or teach in Jesus’s name, they answered: “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge.”
California is not merely a laboratory for the Left; it is a warning to the rest of America. The question for voters is whether California’s experiment stops at the state line, or comes to Washington. And the question for the church is even more fundamental: when government demands that we compromise biblical truth, will we have the courage of Peter and John to stand firm and speak it?
This article was originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.
California’s new hate speech training law is raising concerns about religious liberty and government authority. Critics warn that vague definitions and unclear protections for churches could put biblical teachings on marriage, gender, and faith at odds with state requirements.

The economy matters. Groceries, gas prices, housing costs, and the pressure on American families deserve serious attention. But national security belongs in that conversation, too. The decisions made in Washington affect more than household budgets. They shape the country's ability to confront terrorism, protect religious communities, secure its borders, and respond to threats abroad.
Those connections deserve closer examination. Through The Daniel Cohen Show on Real Life Network, the intersection of faith, national security, Israel, and American politics remains central to understanding the headlines.
The approaching November 3 midterms raise questions that go well beyond which party controls Congress. Who sets national security priorities? How should America respond to Iran and its terrorist proxies? What responsibilities do elected officials have when antisemitism and political violence reach American communities?
National security is not an abstract debate reserved for Washington. Its consequences can reach neighborhoods, schools, houses of worship, and ordinary families.
Iran remains central to the discussion about American national security and the Middle East. Its support for armed groups, including Hezbollah and Hamas, has made its regional influence a continuing concern for the United States and Israel.
Yet political disagreements over Iran and Israel often become tangled in arguments about military assistance, international law, and America's responsibilities overseas.
Michigan's Senate contest illustrates those competing priorities.
Abdul El-Sayed has argued against unconditional American military assistance to foreign governments, including Israel. In interviews, his position has emphasized applying international law consistently and restricting weapons transfers to governments accused of violating it.
That approach raises legitimate questions about American foreign policy. Military assistance is not an unlimited obligation, and elected officials have a responsibility to scrutinize how taxpayer money is spent.
But the discussion cannot stop there.
Israel faces rocket and missile threats from hostile armed groups and regional adversaries. Defensive systems such as Iron Dome exist to intercept incoming projectiles and protect civilian populations. Any proposal to restrict military assistance therefore deserves careful examination of its potential consequences for defensive capabilities as well as offensive operations.
There is also an important distinction between criticizing a government's military decisions and excusing terrorism directed against its citizens.
The March attack against Temple Israel in West Bloomfield, Michigan, brought that distinction much closer to home. A vehicle carrying incendiary materials was driven into a synagogue complex that also serves children and families. The incident prompted renewed concerns about antisemitic violence and the reach of conflicts originating thousands of miles away.
Political leaders can disagree about Israel's government, military operations, and American foreign assistance. Those disagreements do not diminish the obligation to condemn attacks against Jewish civilians and religious institutions.
No disagreement over foreign policy can justify threatening Jewish families or treating American religious communities as extensions of a foreign government.
The same principle must apply to every community. A synagogue, church, mosque, or school should never become a target because of anger over events elsewhere.
The connection between national security and congressional elections is more substantial than campaign rhetoric might suggest.
Congress controls federal appropriations, establishes statutory authorities, conducts oversight, and plays a central role in shaping the agencies responsible for national defense and domestic security. The Senate also exercises its constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent on presidential nominations requiring confirmation.
Those responsibilities make congressional debates over homeland security, intelligence gathering, immigration enforcement, and counterterrorism consequential.
An alleged ISIS-inspired plot involving the Mall of America in Minnesota offers an example of the threats federal investigators seek to identify before violence occurs.
According to the account presented by federal authorities, an 18-year-old suspect had communicated about supporting ISIS and allegedly considered carrying out an attack in the United States after plans to travel overseas did not materialize. The allegations require the usual distinction between prosecutors' claims and facts established in court.
But the broader issue remains significant: preventing terrorism requires investigative resources, intelligence cooperation, appropriate legal authorities, and effective oversight.
Protecting the public also requires precision.
Terrorist organizations are responsible for their own violence. Their actions must not become an excuse to assign collective guilt to immigrants, Muslims, or particular ethnic communities. Effective counterterrorism depends upon identifying actual threats rather than confusing religious identity or national origin with criminal conduct.
That is why national security policy requires more than slogans about being tough or compassionate.
The public deserves to understand how candidates would approach terrorism investigations, border security, intelligence oversight, civil liberties, and the constitutional limits of government authority.
Those questions belong alongside debates about inflation, healthcare, education, and taxation.
Three years after the Hamas-led October 7 attack, the anniversary remains a painful occasion for Jewish communities around the world.
Approximately 1,200 people were killed in the attack, and 251 were taken hostage. The consequences have extended far beyond Israel, including heightened security concerns and incidents of antisemitism in the United States.
New York City's response to the anniversary illustrates how difficult the public conversation has become.
Mayor Zohran Mamdani's remarks acknowledging the suffering caused by October 7 while criticizing Israel's subsequent military actions became a point of contention among activists with sharply different expectations.
The controversy reflects a larger problem in contemporary politics: expressions of sympathy, criticism, and disagreement are increasingly measured against demands for complete ideological agreement.
Recognizing the suffering of Israeli victims does not require ignoring Palestinian civilian suffering. Likewise, expressing concern for Palestinians does not require minimizing the October 7 atrocities or excusing antisemitism.
Both truths can be maintained without contradiction.
Political movements become less capable of honest debate when every disagreement is treated as betrayal. Acknowledging suffering should not depend upon whether the victims belong to a preferred political or religious community.
For Christians, Scripture establishes a higher standard than political loyalty. Human beings bear God's image, and the obligation to speak truthfully does not disappear when truth becomes inconvenient to a favored party or cause.
Proverbs 18:17 reminds readers that the first account of a dispute may sound persuasive until it is examined. That principle applies to viral videos, campaign statements, accusations of extremism, and claims about political opponents.
Christian discernment requires consistency: condemn terrorism without qualification, reject antisemitism without hesitation, and examine political claims without surrendering judgment to party loyalty.
The approaching midterms will generate enormous attention around polling, turnout, and campaign strategies. Those subjects are part of the political process, but they should not obscure the governing responsibilities attached to the offices being contested.
A Senate vote can affect national security appointments. A congressional appropriation can determine resources available to federal agencies. Legislative oversight can expose failures or strengthen accountability.
Understanding those responsibilities provides a more useful framework than treating every political development as a contest between personalities.
The same seriousness belongs in discussions about Israel, Iran, and religious freedom. American foreign policy involves real tradeoffs, and domestic security decisions can affect both public safety and constitutional liberties.
No political party possesses a monopoly on wisdom, and no candidate should be exempt from difficult questions.
The standard should remain consistent: evidence before accusations, clarity before slogans, and responsibility before political convenience.
Follow the intersection of biblical truth, Israel, national security, and American current events through The Daniel Cohen Show, streaming free on Real Life Network
As the 2026 midterms approach, national security deserves attention alongside the economy. From Iran and Israel to domestic terrorism and rising antisemitism, congressional decisions carry consequences for American families, religious freedom, and public safety.

A newly enacted law in California that requires virtually all employers to give employees “anti-hate speech” training is raising red flags, as experts say that the mandate could force churches to provide training that conflicts with sincerely held biblical beliefs regarding sexuality, gender, and marriage.
Late last month, California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) signed into law AB 1803, a measure that requires all employers with five or more workers, including all churches and other nonprofit religious organizations, to provide employees with “anti-hate speech” instruction. But as observers like the California Family Council (CFC) are pointing out, the legislation does not define “hate speech,” instead handing the job to the state’s Civil Rights Department. The bill mandates that the training must confront workplace speech that “vilifies, humiliates, or incites hatred” against individuals based on what the state has already deemed a protected characteristic, which includes sex, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation.
The CFC goes on to observe that the statute, which will go into effect on January 1, 2028, never mentions churches or religious nonprofits and their First Amendment rights to hold sincerely held religious beliefs about sexuality and gender. It also “fails to separate protected expression from unlawful conduct,” noting that the Supreme Court held in 2017 that “the First Amendment has no hate speech exception.”
Greg Burt, who serves as vice president of CFC, further pointed out the problems with AB 1803’s vague language regarding key terms that it says constitute “hate.”
“What does it mean to vilify? What speech actually humiliates?” he wondered during “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” Tuesday. “[M]any times legislators consider many Christian beliefs when they’re expressed — especially regarding sexuality or gender — they accuse us of hating people. That’s [the] farthest thing from my mind. But we are simply advocating for our view that sex is determined by biology, and God created us both male and female. Well, to many people that is humiliating and that incites hatred. And so that’s the problem with this legislation.”
Burt went on to clarify that AB 1803 is being folded into a previously enacted statute that mandates sexual harassment training, which already specifies that using accurate biological pronouns constitutes “harassment.” “[Businesses are] already required to go through sexual harassment training, and we found out several years ago they redefined what sexual harassment means to include gender identity,” he explained. “… [The] California Civil Rights Department says misgendering is harassment, and so this training is on top of that already egregious training.”
As for how employers can fulfill the required training, Burt noted that hiring outside trainers is allowed, but the state-provided training that includes pro-LGBT messaging is free. “Right now, the state puts together a free curriculum — that’s how they do it with sexual harassment training, but you’re not required to use that training. You can come up with your own. But we don’t know exactly what ‘anti-hate’ is going to include, right? [Their] definition of speech that ‘humiliates’ — what does that mean? It really depends on the person who’s receiving the language.”
Burt further urged churches and other religious organizations in the Golden State to push back vigorously against the mandate. “What I think the state is doing is it’s trying to intimidate churches into following through with this,” he lamented. “They should not be receiving any kind of ideological training from the state on any moral issue. That’s why what churches need to be doing is asking for religious accommodations. The federal law and the state law already require businesses to accommodate people’s faith if they’re being required to do something that violates their faith. … [T]his is one of those points in history here in California where civil disobedience is going to be necessary.”
Burt concluded by emphasizing that state officials in California are counting on churches to kowtow to their demands instead of standing up for the constitutional freedoms, which has already proven to be a winning strategy.
“I’m sure they’re already thrilled that they get to retrain the entire population to believe what they believe regarding gender identity,” he reflected. “And so once we get accustomed to this and say, ‘Well, this is just what California requires, I guess we have to do it.’ No, you don’t. Folks, you’ve got to resist, and that includes individual employees. That’s what we are encouraging people to do. And we are having success. We have some attorneys we’re working with, and when people have been asking for religious accommodations, they have been accommodated.”
This article was written by Dan Hart and originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.
California’s new workplace anti-hate speech training law is raising religious liberty concerns. Christian advocates warn that vague language could pressure churches and religious employers to provide training that conflicts with their biblical beliefs.

Social science data continues to emerge showing that America’s young people are increasingly non-religious, isolated, and unhappy. But the data also shows that young people who are religious are thriving, with higher levels of happiness, more friends, are more likely to be married, and better educational outcomes than their non-religious peers.
Research released by the Institute for Family Studies (IFS) notes that since 2000, reports of unhappiness among young people aged 20 to 35 has more than doubled, surging from 11% to 23%. This has coincided with an era where young people are isolating at unprecedented levels as they immerse themselves in screens, pornography, social media, video games, and AI chatbots. “Socializing among young men and women is down more than 50%, from 12 hours to 5 hours per week,” IFS observes. Unsurprisingly, this has led to a precipitous decline in relationships and dating, with two thirds of young people not in serious relationships and teen dating down 50%.
As unhappiness and loneliness has risen among young people, so too has secularism. In March, Arizona Christian University’s Cultural Research Center reported that only 1% of Gen Z (ages 18 to 22) and 4% of adults in general has a biblical worldview (defined as “individuals whose beliefs and behaviors are consistently aligned with biblical principles”). The figure is down significantly since 1994, when 12% of adults reported a biblical worldview.
But married and religious young people seem to be largely escaping the unhappiness trap, with 50% saying they are “very happy” compared to just 16% of their secular, unmarried peers. As IFS points out, “faith and family remain two of the strongest bulwarks against loneliness and despair.”
For young men in particular, religion appears to be the hinge that catapults them into a future of contentment and success. Data shows that religious men are more likely to desire and attain marriage than those who are non-religious. They are also almost twice as likely to report feeling “very happy” and to say that life feels “purposeful/meaningful” than secular men. Religious men also report less mental health issues, anxiety, and depression. They also have bachelor’s degrees at far higher rates than non-religious men (46% vs. 16%) and report finishing trade school/apprenticeships at 29% (vs. 14% of secular men).
Where a happier minority of young people find meaning and purpose in religion, a far larger percentage appear to hold politics and government as their primary focal point, especially with the rising popularity of socialism.
“[M]y generation has grown up in a very hyper political age,” Counteract USA Founder and CEO Abigail DeJarnatt contended during “Washington Watch” Friday. “… [Many believe that] government can be the arbiter of morality. That’s what happens when Marxism infuses into our society. And that’s just what we’ve grown up with. So when you’re online and you’re on TikTok [watching] recipe videos, there’s also political ideologies that are being pushed on and talked about amongst Gen Z. So it’s not surprising at all that this is where we’re at, and I think we’ll just continue to see a lot more of it among young people.”
DeJarnatt further explained how her ministry is attempting to engage Gen Z with truth. “The primary thing that we’re focusing on with Gen Z Christians is teaching them a framework of biblical critical thinking,” she explained. “Because the reality is, a lot of Gen Z’s world is unfolding online. A lot of the conversations, online friendships, relationships. … What we’re trying to teach Gen Z to do is look at what they’re seeing online and ask, ‘Is it true? Is it not?’ … We’re trying to tell Gen Z [to] ask questions as fast as we’re scrolling online. Slow down. … And as Christians, we have to weigh that against the Bible itself.”
DeJarnatt went on to argue that a sense of self entitlement undergirded by Marxism has heavily influenced young people to abandon a solid biblical ethic. “[T]his Marxism that’s invaded our culture, just the hyper individualism in Gen Z,” she emphasized. “[Much of] Gen Z is [saying], ‘We aren’t happy with either political party.’ I think we have this idea that we can have it all. [It’s the] same framework of pick and choose our own ideology to the Bible. … [W]e think, ‘I like this, I don’t like this. I’m going to choose this. I’m not going to choose this.’”
DeJarnatt concluded by urging young believers to move beyond their comfort zones in order to spread the gospel to an isolated and unhappy wider culture.
“We see so many young Christians who are taught all these amazing things and their amazing churches that are Bible-based,” she noted. “They’re in Bible-based families that are going back to Scripture, but we need to teach Gen Z to take all the things that they know and actually apply them to the key conversations happening around us, having the conversations, just getting Gen Z to talk to each other … articulating those beliefs so that they actually become effective in wielding the sword of the spirit in the spiritual battle that’s raging all around us. They have the tools. They just need to know how to use them well.”
This article was written by Dan Hart and originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.
As loneliness and unhappiness rise among young Americans, research links religious faith and marriage with greater happiness, stronger relationships, and better educational outcomes, while Christian leaders urge Gen Z to put biblical truth into practice.

Like a lot of girls her age, Rosalie Markezich knew the standard talking point about mifepristone. Don’t worry, the online sites say. It’s just like taking a Tylenol. “Well, I’ve taken a lot of Tylenol in my lifetime,” she tells people now, and “it has never killed my child. It has never ruined my life, and it has never made me bleed for over a week.”
Unlike most moms, Rosalie never got the chance to hear that lie from her doctor, because she didn’t ask for a prescription in the first place. Her boyfriend ordered the pills in her name, and without any sort of ID or verification, the drugs magically showed up at her house. “I told him, ‘No thank you. I do not want you to do that, and I do not want them.’ Well, [he] found the website. He filled it out all with my personal information that I did not give him to use … [and] $150 later, he successfully ordered abortion pills through the mail from a [California] doctor named Remy Coeytaux, shipped directly to my doorstep.”
When he forced her to swallow them, her plan was to go inside and throw them up. But it was too late. “That night, I laid on a blood-soaked towel by myself, choking on my own breath. I remember my body rejecting it, rejecting its own breath — the one thing that it needs. I was praying to God, ‘Please take me too.’” Now, filled with grief and anger at how the government has robbed her of everything the Left insists this debate is about — choice, privacy, and safety — she’s fighting back.
“The FDA was wrong,” Rosalie said emotionally at the Pray Vote Stand Summit. “They allowed these drugs. They allowed them to go through the mail. They knew the warnings. They knew what could happen. And yet they are still sending them through the mail after seeing firsthand what it has done to women and children.”
We’re talking about a drug, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall (R) reiterated, “that is facilitating domestic abuse and even murder.” And yet, four years ago, he shook his head, pro-lifers were at this same event celebrating the overwhelming victory of Dobbs, a success story a half-century of prayers and activism in the making. “But I don’t think any of us that were on that stage left the stage believing that we would have more abortions today than we had at that time.” All because of mifepristone — and the presidents since 2022 who have turned a blind eye to the violent consequences.
“It’s why, frankly, [we] are still amazed at this administration — which talks about being the most pro-life administration — simply burying their head in the sand on what we know is going on around us.” With a single signature, President Trump could turn this whole situation around, Marshall insists. “The data is there. … They have the capacity to be able to do it. The question is whether or not they have the political will.” And so far, they have not.
Instead, they’ve created a black market for abortion drugs that not only puts women who voluntarily take the pill in life-threatening situations, but sets fire to every pro-life state law in America. Right now, it doesn’t matter whether you live in Louisiana or New York, abortionists are illegally flooding every zip code of the country with mifepristone — and getting away with it.
If the Trump administration had the nerve to enforce the federal laws already on the books, Rosalie would be the happy mom of a two-year-old right now. Under the Comstock Act, the Justice Department should be cracking down on anyone shipping abortion pills through the mail — let alone to pro-life states whose voters have already made their voices heard on the issue. But instead, for reasons no one who witnessed the first Trump term can understand, Republican attorneys general like Louisiana’s Liz Murrill (R) are having to fight their way to the Supreme Court just for the right to have their laws respected.
Murrill, who’s already battling the FDA over its ridiculously lax standards on the drug, is expanding the war to states that are knowingly protecting the criminals sending pills into pro-life states. Together with Marshall and Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin (R), the trio is suing New York, California, and Massachusetts to try to dismantle the “shield laws” in blue states that refuse to punish anyone mailing mifepristone.
“They shield the doctor, they shield the pharmacist, they shield anybody who is involved with what I call the pill pipeline, sending those pills into our state,” Murrill told Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on “This Week on Capitol Hill.” “And they are doing it for a political purpose. They are doing it because they disapprove of the laws that our state has passed. And so they want to flood our state with those pills illegally.”
To get away with it, the prescribers leave no trace on the bottles. “They sanitize it. And so, you will never you may never know who actually prescribed those pills. … [They’re] filling the prescription bottle and sending it into our state with no name on it, no pharmacy on it, no recipient name.”
Murrill explained that her team actually tested the current market, having agents order drugs online. Asked if there’s any kind of consultation with a medical person, she replied no. “There’s none. They’re not even verifying who’s even buying them. … They mail them to anybody who basically fills out a form on the internet. So it’s extraordinarily irresponsible.” Not to mention, she added, that “they are directly trying to nullify our laws.”
And regardless of whether the women are coerced or ordering these of their own will, the AG sadly acknowledged that the number of emergency room visits is skyrocketing — mainly because no one is adhering to the FDA’s 10-week limit for the drug. “Is any other drug treated like this?” Perkins wanted to know. “None,” Murrill replied. “None,” she repeated. “That’s why I say over and over again … this is not health care. There is nothing about this that is health care. I mean, there is no situation in the medical field where they would do this with drugs or patients.”
That’s why red-state AGs sued the FDA in the first place, because it’s so shocking and unconscionable that a pill sending 10% of women to the ER doesn’t even require a doctor’s visit or approval. “Those rules are not in place anymore. And so, you know, it really poses a significant risk to women all over the country.”
Imagine, she emphasized, if blue states “mailed us cocaine or they mailed us fentanyl.” There would be legal consequences. Or, Perkins suggested, “What if … Louisiana said, ‘You know, we’re not going to work with California and New York on anything related to the Second Amendment. I don’t care what your laws say. We’re not going to support you in that.’” It’s like saying, “I’m going to mail guns to anybody who wants them,” Murrill agreed. “… They have laws that restrict gun ownership and possession in ways that we don’t. … [What if] I decided to violate those laws? And they wouldn’t be able to enforce them if we had a shield law similar to that. But we haven’t done that.”
At the end of the day, this is not a minor issue, the FRC president argued. Not for the baby, not for the mother, not for the constitutional process, and certainly not for state sovereignty. “You know,” Marshall underscored, “we can solve [this] problem right now. We have the ability to do it with the administration that’s in place. And it’s why not only is our prayer so important, but also our ability to stand together is so critical. Because the reality is it’s not about Republican or Democrat. It’s about protecting women’s health and preserving life. That’s our issue. That’s important — and on it, we’re right.”
This article was written by Suzanne Bowdey and originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this visit Real Life Network.
A woman’s account of being forced to take abortion pills is fueling renewed scrutiny of mifepristone, mail-order prescribing, state abortion laws, and shield laws protecting providers who send the drug across state lines.

A case centered on the Title IX rights of women to have male-free sports has been thrown out by a Biden-appointed judge, leaving Riley Gaines and the Independent Council on Women’s Sports (ICONS) determined to appeal.
Gaines and over a dozen female former college athletes filed the lawsuit funded and supported by ICONS in March 2024, claiming that the NCAA broke Title IX safeguards by allowing men to participate in women’s sports and infiltrate locker room spaces.
Gaines said in a statement on Tuesday, “This momentary setback will not deter me or other women athletes in the least. Rest assured, we will be appealing this decision. We are on the side of truth. I am confident Americans will rally to our side to fight the NCAA. Working together, we will defeat the NCAA’s continuing efforts to trample women’s rights in sports.”
U.S. District Judge Tiffany R. Johnson of the Northern District of Georgia on Monday dismissed the case, ruling that the NCAA does not have to abide by Title IX standards since it does not directly receive federal funding, which is a “prerequisite for liability under Title IX,” Fox News reported.
Johnson wrote, “Here, there is no evidence that the NCAA ever received, or could have received, federal funds. Thus, Plaintiffs’ Title IX claims cannot proceed.”
“Judge Johnson accepted the NCAA’s argument that the NCAA is not subject to Title IX and dismissed the case Gaines v. NCAA, brought by women college athletes seeking to hold the NCAA responsible for granting men access to women’s sports and private locker rooms,” ICONS said in a statement. “This decision removes all protections for women in NCAA collegiate competition across the country and underscores the vulnerability of women’s sports until court victories are secured.”
ICONS Co-Founder Kim Jones, a former NCAA All-American tennis player, insisted that Johnson was wrong in her ruling. “We believe the district judge erred and that the Court of Appeals will find that the NCAA, which is the controlling body of college sports for more than 1,100 member schools, almost all of which are federally funded, is subject to Title IX. We will not give up our fight for women and girls’ rights in sports.”
CEO and President of Concerned Women for America Penny Nance remarked that she is appalled by Johnson’s decision, and that it is “inexcusable for a judge to rule that the NCAA is above the law, and that a man’s identity takes priority over women’s rights.”
She continued, “This ruling effectively upholds the NCAA’s repulsive policy enabling sexual harassment and discrimination against female athletes. We are disgusted that the NCAA is lobbying for federal protections but refuses to protect female athletes. We will not back down from this fight in support of female athletes.”
The case comes at a time when far-left political candidates refuse to define what a woman is and affirm biological reality. A poll by Concerned Women for America found that “69% of Americans believe it is very or somewhat important in deciding who to vote for in this election that candidates oppose forcing female athletes to participate in sports and share locker rooms with biological boys/men identifying as girls/women.”
Nance continued, “Whether or not the NCAA takes federal funding, it directly benefits from the participation of its 1,100-plus member institutions, all of which are required to comply with Title IX. If the NCAA doesn’t comply with Title IX, no university should be allowed to be a member of the NCAA.”
“U.S. Senate passage of the Protect College Sports Act, along with this new ruling, exposes the glaring disconnect with federal civil rights law that Congress must address,” she added. “The NCAA continues to violate the rights of female athletes, but it should not be allowed to do so.”
The plaintiffs must file their notice of appeal in the next 30 days to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
This article was written by Quinn Delamater and originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.
A federal judge dismissed Riley Gaines and other female athletes’ Title IX lawsuit against the NCAA, ruling the organization is not subject to Title IX because it does not directly receive federal funding. The athletes plan to appeal.

Something is happening among younger Americans. Spiritual questions have not disappeared. If anything, a generation often described as secular appears increasingly interested in religion, spirituality, meaning, and transcendence. That hunger deserves attention because hunger alone does not determine what eventually satisfies it.
That is one reason conversations about faith, culture, religious liberty, Israel, and the institutions shaping the next generation matter. Real Life Network exists to bring a biblical perspective into precisely those conversations.
The central question is not whether young people will believe in something. Human beings inevitably build their lives around some understanding of truth, identity, morality, and purpose. The more important question is what will shape those beliefs.
Joshua put the choice plainly before Israel: “Choose for yourselves today whom you will serve.” There was no illusion of neutrality. Something would occupy the center.
A spiritually hungry generation will be formed by something. The question is what reaches it first.
That question becomes especially important when families, schools, churches, and courts disagree about religious formation.
A recent Maine custody dispute illustrates how complicated those conflicts can become. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court upheld an order giving a father final decision-making authority concerning his daughter’s involvement with a particular Calvary Chapel congregation. The mother argued that the restriction violated her constitutional religious rights.
The details matter. The court rejected the characterization that it had determined Christianity itself was psychologically harmful. Instead, it said the lower court’s concerns involved messages the child received about her father and the effects of the parental conflict. That distinction deserves to be represented accurately even as the case raises significant questions about parental rights, religious upbringing, and how courts should navigate disputes involving faith.
Similar questions emerge in public schools.
Liberty High School in Frisco, Texas, recently faced scrutiny after a Muslim student organization reportedly described a school space as intended for Muslim prayer and said “only Muslims” would be allowed. Frisco ISD responded that the space is actually a “quiet room,” is not designated as belonging exclusively to one religion, and can be used for purposes other than prayer. District policy allows students of any faith to request reasonable opportunities for voluntary prayer.
That is the standard worth defending: equal religious liberty.
Christian students should be free to read Scripture, gather voluntarily, pray, and express their faith under the same rules that protect Muslim, Jewish, or other religious students. Religious liberty becomes unstable when society begins treating freedom of religion as something that must be protected for certain beliefs but restrained for others.
The answer to religious pluralism is not less religious freedom. It is the consistent application of religious freedom.
That principle matters because schools and courts do more than settle isolated disputes. They help establish the boundaries within which families and young people understand faith in public life.
The competition for belief extends well beyond churches and schools.
Entertainment, political movements, universities, influencers, social media personalities, and celebrities all participate in forming cultural assumptions. The influence can be especially powerful when it arrives as entertainment rather than instruction.
Consider the controversy surrounding actor Adam Brody. Brody, who stars as a rabbi in Nobody Wants This, recently told GQ that he considers Israel’s conduct in Gaza a “genocide” and expressed support for a free Palestine. GQ
That is Brody’s political position, and the characterization of Israel's conduct as genocide remains fiercely disputed. But the larger cultural question extends beyond one actor or one television program: what happens when entertainment, identity, politics, and moral formation become intertwined?
Audiences should be capable of encountering political opinions without automatically adopting them. The same standard applies across ideological lines. Celebrity does not establish truth. Popularity does not establish truth. A viral video does not establish truth.
Neither does political influence.
Rep. Ro Khanna recently called for Israel to release Marwan Barghouti, describing him as a potentially unifying Palestinian leader who could contribute to a peaceful Palestinian state. Barghouti, a prominent Fatah figure, is serving multiple life sentences after an Israeli court convicted him on five counts of murder connected to attacks during the Second Intifada. Barghouti rejected the court’s jurisdiction and denied the charges.
That creates a serious policy and moral debate. Supporters of Barghouti’s release view him as a potential political alternative in Palestinian leadership. Critics point to the murder convictions and argue that presenting his release as a path toward peace minimizes the victims and the violence for which he was convicted.
Those facts should not disappear behind political slogans.
The same principle applies to Israel and Gaza more broadly. October 7, Palestinian civilian suffering, Hamas’s actions, Israel’s military response, and the future of Palestinians and Israelis deserve serious examination rather than arguments inherited from celebrities, influencers, political parties, or social-media feeds.
Discernment begins when the source of an idea matters less than whether the idea is actually true.
That brings the discussion back to spiritual hunger.
A generation searching for meaning is not necessarily a generation returning to biblical Christianity. Interest in spirituality can lead toward Christianity, but it can also lead toward astrology, manifestation, political ideology, personalized spirituality, or countless other belief systems. The transcript’s central argument is precisely that distinction: spiritual appetite and Christian revival are not automatically the same thing. Pasted text
Christians should therefore resist two temptations.
The first is panic. Cultural change does not mean God has lost control.
The second is passivity. Confidence in God’s sovereignty has never meant indifference toward the formation of children, families, churches, or communities.
Parents are forming children. Teachers are forming students. Churches are forming congregations. Algorithms are forming users. Entertainment is forming audiences. Political movements are forming supporters. The question is not whether formation is happening. It is whether people recognize it.
Joshua’s challenge remains remarkably relevant: choose whom you will serve.
That choice reaches far beyond elections or partisan politics. It reaches into what is watched, what is believed, what is taught to children, what voices receive trust, what definitions of good and evil are accepted, and ultimately where authority is located.
A hungry generation is already at the table.
What matters now is what it is being fed.
Find more biblical perspective on faith, culture, Israel, and the stories shaping the next generation on The Daniel Cohen Show, streaming free on Real Life Network.
A spiritually hungry generation is searching for something to believe. From religious liberty and cultural influence to Israel and politics, the question is not whether young people will be formed, but what will shape their understanding of truth.

Christian families have more streaming choices than ever. Alongside mainstream services, a growing number of platforms now offer Christian movies, Bible teaching, children’s programming, documentaries, inspirational series, apologetics, and family-friendly entertainment.
But the best Christian streaming platforms serve very different purposes. Some are built around biblical teaching. Others focus on movies, children’s programming, Bible studies, or simply giving families cleaner entertainment options.
Here are 10 Christian and faith-oriented streaming platforms worth considering.

Cost: Free
Real Life Network offers one of the broadest combinations of biblical programming available without a subscription fee. The donor-supported platform includes Bible teaching, Christian news, apologetics, documentaries, podcasts, kids’ programs, movies, cultural commentary, and live events.
Viewers can find programs such Real Life with Jack Hibbs, RLN News, The Daniel Cohen Show, Cross Examined, The Creation Today Show, Superbook, and many other offerings within one biblically curated environment.
Unlike services centered primarily on movies, RLN is particularly strong for viewers who want entertainment combined with biblical teaching and programs addressing faith, culture, current events, and worldview.
Best for: Christians looking for a broad, free streaming platform built around biblical truth.

Cost: Paid subscription; plans begin at $9.99 per month
Great American Pure Flix is one of the best-known Christian streaming services for faith-forward movies and scripted entertainment.
Its catalog combines original series, Christian films, family dramas, Christmas programming, kids’ shows, and uplifting entertainment centered on faith, family, and traditional values. Multiple membership levels are available, with higher tiers adding features such as special screenings and early access.
For viewers who want a faith-oriented alternative to browsing mainstream movie libraries, Pure Flix remains one of the strongest options.
Best for: Christian movies, original series, family dramas, and faith-centered entertainment.

Cost: $5.99 per month or $59.99 annually
UP Faith & Family offers thousands of hours of commercial-free family movies, dramas, series, and inspirational entertainment.
Its catalog is broader than explicitly Christian programming. Viewers will find faith-friendly movies alongside wholesome family dramas and popular series such as Heartland.
That distinction makes UP Faith & Family particularly useful for households looking for cleaner entertainment without requiring every program to function as Christian teaching.
Best for: Wholesome dramas, family movies, romantic stories, and uplifting entertainment.

Cost: Free
FaithChannel is a free Christian streaming service offering movies, television shows, documentaries, preaching, teaching, music, podcasts, children’s programming, and other inspirational content.
Its growing library includes programming from a variety of independent Christian ministries and content producers. Titles range from Heroic Faith and The Torchlighters to apologetics, Bible prophecy, family films, podcasts, and children’s shows.
Because much of its catalog comes from different creators and ministries, viewers can encounter a particularly wide variety of formats and perspectives.
Best for: Exploring free Christian films, independent programs, teaching, podcasts, and inspirational content.

Cost: $10.99 per month or $69.99 annually after a free trial
Minno is designed specifically for Christian families with younger children.
Its library includes more than 175 shows, including the classic VeggieTales collection, Bible stories, music, educational programs, and Christian children’s entertainment. Families can stream across multiple devices and download programming for offline viewing.
Because the service is built specifically for children rather than including kids’ programming as one category within a larger library, it gives parents a focused alternative to mainstream children’s streaming.
Best for: Preschool and elementary-age children, Christian cartoons, Bible stories, and faith-based learning.

Cost: $7.99 per month or an annual subscription after a free trial
Yippee combines Christian children’s television with the energetic creator-driven format kids often encounter online.
Its library includes thousands of episodes from hundreds of series and movies, including Superbook, Christian programming, music, educational shows, and parent-approved creators. Yippee emphasizes that its environment contains no ads and no recommendation algorithms.
That makes it especially attractive to parents whose children enjoy online video but who want more control over what appears next.
Best for: Families seeking a Christian alternative to children’s YouTube viewing.

Cost: Access is generally provided through subscribing churches and Christian organizations
RightNow Media is less like Netflix and more like an enormous digital discipleship library.
It offers more than 25,000 video Bible studies covering Scripture, marriage, parenting, leadership, finances, recovery, Christian living, and other topics. The service also includes more than 2,000 children’s episodes and downloadable materials for many studies.
Rather than purchasing individual subscriptions, users generally receive access through a participating church, ministry, or organization.
Its combination of teaching videos and discussion materials makes RightNow Media particularly useful for small groups and church ministries.
Best for: Bible studies, small groups, church discipleship, leadership development, and Christian education.

Cost: Free
RedeemTV offers more than 2,000 faith-filled titles without subscription fees or advertising.
Its donor-supported library includes Christian movies, documentaries, animated programs, television series, and family entertainment. Titles include The Pilgrim’s Progress, Vindication, Fragments of Truth, Ryan Defrates, and many others.
RedeemTV is especially strong for viewers whose primary interest is films and entertainment. Real Life Network offers a broader mix of teaching, news, cultural programming, and entertainment, while RedeemTV concentrates more heavily on movies and series.
Best for: Free Christian movies and shows without commercials.

Cost: $9.99 per month when billed directly; supported streaming subscriptions may also be required
VidAngel takes a completely different approach to family entertainment.
Rather than providing only a traditional catalog of Christian programming, VidAngel lets viewers apply customizable filters to supported movies and shows from other streaming services. Families can choose categories of language, sexual content, violence, and other material they would prefer to mute or skip.
That means parents do not necessarily have to reject an entire movie because of a handful of objectionable scenes.
VidAngel requires users to have their own subscriptions to compatible streaming services for much of its filtered content.
Best for: Families who want more control over mainstream movies and television shows.

Cost: Individual rentals and purchases; optional subscription plans are also available
Christian Cinema is useful for viewers who do not necessarily want another monthly streaming subscription.
Movies can be rented individually and streamed for a limited viewing period or purchased and stored in a digital library for on-demand viewing. The service specializes in Christian and faith-based films rather than trying to compete as a broad general-entertainment platform.
Christian Cinema also offers optional subscription plans for additional movies and television programming, but its rent-or-buy model remains a major distinction.
Best for: Viewers who want specific Christian movies without committing to another full streaming subscription.
The best platform depends on what you want from it.
Start by considering biblical alignment. A platform described as “family-friendly,” “inspirational,” or even “faith-based” is not necessarily the same as a service intentionally grounded in Scripture. Families should consider who selects the programming and what worldview shapes the library.
Next, consider the type of content your household actually watches. Parents with young children may get more value from Minno or Yippee, while a small-group leader may find RightNow Media far more useful. Movie lovers may prefer Pure Flix or RedeemTV, while viewers interested in Bible teaching, apologetics, news, and culture may find Real Life Network a better fit.
Finally, consider cost, commercials, device compatibility, offline viewing, parental controls, and whether a service requires other subscriptions to function.
Yes.
Real Life Network is completely free and donor-supported, offering Christian teaching, news, movies, kids’ programs, apologetics, podcasts, and more without a paid tier. RedeemTV is also donor-supported and offers more than 2,000 titles free without ads. FaithChannel provides free faith-and-family programming as well.
Angel has selected titles available without a Guild membership, although most of its full catalog now requires paid access.
For families trying to reduce monthly subscription costs, the amount of Christian programming available free is substantial.
There is no single answer for every household. For families seeking a platform the whole household can use, Real Life Network has an advantage because its free library extends beyond children’s entertainment to Bible teaching, movies, documentaries, current events, apologetics, podcasts, and family programming.
Families primarily concerned with younger children may prefer Minno or Yippee. Those wanting a traditional movie-and-series experience may choose Pure Flix, UP Faith & Family, or RedeemTV.
The best choice is the one that not only avoids objectionable material but also supports the values parents are working to build at home.
What Is the Best Christian Streaming Platform?
The best platform depends on your priorities. Real Life Network is a strong all-around choice for viewers seeking free biblical teaching, Christian news, apologetics, kids’ programming, movies, documentaries, and cultural content. Pure Flix is particularly strong for Christian movies and scripted entertainment, while Minno and Yippee specialize in children’s programming.
What Is the Best Free Christian Streaming Service?
Real Life Network and RedeemTV are two of the strongest completely free options. RLN provides a broad mix of programming, while RedeemTV has a particularly large free library of Christian films and series. FaithChannel is another free option worth exploring.
Is There a Christian Alternative to Netflix?
Several services can function as Christian or family-oriented alternatives to Netflix. Pure Flix most closely resembles a traditional subscription movie-and-series platform, while Real Life Network combines entertainment with teaching, news, apologetics, and family programming at no cost.
What Is the Best Christian Streaming Platform for Kids?
Minno and Yippee are specifically built around Christian children’s entertainment. Real Life Network also offers free children’s programming within a larger platform designed for the whole family.
Do I Need to Pay for Christian Streaming?
No. While many Christian streaming services charge monthly or annual subscription fees, Real Life Network, RedeemTV, and FaithChannel offer free options.
Christian streaming is no longer a single category. Families can now choose platforms specializing in movies, Bible studies, kids’ shows, documentaries, teaching, news, apologetics, and wholesome general entertainment.
The right choice depends on what you want entering your home and what role you want media to play in your family.
For viewers who want to begin with a service built around biblical truth without adding another monthly expense, Real Life Network provides free access to Christian teaching, news, family programming, movies, documentaries, podcasts, apologetics, kids’ shows, and more.
Explore free Christian streaming today on Real Life Network.
Christian streaming platforms now offer everything from Bible teaching and apologetics to movies, kids’ shows, and family entertainment. This guide compares streaming options to help families find the service that best fits their needs.

More than 50,000 Americans from across the country signed a new “Declaration for Life” within hours of its public release that calls on them and their fellow citizens “to stand for life” and for Congress “to ban the chemical abortion drug mifepristone,” Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) told reporters during an impromptu news conference in a Senate office building Wednesday.
“We think this declaration, written by pastors, is calling on spiritual leaders and everyday Christians across America to stand for life and to confront the scourge of chemical abortion. It is so critical on this the 250th anniversary of America,” Hawley said, referring to the four-page declaration he and a committee of pastors and other spiritual leaders from multiple denominations drafted.
The Declaration for Life was officially unveiled Wednesday during the first annual Missouri Prayer Breakfast hosted by the Show-Me State’s senior senator. The document is being circulated nationwide by multiple pro-life groups, including Family Research Council, and millions of Americans are expected to sign the document in the coming days.
“The Declaration of Independence gives us three examples of ‘inalienable rights:’ life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Life is the first of those rights because it is the condition of the others. It is thus the most foundational of rights,” the document proclaims at its outset.
“We believe we have an obligation as Christians and spiritual leaders to remind our countrymen of what Scripture and conscience together proclaim: That every human being from the moment of our knitting together in our mothers’ wombs, was fearfully and wonderfully made. The divine image each human being bears was not earned. It cannot be forfeited. And it is the first duty of the Church to defend human dignity where it is denied,” the document states.
The declaration continues, noting that “what is at stake on this anniversary is nothing less than the conviction on which every flourishing society finally rests: That each and every member of the human family, as a creature fashioned in the image of the divine Creator and Ruler, is the bearer of profound dignity. Where that conviction is honored, civilizations flourish. Where it is forgotten, cultures decline and fall.”
The declaration explains that while in the four years since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision “returned the abortion question from courts to legislatures,” that decision “did not end abortion in America. Far from it. More abortions are performed in this country today than when [Roe v. Wade] was still the law of the land — over one million abortions in 2025 alone.”
Three-fourths of those abortions are carried out using the chemical drug mifepristone, and, the declaration points out, “thanks to recent changes in government regulations, mifepristone can now be mailed into every state and city in America, regardless of local rules. The abortion drug is nearly always fatal to the unborn child and frequently injurious to the mother. Recent studies indicate the drug puts more than one in 10 women who take it at risk of serious, life-threatening complications, including hemorrhaging, infections and sepsis.”
Hawley told reporters he believes “the time has come to ban mifepristone abortions, and I want to emphasize this is something only Congress can do. … Only Congress can act to take mifepristone off of the Food and Drug Administration’s [approved drug] schedule, only Congress can say it will not be available for abortions. That’s something that Congress should do. Congress should stop passing the buck to other people. Congress should stand up and act.”
As long as Congress fails to act, Hawley emphasized, state actions such as those in Louisiana, Missouri, and others that have banned chemical abortions carried out by medical professionals in those jurisdictions will continue to be rendered meaningless so long as the drug can be mailed across state lines and administered in private by the mother with a cup of water.
Hawley added that “when it comes to elected officials in Congress, there hasn’t been much of anything [done] to protect the innocent unborn, and I think we’ve got to change that. One of the things we want to do with this Declaration for Life is call on candidates for public office in both parties to sign this declaration, to say ‘We support it, we support protecting human life.’”
Earlier this year, Hawley introduced S. 4066, the Safeguarding Women from Chemical Abortion Act that would outlaw chemical abortions. On the House side of the Capitol, the same legislation was introduced as H.R. 7902 by Rep. Diana Harshbarger (R-Tenn.). The Senate bill has seven co-sponsors, all Republicans, while the House bill has 11 co-sponsors, also all GOPers. Neither proposal has been advanced to committee hearings, as Republican leaders focus on other issues.
Another major obstacle for such reforms includes the lack of action from President Donald Trump, whose administration approved in October 2025 a second generic version of mifepristone for abortion use and has delayed a promised FDA study of the drug.
In addition, as Family Research Council President Tony Perkins told reporters during the Hawley news conference, the Republican Party at its 2024 convention abandoned its long-standing defense of the right to life, and its congressional leadership has since failed to act vigorously on the issue.
“Unfortunately, the Republican Party has lost its voice on the right to life issue, and in that vacuum, there are leaders who are stepping forward like Senator Hawley calling upon the church, communities, and the country to step up on behalf of the unborn,” Perkins said.
“We have made great progress,” FRC’s president continued, “but there has been a tremendous setback, and we’ve reached a point where I think we have to call upon the faith community, Christian pastors, to step into this vacuum and speak unequivocally about the sanctity of human life and hold elected officials accountable to the standard. This declaration is a starting point for establishing a standard for what we should be aspiring to as a nation.”
When asked by The Washington Stand if he would initiate legislative action in response to a Government Accounting Office (GAO) study released earlier this week that found thousands of abortions are being paid for annually with federal tax dollars through the Obamacare health insurance program, Hawley replied, “100 percent, and the other thing that is happening is that Planned Parenthood is getting funded right now. The ban on Planned Parenthood funding has expired, [and] it’s being funded with taxpayer dollars.”
The Hyde Amendment — named after former Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) who authored the measure — was approved by a Democrat-controlled Congress and signed into law by Democratic President Jimmy Carter in 1977. That law bars the use of federal tax dollars to pay for abortions except in a tiny class of exceptions.
This article was written by Mark Tapscott and originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.
Sen. Josh Hawley and Christian leaders are calling on Americans to sign a new Declaration for Life and urging Congress to ban mifepristone for abortion, placing chemical abortion at the center of a renewed national debate over abortion policy.
.jpg)
News can be useful. It helps us understand what is happening in our communities, our country, and around the world. It can alert us to events that deserve prayer, action, generosity, or thoughtful attention.
But news can also consume attention surprisingly quickly.
Breaking alerts lead to updates. Updates lead to commentary. Commentary leads to another video, article, or social media post. Before long, a few minutes of staying informed can become hours of absorbing conflict, outrage, fear, and speculation.
Christians don’t need to withdraw from what is happening in the world. But neither should the news determine the condition of our hearts.
Here are seven practical ways believers can remain informed without allowing the news cycle to become spiritually overwhelming.
One of the simplest ways to keep news in perspective is to decide which voice gets your attention first.
Opening a news app before getting out of bed can immediately fill your mind with elections, wars, economic concerns, crime, cultural conflict, and international crises. Scripture begins somewhere very different: with God, His character, His promises, and His purposes.
Psalm 119:105 says, “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.”
Starting with God’s Word doesn’t make difficult events disappear. It helps place them within a larger biblical framework.
Before asking, What happened overnight? it can be helpful to remember what has not changed. God is still sovereign. His Word is still true. The Gospel is still good news. Christ is still building His Church.
Headlines change by the hour. Those truths do not.
There is no biblical command requiring Christians to know every development immediately. Yet modern media can create a sense that we must continually monitor events or risk falling behind.
That urgency deserves examination.
Being informed means understanding significant events well enough to think, pray, and respond wisely. Being consumed means repeatedly checking for updates even when little has changed and continuing long after the information is useful.
One helpful question is: Am I learning something I need to know, or am I simply feeding my anxiety?
Setting specific times for checking news can help establish boundaries. So can turning off unnecessary alerts or stepping away when a developing story has become repetitive.
You can care deeply about the world without following every headline in real time.
Fast-moving news rewards quick reactions. Christian discernment often requires something slower. Proverbs 18:17 says, “The first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him.”
That principle is especially useful in an age of social media clips, partial quotations, dramatic headlines, and rapidly developing stories.
Before sharing or reacting, ask:
Christians should have a particular concern for truth. Passing along something inaccurate simply because it supports our assumptions does not honor that responsibility.
Sometimes wisdom means waiting.
Politics matters because government, law, freedom, justice, family, human dignity, and public policy affect real people. But Christianity cannot be reduced to a political party or ideology.
Believers should evaluate political and cultural questions through Scripture rather than modifying Scripture to fit a preferred political position.
That means Christians may sometimes agree strongly with a political leader, movement, or commentator and at other times need to challenge what that same person says or does.
Biblical conviction should remain the standard.
Programs that approach culture from an explicitly Christian worldview can be useful here. Cure America with Star Parker, The Daniel Cohen Show, Rose Unplugged, Small Talk Big Issues, and The City of God are among the programs available through Real Life Network that engage cultural and public issues from faith-informed perspectives.
The objective isn’t to replace independent thinking. It is to consider events alongside voices that recognize biblical truth as relevant to public life.
News can easily produce frustration. It can also become a prayer list.
First Timothy 2:1–2 instructs believers to offer prayers and intercessions “for kings and all who are in authority.” That command gives Christians something constructive to do with difficult information.
Instead of merely asking, Can you believe this? we can also ask, How should I pray about this?
News naturally emphasizes problems. That is partly because crises, disagreements, disasters, and unexpected developments are newsworthy. But consuming an uninterrupted stream of what is going wrong can distort our perception of what God is doing.
Churches are serving communities. Missionaries are sharing the Gospel. People are coming to Christ. Christians are caring for the poor, helping disaster victims, defending the vulnerable, strengthening families, and serving in places most viewers will never see on the evening news.
Programs such as On the Ground with Samaritan’s Purse can provide glimpses of Christians responding to suffering with practical help. Fred Jordan Missions TV highlights faith expressed through compassion and community involvement. Evangelism Explosion International focuses on equipping believers to share Christ with others.
These stories don’t erase bad news.
They remind us that bad news isn’t the whole story.
Perhaps the most important way to remain grounded is to remember where Christian hope ultimately rests.
Governments change. Political movements rise and fall. Economies strengthen and weaken. International alliances shift. Cultural attitudes change.
Jesus Christ does not.
Philippians 3:20 reminds believers, “For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.” That doesn’t make Christians indifferent to earthly events. In fact, biblical faith should encourage believers to care about their neighbors, communities, country, and world.
But it prevents temporary events from carrying eternal weight.
Christians can vote, serve, advocate, give, pray, speak truth, and remain engaged while remembering that no election, institution, economic system, or human leader can carry the hope that belongs to Christ alone.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to understand what is happening in the world.
The challenge is keeping the news in its proper place.
Read Scripture before allowing headlines to establish the tone of your day. Set reasonable limits. Check facts carefully. Evaluate cultural and political questions through a biblical worldview. Pray about what you learn. Look for evidence of God’s work as well as evidence of human brokenness.
Above all, remember that Christians already know the most important news.
Jesus Christ has come. He died for sinners. He rose again. He offers forgiveness and eternal life to those who trust in Him, and He will return.
No breaking-news alert can change that.
Real Life Network offers RLN News along with programs such as The Daniel Cohen Show, Cure America, Rose Unplugged, The City of God, Small Talk Big Issues, and other biblically informed programming to help Christians consider current events without separating the headlines from their faith.
Explore Christian news, cultural commentary, Bible teaching, and more for free on Real Life Network.
The news can inform Christians without consuming them. These seven practical habits can help believers follow current events with biblical discernment, healthy boundaries, prayer, and confidence in the unchanging hope of Christ.

“The Declaration of Independence gives us three examples of ‘unalienable’ rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Life is the first of those rights because it is the condition of the others. It is thus the most foundational of all rights.”
Those words come from the opening paragraph of a “Declaration for Life: A Statement from Christian Leaders,” spearheaded by Missouri Senator Josh Hawley (R). I joined Senator Hawley in releasing the declaration this week after a prayer breakfast with Missouri pastors who traveled to Washington for the occasion.
The biblically and historically guided statement lays out the reason for the declaration: “The divine image each human being bears was not earned. It cannot be forfeited. And it is the first duty of the Church to defend human dignity where it is denied.”
The Declaration says life is foundational because of both America’s founding principles and the biblical doctrine of the image of God. But what makes this declaration timely is that it does not stop with the prose of biblical purpose; it moves to practical application with what has happened since the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Roe v. Wade did not end abortion in America. “Far from it. More abortions are performed in this country today than when Roe was still the law of the land.” The reason? Federal policy governing the abortion drugs, like mifepristone, that now accounts for over two-thirds of the abortions in the United States. The FDA dropped the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone, and the DOJ refuses to enforce federal law that prohibits abortion materials being sent through the mail. The result? Mailboxes in America have been turned into potential abortion facilities.
From the abortion industry’s own estimates, annual abortions have gone from about 930,000 prior to the overturn of Roe to over 1.1 million — an over 20% increase. That comes despite the efforts of many states to protect the unborn.
There are Republican members of Congress and state leaders who continue to champion the unborn, but the Republican Party has gone all but silent on the issue of life. The strong pro-life language that was a part of the GOP platform for decades was removed, and little is said about abortion.
Political parties may change their platforms. Politicians may change their priorities. But the responsibility of the church does not change.
Proverbs 31:8-9 says, “Open your mouth for the speechless, in the cause of all who are appointed to die. Open your mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy.”
In the context of that passage, it is a call to the king, the civil leader. But in America, ours is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We cannot simply outsource the responsibility for justice to those we elect.
We are called to defend the defenseless and speak for those whose voices have been silenced. Justice must have an advocate.
And that begins with life. Because the Declaration for Life gets this fundamental truth exactly right: life is the condition of every other right. If we will not defend the right that makes every other right possible, we weaken the foundation of justice itself.
To sign the declaration, text “declaration” to 67742.
This article was originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.
A new Declaration for Life led by Sen. Josh Hawley and Christian leaders argues that the right to life is foundational to every other right and calls the church to defend human dignity amid the rise of chemical abortion.

“An innocent, defenseless human life, in a caring and humane society, deserves better than to be flushed down a toilet or burned in an incinerator.” Such are the words of Henry Hyde, the former U.S. congressman from Illinois who tirelessly championed life and introduced the Hyde Amendment in 1976. Almost 50 years later, the legislative rider faces the opportunity to be renewed again.
For a half-century, the Hyde Amendment has stopped taxpayer dollars from funding abortion.
On Wednesday evening, Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, hosted a Special Order on the House floor to acknowledge the upcoming 50th anniversary of the Hyde Amendment on September 30. “The promise of America is that life is not just for the privileged, the planned, or the perfect,” Smith said, quoting Hyde. “This may sound odd, even ironic; you are here in the flush of victory. And yet it is precisely now that I ask you to contemplate the possibility of defeat, perhaps even the necessity of defeat. If you don’t know the principle or the policy for which you are willing to lose your office, then you are going to do damage here.”
Quena González, senior director of Government Affairs at Family Research Council, explained to The Washington Stand that Smith and Hyde have a history. “Representative Chris Smith served with Representative Henry Hyde for 26 years; he’s been a tireless defender of the unborn in Congress for 45 years and comes as close as anyone to carrying Hyde’s inimitable mantle.”
After the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, the U.S. government paid for an estimated 300,000 abortions each year via Medicaid. According to the Charlotte Lozier Institute, since the Hyde Amendment’s first enactment in 1976, approximately 2.7 million lives have been saved.
During Wednesday’s event, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) asserted that society has a duty to protect the unborn. “Life matters. Who are we as a people if we cannot stand up in defense of the most innocent form of life there is — a child in the womb of its mother? That should be our calling. And we should be able to unite as human beings in defense of the defenseless.”
Legislative Assistant for FRC’s Government Affairs Chantel Hoyt praised what House members shared during the Special Order. “I appreciated seeing Representative Chip Roy connect this important anniversary to the toll that chemical abortion is taking,” she told TWS. “It’s encouraging to see members like Representative Chris Smith carrying on Henry Hyde’s legacy and seeking to not only retain but build on the protections of the Hyde Amendment.”
Rep. Tracey Mann (R-Kan.) observed during the House event that he believes that abortion is not consistent with the Constitution. “Hyde should not be viewed as the finish line for the pro-life movement. It’s the floor. It’s a bare minimum compromise,” he shared. “America is founded on the self-evident truth that every person is created equal and endowed with our creator with an inherent right to life. That right is the foundation of every other right that we enjoy. As a father, I believe that every child is fearfully and wonderfully made by God. Every life has value, every child has purpose, and no child is a mistake.”
The Special Order and Hyde Amendment anniversary come at a time when chemical abortion has become a hot button issue on Capitol Hill. Pro-life politicians, lobbyists, and organizations continue to work tirelessly to ban the abortion drug mifepristone. “It’s always great to see members of Congress speak on the floor in defense of life, but especially now as we are urging the Trump administration to take action on chemical abortion to protect mothers and their babies,” Hoyt concluded.
This article was originally written by Quinn Delamater and published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.
As the Hyde Amendment approaches its 50th anniversary, lawmakers and pro-life advocates are reflecting on its history, its impact on federal abortion funding, and the continuing debate over abortion policy in America.

This article is drawn from my current episode of Rose Unplugged, airing now on the Real Life Network, where I had the extraordinary privilege of sitting down with two American heroes who know firsthand what it means to have freedom taken away.
As we observe National POW/MIA Recognition Day, I wanted to bring part of their story beyond the television screen, because their experience is not simply a chapter in American history. It is a reminder of what freedom costs, what courage looks like under unimaginable pressure, and what faith can sustain when almost everything else has been stripped away.
We talk a lot about freedom. We debate it, defend it and sometimes argue over what it means, but if we are honest, most of us rarely stop to think about what freedom actually costs. That is why National POW/MIA Recognition Day matters. It asks us to pause and remember the Americans who were captured, those who never came home, and the families who waited, prayed and carried the uncertainty with them.
Because every once in a while, we have the opportunity to hear from someone who knows exactly what it means when freedom is taken away—not for a day or a year, but for the better part of a decade.
I recently had that opportunity with Rear Admiral Robert Shumaker and Commander Everett Alvarez Jr., two Navy aviators who were shot down over North Vietnam and who together spent over sixteen years as prisoners of war. They were beaten, isolated, interrogated and separated from their families. They were told, again and again, that their country had forgotten them, yet they never allowed their captors to take the most important things from them: their identity, their faith, their loyalty to one another, their honor, and ultimately their love of country.
Commander Everett Alvarez was the first American aviator shot down and captured in North Vietnam. On August 5, 1964, while flying an A-4 Skyhawk from the USS Constellation, his aircraft was hit. He ejected over the water and was captured, with no roadmap and no one who could tell him what the coming years would look like because no American aviator had yet lived through what he was about to experience.
Then, months later, on February 11, 1965, Rear Admiral Robert Shumaker was shot down while flying an F-8 Crusader from the USS Coral Sea. He was forced to eject at extremely low altitude, suffering a broken back in the process, and was eventually captured.
What happened next is almost impossible for those of us living in freedom to comprehend: years of isolation, interrogation, brutal punishment and uncertainty about whether they would ever see their families or their country again. Yet something remarkable happened inside those prison walls. When everything external was stripped away, these men discovered that there were still things their captors could not control, and one of those things was the human mind.
Admiral Shumaker has described designing an entire house in his mind during his years in isolation, brick by brick and room by room. Years later, after returning home, he actually built that house. His captors could control his cell, his movements and his physical circumstances, but they could not enter his mind and take away his ability to create.
Then there was the tap code, perhaps one of the most remarkable examples of human ingenuity and determination to come out of those prison walls. Speaking to another prisoner was forbidden and could bring severe punishment, so Shumaker and Air Force Captain “Smitty” Harris developed a five-by-five grid of the alphabet that allowed prisoners to communicate by tapping letters through the concrete walls. One tap, another tap, another message—a language created in captivity that became a lifeline for men who desperately needed to know they were not alone.
Eventually, their captors discovered the code, and Shumaker and other senior officers were placed in solitary confinement for roughly three years because they were suspected of being leaders of the communication network. But isolating them did not destroy the brotherhood. If anything, their experience demonstrated how powerful that bond had become. Men who had never necessarily known one another before the war were willing to endure punishment rather than betray each other, and they found ways to encourage one another, communicate, pray and remain human in a place designed to strip them of their humanity.
And that brings me to faith, because Scripture is filled with people who discovered that God's presence does not always mean the absence of suffering.
Think about Joseph. His brothers betrayed him, sold him into slavery, and eventually he ended up in an Egyptian prison for something he did not do. Yet Scripture tells us that the Lord was with Joseph even there. Joseph did not know how his story would end, but God did. Years later, Joseph could look back at the people who had intended to harm him and say, “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good.”
Or think about Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. They refused to bow to the king's idol and were thrown into the fiery furnace, but God did not keep them from entering the fire; He was with them in it. That distinction matters because sometimes deliverance is not an escape from the trial. Sometimes deliverance is discovering that you are not alone in it.
David understood that when he wrote, “Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me.” The promise was not that the valley would disappear. The promise was about who would walk through it with him.
That is what I hear in the stories of these POWs—not despair, but resilience; not surrender, but resistance; and not the absence of suffering, but faith under pressure. Their circumstances forced them back onto something deeper than comfort or convenience, onto the courage, discipline, faith and determination God had placed within them.
And perhaps most remarkably, these men came home.
In January 1973, word began reaching the prisoners that a peace agreement had been signed and that they would finally be going home. Admiral Shumaker was released on February 12, 1973—eight years and one day after he had been shot down. Commander Alvarez came home the same day after 3,113 days in captivity, more than eight and a half years.
But coming home was not simply the end of their story. They had families to reconnect with, lives to rebuild and years to make up for, yet when you listen to these men, what you do not hear is a desire to define themselves by what was done to them. Instead, you hear men who came home with their faith intact, their honor intact and their love of country stronger than ever.
That is a tested love—not a naïve love, but the kind of love that comes from discovering exactly what something costs and being willing to pay the price anyway.
We throw the word hero around a lot these days, and I don't throw it around lightly. But Admiral Shumaker and Commander Alvarez earned it in a place most of us cannot imagine: one tap on a concrete wall, one whispered prayer and one refusal to give their captors what they wanted, repeated day after day and year after year until, finally, they came home.
And Hebrews gives the rest of us a charge that is particularly appropriate today: “Continue to remember those in prison as if you were together with them in prison, and those who are mistreated as if you yourselves were suffering.”
Remember them—not just on National POW/MIA Recognition Day, but every time you exercise a freedom that they were denied. Remember the families who waited, the years they lost, the men who were captured and the men who never came home. And remember that freedom is not free simply because it is familiar to us.
For many Americans today, freedom is so ordinary that we barely notice it. We wake up, speak our minds, worship, travel, raise our families and go about our lives. We can disagree with our government and with one another, and we can live our faith openly. We can gather with our families without wondering whether someone is coming to take us away. That is an extraordinary gift, and perhaps one of the greatest dangers is that we become so accustomed to it that we forget its cost.
As America celebrates its 250th anniversary, that is something this generation needs to understand. Freedom is not merely an idea; freedom has a price. Some have paid that price with their lives, others with years, some with wounds that could be seen and others with wounds no one could see. Some endured captivity but refused to allow captivity to define them.
Admiral Shumaker and Commander Alvarez remind us what that looks like. They were stripped of almost everything, but they would not surrender everything. They held onto one another, their faith, their identity and their honor, and then they came home.
So today, on National POW/MIA Recognition Day, let's remember the prisoners who endured captivity, the missing whose families still carry the questions and the sacrifices of those who served. Let us also remember what these two men demonstrated so powerfully: you can take a man's freedom without taking his courage; you can take away his comfort without taking away his faith; you can isolate him without making him alone; and you can imprison his body without imprisoning his spirit.
The freedom we enjoy today was not handed to us without a cost. Men like Robert Shumaker and Everett Alvarez paid part of that cost for the rest of us. The least we can do is remember—and perhaps even more importantly, the least we can do is live like we understand what they paid for.
Freedom is a gift, but it is also a responsibility, and it is something worth protecting. As Christians, we understand that God is sovereign even in the darkest circumstances, but we also understand that courage is not passive. We are called to stand firm, to remember those who suffer, to honor those who serve and to be faithful with whatever freedom and responsibility God has entrusted to us.
So on this National POW/MIA Recognition Day, may we never become so comfortable with freedom that we forget its cost, and may we never become so accustomed to our blessings that we forget the men and women who sacrificed so that we could enjoy them.
God bless these men. God bless every American POW and MIA. God bless their families. And God bless the United States of America.
For more content like this, watch Rose Unplugged on Real Life Network.
On National POW/MIA Recognition Day, the stories of Robert Shumaker and Everett Alvarez Jr. remind Americans of the cost of freedom and the courage, faith, ingenuity, and brotherhood that sustained prisoners through years of captivity.

A healthy society depends on institutions that understand both their responsibilities and their limits. Elections require rules voters can trust. Immigration requires laws that can be enforced while treating people with dignity. Schools and child-welfare agencies exercise enormous power, but parents retain profound responsibilities toward their children.
These debates may look unrelated. They are not.
Running through each is the same fundamental question: Who has authority, where does that authority come from, and what happens when institutions move beyond their proper boundaries?
For Christians, authority is neither meaningless nor absolute. Government has a legitimate role. Parents have a legitimate role. Laws matter. Compassion matters. And none of those principles should be rewritten simply because the political circumstances have changed.
That framework is increasingly important in an America where arguments over election administration, immigration, parental rights, and political power are testing public trust from several directions.
The Supreme Court recently blocked the Trump administration from implementing new Postal Service requirements for mail ballots before the 2026 midterms. The proposed system would have required states to provide lists of eligible voters and use USPS-approved, barcoded ballot envelopes. The Court divided 7-2, with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissenting. Justice Brett Kavanaugh indicated there was a reasonable argument that the Postal Service possesses authority to impose some requirements, but concluded that changing procedures this close to voting risked significant disruption.
There are legitimate disagreements over the proposal. The administration presented additional verification as an election-integrity measure. Opponents argued that the Postal Service was assuming authority traditionally exercised by states and that last-minute changes could prevent legitimate ballots from being counted.
Those arguments deserve more than slogans.
Election integrity and voter access do not have to be enemies. Americans should be able to expect systems that verify lawful votes while also ensuring lawful voters can participate. Confidence deteriorates when either concern is dismissed simply because it is associated with the other political party.
Trust cannot survive indefinitely when rules are treated as essential under one set of political circumstances and disposable under another.
The same principle applies to immigration.
The Trump administration has expanded the federal government's consideration of public benefits when determining whether certain immigrants qualify for permanent residency. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is leading a coalition of local governments challenging the new public-charge rule, while New York Attorney General Letitia James is leading a separate state lawsuit. The plaintiffs argue that the rule exceeds federal authority and could discourage immigrant families from using health care and nutrition programs for which they are legally eligible. The administration argues that the policy promotes self-sufficiency and reduces dependence on public assistance.
The legal dispute will work its way through the courts. The broader question is worth considering now: What obligations accompany legal immigration, and what obligations does a nation have toward those it admits?
Scripture commands God's people to treat the stranger with justice and compassion. It also recognizes governments, nations, boundaries, and civil authority. Biblical compassion cannot be reduced to a slogan for one immigration policy any more than biblical order can be used to excuse mistreatment of immigrants.
Hospitality and order are not inherently contradictory.
Nowhere does the question of authority become more personal than when the government intervenes between parents and children.
Joseph and Arlene Kutzko, a Catholic couple in Massachusetts, are fighting a legal battle involving their teenage daughter, Sophie. The parents say Algonquin Regional High School supported their daughter's male gender identity without their knowledge and that their religious objections later became intertwined with a child-welfare dispute. Sophie was removed from their custody in 2024, and the parents say they have since been prevented from maintaining contact with her.
The case includes important details that should not be ignored. An allegation of physical abuse against the father was reportedly found unsupported, according to recent reporting and the family's legal advocates. The family is now seeking to prevent testosterone treatment while pursuing its custody claims; treatment has reportedly been paused while litigation continues.
The family's account has become part of a much larger national disagreement over parental rights, gender identity, medical treatment for minors, religious liberty, and the circumstances under which child-welfare authorities should intervene.
Those are serious questions precisely because the state sometimes must intervene. Children can genuinely suffer abuse and neglect, and government has a legitimate responsibility to protect them.
But that extraordinary power also requires extraordinary care.
Parents should not automatically lose their authority simply because their religious or moral convictions conflict with prevailing cultural beliefs. At the same time, disagreements over a child's care cannot by themselves establish every fact in a contested custody case.
The power to protect children must never quietly become the power to require ideological conformity from their parents.
For Christians, parenthood is not merely a legal status granted by government. Scripture repeatedly places responsibility for the instruction and formation of children upon families. Government can protect children from genuine harm, but it should approach replacing parental judgment as an exceptional intervention, not an ordinary solution to ideological disagreement.
That distinction matters far beyond Massachusetts.
The question of authority also appears inside political parties themselves.
The Democratic National Committee has officially changed its early presidential-primary calendar for 2028. South Carolina will vote first, followed by Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Michigan, and Virginia. The DNC says the calendar gives a more representative mix of voters an early role and better tests candidates across diverse constituencies and battleground states.
The change will inevitably affect campaign strategy. South Carolina's large Black Democratic electorate and Nevada and New Mexico's Latino populations will matter earlier than under the old Iowa-and-New Hampshire-centered system. But it is too early to know which prospective candidate, if any, will ultimately benefit most.
That uncertainty is important. Politics tempts people to treat every institutional decision as evidence of a predetermined outcome. Christians should resist that impulse just as strongly as they resist political naivete.
Political parties pursue power. Candidates pursue office. Governments exercise authority. Courts interpret law. None deserves the kind of unquestioning allegiance that belongs to God.
That should produce Christians who can think clearly rather than react predictably.
A Republican administration should not receive automatic approval merely because it invokes election integrity, immigration enforcement, or parental rights. A Democratic official should not receive automatic approval merely because a policy is presented in the language of compassion, democracy, or inclusion. Every claim still has to be examined.
Proverbs 14:34 provides a standard much older than any American political coalition: “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.”
That standard does not change with election results.
Christian political discernment begins when truth matters more than protecting a party, an institution, or a preferred political narrative.
Government matters. Elections matter. Borders matter. Parents matter. Protecting children matters. So do due process, compassion, religious liberty, and the rule of law.
The difficult work is refusing to sacrifice one principle whenever another becomes politically convenient.
That is why Christians need more than political instincts. They need a biblical framework capable of asking not merely, Which side is doing this? but Is this true? Is it just? Is authority being exercised within its proper limits? And does the standard remain the same when political power changes hands?
Those are the questions worth continuing to ask through Real Life Network and The Daniel Cohen Show, where the headlines are examined alongside the deeper questions of faith, culture, government, and truth.
Election security, immigration, parental rights, and political power raise a common question: Who has authority, and what happens when government institutions move beyond their proper boundaries?

America is under full-scale economic assault. For years, I’ve reported on the intersection of national security and capital markets. After nearly 400 episodes of Economic War Room, the evidence and patterns have become overwhelmingly clear: foreign adversaries increasingly view trade, energy, currency, technology and financial markets as weapons.
What we see as a marketplace, our enemies view as a battle space.
China is perhaps the clearest example. The Chinese Communist Party openly embraces the concept of “unrestricted warfare,” and economics represents one of the most effective fronts in that struggle. China dominates much of the global supply chain for rare earth minerals and critical materials, the same resources required for everything from smartphones and electric vehicles to advanced American defense systems.
That dependence gives Beijing tremendous leverage. But critical minerals are only one part of the story. Currency manipulation, subsidized exports, cyberattacks and intellectual property theft have all created vulnerabilities for the United States. American factories have closed, communities have been hollowed out and critical supply chains have moved overseas.
This isn’t simply about competition between two large economies. It’s a national security issue.
Watch this full episode on Economic War Room, streaming now on the Real Life Network.
The economic threats facing America aren’t all coming from Beijing or other foreign capitals. Some are self-inflicted.
The United States now carries an enormous national debt, creating long-term risks for the dollar, interest rates, future taxpayers and national security. At the same time, corporate policies built around ESG and DEI have too often shifted attention away from profitability, merit, innovation and long-term shareholder value.
Then there is the prospect of a programmable central bank digital currency. If implemented without the proper protections, a CBDC could potentially give government authorities unprecedented ability to monitor transactions, restrict spending or freeze accounts.
Put these threats together and the consequences are no longer abstract. They can affect your retirement account, your savings, your paycheck and your ability to provide for your family.
President Trump can do his part in Washington, but he cannot do your part for you. That responsibility belongs to each of us.
The good news is that ordinary Americans are not helpless.
At Economic War Room, we’ve spent years developing strategies designed to help Americans recognize economic warfare and build greater resilience against it. Through the NSIC Institute, we’ve also worked to educate financial advisors about the intersection of national security and investing. One principle sits at the center of that work: weaponize your money for liberty, security and your values.
That starts with defense. Traditional stocks-and-bonds diversification may not be enough in an environment defined by inflation, geopolitical instability, massive government debt and fragile global supply chains. Americans should understand what they own, where their vulnerabilities are and whether they have sufficient exposure to tangible assets they actually control.
That is one reason I have repeatedly discussed transactional gold and silver. Precious metals have functioned as stores of value for thousands of years and can provide another layer of financial independence when paper currencies and financial markets come under pressure.
But defense is only half the battle. Americans can also think carefully about where their investment dollars are going. Domestic energy production, critical minerals, reshoring, advanced manufacturing and defense technology can all play a role in rebuilding American economic strength. Rather than unknowingly sending investment capital toward adversaries, Americans can consider supporting companies and industries that strengthen our independence and national security.
I call it voting with your dollars on steroids. That doesn’t mean blindly buying a stock because it carries an American flag. And it isn’t individualized investment advice. Every investor should consider his or her own circumstances and consult a qualified financial professional.
It does mean recognizing that capital has consequences.
There are also simpler steps Americans can take.High-interest consumer and credit card debt can become crushing when rates rise or an economic shock hits. Building emergency reserves, reducing unnecessary debt and considering assets that can provide resilience during turbulent periods can all strengthen a household’s financial position.
But the goal should extend beyond surviving the next downturn. We should be thinking generationally. America’s free-market system has given ordinary citizens an extraordinary opportunity to participate in economic growth, build businesses, invest and create wealth. We should teach those principles to our children and grandchildren rather than allowing future generations to become increasingly dependent on government.
Economic freedom and political freedom are connected. That means Americans must also remain civically engaged—voting, contacting elected representatives and supporting policies that promote fiscal responsibility, sound money, American energy, lower taxes and free enterprise.
As I consider the challenges ahead, I keep returning to one of the most remarkable episodes of World War II. In May 1940, nearly 400,000 British and Allied troops were trapped near Dunkirk as Nazi forces swept through France. Britain faced catastrophe.
Then ordinary citizens answered the call. Fishing boats, pleasure yachts, ferries, tugboats and virtually anything else that could float crossed the English Channel to help evacuate the stranded troops. In the end, more than 338,000 men were rescued.
Those vessels became known as the “little ships of Dunkirk.” The evacuation did not end the war. Churchill himself reminded Britain that wars are not won by evacuations. The Battle of Britain was still ahead, America had not yet entered the conflict and years of fighting remained.
But Dunkirk demonstrated what can happen when ordinary people refuse to surrender. There was also another element that should not be forgotten. King George VI called Britain to a National Day of Prayer on May 26, 1940. Churches filled as the British people prayed for deliverance. The events that followed became remembered by many as the “miracle of Dunkirk.”
I believe there is a lesson there for America today. We are facing our own economic Dunkirk moment. The threats to American prosperity, freedom and security are formidable. Government and large institutions have a role to play, but they cannot do everything.
That’s where the little ships come in. You are the little ships.
Every time you examine your investments, reduce high-interest debt, strengthen your family’s finances, support American energy and manufacturing, build generational wealth, vote for free-market policies or speak up for sound money, you are answering the call. No single American can win an economic war. Millions of informed Americans acting together can change its course.
Prayer first. Then get to work. Then give thanks. Freedom is fragile. It has to be protected and passed to future generations. And right now, our children and grandchildren are depending on us to do exactly that. It’s time to get in the fight.
Watch this full episode on Economic War Room, streaming now on the Real Life Network.
America faces economic warfare from foreign adversaries and threats at home. Kevin Freeman explains the battle—and what Americans can do about it.
.jpg)
A Catholic couple in Massachusetts had their daughter taken away by the state under the guise of child abuse after refusing to affirm her so-called transgender identity. In 2024, the 15-year-old child was removed from the home of Joseph and Arlene Kutzko after they say she was secretly socially “transitioned” at Algonquin Regional High School. Now, they’re fighting to get her back before she is medically “transitioned” on high-dose testosterone.
“Here, a public school is ‘stuck on stupid’ by engaging in the willful and dehumanizing practice of destroying both family and child. This school should be closed permanently,” Walt Heyer, senior fellow at Family Research Council, told The Washington Stand. “The school abused the child emotionally and psychologically, causing lifelong damage. My life was destroyed by the trans insanity. Stop the madness.”
Fox News reported that a permanent restraining order was issued against the family, and the Department of Children and Families (DCF) cut off the Kutzkos’ contact with their daughter, Sophie, when they refused to refer to her by male pronouns. Fox also reported that the Kutzkos say DCF has “housed their daughter in a boys’ dormitory, stripped away her Catholic faith by denying her Sunday Mass, and put her on birth control and psychiatric drugs.”
“In Massachusetts today, a sizable portion of government and the population will call you a good mom if you violently strangle your own three kids to death but will take custody of your teenage daughter away from you if you don’t want her to be castrated & mutilated by the gender lobby. Let that sink in,” Daily Wire personality Isabel Brown posted on X Monday.
The Kutzkos appeared on the Fox News “Lighthouse Faith” podcast hosted by Religion Correspondent Lauren Green to share about the dire situation over the weekend, alongside their attorney Vernadette Broyles. “The Northborough-Southborough public schools and their counseling practices exposed our daughter to teachings on LGBTQ [ideology] and topics that conflict with our Catholic beliefs about human dignity, creation as male and female in Catholic teaching,” Joseph Kutzko said.
He continued, “[O]ur daughter had been placed in counseling with sessions at Algonquin Regional High School [with] school counselor … Denise Brienze, without our knowledge or consent. [W]e were told she was simply staying after school for extra math help.”
The Kutzkos say that they have not been able to have contact with their daughter since January 2025. “I even begged them [to allow me] just to hug her or kiss her. They say they can’t. They will not allow it,” Arlene Kutzko explained.
Just months before Sophie was taken from them, she wrote her dad a heartfelt birthday card. In October of 2024, her words to her father said, “Without you, I would have nothing. So wholeheartedly, fully, sincerely. I love you with no end,” Joseph read during an appearance on “America’s Newsroom” with Bill Hemmer and Dana Perino.
The Kutzkos explained that Sophie grew up loving church. “She led the parish in rosary before mass, and she was so faithful — everybody in the church knew it — that she was given a special dispensation to be confirmed early. So, one year early, she was allowed to make her confirmation.”
But at age 15, Sophie started experiencing some inner turmoil. Next thing they knew, the Kutzkos were losing custody of their daughter. They had no idea what had been going on at the school.
“The most important thing is to bring her back to our family. But a shorter-term goal is to prevent them from giving her testosterone,” Joseph Kutzko reiterated. Boyer explained that under Massachusetts state law, DCF could administer the hormones to Sophie without her parents’ permission even though she is still a minor.
“We are actively fighting in court to keep them from really poisoning this young lady with testosterone that would have the capacity to cause her to become potentially infertile, would harm her cardiovascular system, and would have a number of irreversible effects and harms to her body,” Boyer lamented. She added that DCF is hoping to move forward with giving Sophie the testosterone.
Time may be running out, but the Kutzkos are actively working to bring their daughter home. “We love her. We love her. We miss her,” Joseph Kutzko wanted people to know.
This article was originally written by Quinn Delamater and published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.
A Massachusetts Catholic family is fighting to regain custody of their teenage daughter and prevent testosterone treatment, raising questions about parental rights, religious liberty, and the state’s authority over minors.

Choosing what your family watches used to be relatively simple. Today, children can encounter movies, shows, videos, games, social media, podcasts, and other digital content across multiple devices throughout the day.
That makes media decisions about more than whether a particular movie contains bad language or an inappropriate scene. Stories communicate ideas. Characters model attitudes. Entertainment can reinforce beliefs about relationships, identity, success, morality, authority, and what makes life meaningful.
Christian parents don’t need to approach every screen with suspicion. But thoughtful questions can help families move beyond simply asking, “Is this allowed?” toward developing genuine biblical discernment.
Here are seven questions worth asking.
Every story has heroes. Sometimes they’re obvious. Other times the audience is simply encouraged to sympathize with certain characters, choices, or lifestyles.
Ask what qualities the program presents as admirable. Is courage celebrated? Loyalty? Honesty? Sacrifice? Compassion? Or does the story consistently reward selfishness, dishonesty, disrespect, cruelty, or behavior that conflicts with what your family is teaching?
This doesn’t mean every protagonist must behave perfectly. Some of the best stories involve flawed people learning from mistakes.
The more important question is whether the story ultimately recognizes the difference between wisdom and foolishness, good and evil, truth and deception.
Media doesn’t always persuade through direct arguments. Often, it influences simply by repetition.
When children repeatedly see particular attitudes, relationships, behaviors, or beliefs presented as normal, those ideas can gradually begin to feel ordinary. That is why parents should pay attention not only to dramatic objectionable moments but also to the assumptions underneath a story.
What does the program communicate about marriage? Parents? Faith? Sexuality? Authority? Success? Human worth?
Children may not consciously identify those ideas, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t noticing them.
Parents can help by occasionally asking, “What do you think that show is saying about this?” That simple question teaches children to watch actively rather than absorb everything passively.
An age rating can be helpful, but parents know their children better than a rating system does.
Two children of the same age may react very differently to the same movie. One might handle a tense historical story well, while another has nightmares after mild suspense. One teenager may be ready to engage thoughtfully with difficult cultural questions while another isn’t.
Christian parenting requires more than finding the boundary of what is technically permitted.
Romans 14:19 encourages believers to “pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another.”
A useful question, then, is not only, Can my child watch this? but Will this be beneficial for my child right now?
Sometimes the effect of media becomes clearer after the screen turns off. Does a child seem encouraged, curious, imaginative, or eager to talk? Or irritable, anxious, fearful, disrespectful, restless, or obsessed with watching more?
One viewing won’t necessarily reveal a pattern. But repeated reactions can tell parents something important.
The same is true for adults. Some entertainment leaves viewers refreshed. Other content leaves them angry, agitated, discouraged, or mentally exhausted.
Philippians 4:8 directs believers toward what is true, noble, just, pure, lovely, commendable, virtuous, and praiseworthy. That provides a useful biblical framework for considering not just what enters the mind, but what it produces there.
A perfectly acceptable program can still become a problem if it consumes too much time.
The issue may not be what a child is watching. It may be what he or she is no longer doing. Is screen time replacing sleep? Outdoor play? Reading? Family conversation? Church involvement? Homework? Prayer and Scripture? Time with friends?
Sometimes the wisest media decision is not finding a better show but leaving the television off.
Healthy media habits recognize entertainment as one part of life rather than the center of it.
Parents don’t have to eliminate every story containing an idea they disagree with. Sometimes those moments provide valuable opportunities to teach.
Watching together allows parents to ask questions.
Those conversations help children build discernment that will eventually matter far more than parental controls.
Christian media can provide especially natural opportunities for these discussions. A program such as LifeWise Academy can lead into conversations about bringing biblical truth into everyday life. Genesis Science Minute can introduce questions about creation and science in just 60 seconds. The Pilgrim’s Progress can start conversations about temptation, perseverance, and following Christ.
The goal isn’t to interrogate children after every episode. It’s to make talking about ideas a normal part of family life.
This may be the most important question of all.
Parents spend years teaching children what is true, who they are, what relationships should look like, why Scripture matters, and what it means to follow Christ.
It makes sense to ask whether the family’s entertainment choices generally support those priorities or continually work against them. That doesn’t require every show to be overtly Christian. But intentionally including faith-based programming can help create a healthier balance.
Younger children might enjoy biblical programming such as Superbook, iBible, or Learn, Grow and Go! Older children and teens can explore apologetics through In Depth Apologetics for Kids or creation-focused content. Families can also choose movies, documentaries, Bible teaching, and programs built around Christian service, history, and worldview.
Real Life Network provides these kinds of options in one biblically curated streaming environment, giving parents a place to begin without having to sort through an enormous mainstream catalog first.
Parents cannot screen every piece of media their children will encounter forever.
Eventually, children become teenagers. Teenagers become adults. They choose their own movies, follow their own accounts, download their own apps, and decide which voices deserve their attention.
That’s why the long-term goal is bigger than creating a list of approved and prohibited programs. It is helping children learn to ask good questions themselves.
Those questions turn media discernment from a parental restriction into a lifelong Christian practice.
The goal isn’t a home without screens. It’s a home where screens know their place, parents remain engaged, and entertainment doesn’t get the final word on what children learn to value.
Explore free, biblically curated kids’ shows, family programs, movies, Bible teaching, and more on Real Life Network.
What children watch can shape what they admire, accept as normal, and learn to value. These seven questions can help Christian parents evaluate entertainment thoughtfully and teach their children lifelong biblical discernment.

Christian streaming has grown far beyond Sunday sermons on demand. Today, viewers can find Christian news, Bible teaching, apologetics, podcasts, documentaries, movies, children’s programs, cultural discussions, devotional content, and live events without paying for another monthly subscription.
For families accustomed to searching across YouTube, television networks, podcast apps, and multiple streaming services, having those options together in one place can make Christian media much easier to discover.
Real Life Network offers all of it for free. Whether you’re looking for something to watch with your children, a Bible teacher to follow throughout the week, a podcast for the commute, or news viewed through a Christian worldview, there are thousands of episodes and many different types of programming to explore.
Here’s a guide to what you can find.
For viewers who want to stay informed without leaving their biblical worldview at the door, Christian streaming offers an alternative to relying exclusively on mainstream news.
RLN News covers national and international developments from a Christian perspective, while The Daniel Cohen Show brings a particular focus to Israel, global affairs, culture, and the intersection between current events and faith.
Other programs approach culture from different angles. Rose Unplugged features interviews and conversations about issues shaping society. Cure America with Star Parker examines public policy, faith, freedom, and the cultural questions facing the nation.
Viewers interested in deeper examinations of particular issues can also turn to documentaries such as Truth Rising, The Great Global Reset, and The Eye of the Storm.
Together, these programs give viewers more than headlines. They encourage Christians to consider what is happening in the world in light of Scripture.
Bible teaching remains at the heart of Christian streaming, but there is no single style.
Real Life with Jack Hibbs offers Bible teaching with application to Christian living and the issues believers face today. A Daily Walk with John Randall provides steady verse-by-verse teaching, while So True with Philip De Courcy brings biblical truth into practical areas of everyday life.
Bridge Bible Talk takes a different approach, allowing listeners to hear actual questions about Scripture, doctrine, and Christian living discussed in a conversational format.
Viewers can also explore the Legacy: Pioneers of the Faith collection for teaching from influential Christian voices of previous generations, including Billy Graham, Chuck Smith, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, and others.
For someone who wants to move beyond occasional sermon viewing and develop a regular habit of biblical learning, there is plenty to explore.
Some of the most useful Christian streaming content begins with difficult questions.
Does God exist? Can the Bible be trusted? How should Christians think about science and creation? What evidence supports the resurrection? How can believers respond when friends challenge Christianity?
Cross Examined with Frank Turek tackles many of those questions through Christian apologetics. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist also examines the evidence and reasoning behind central Christian truth claims.
For questions involving creation and science, viewers can explore The Creation Today Show and ICR’s Creation Podcast. In Depth Apologetics for Kids makes some of these same kinds of questions approachable for younger audiences.
There is also Lamps Lit Youth Prophecy Conference, which gives teens and adults an opportunity to explore Bible prophecy through sessions with Jeff Kinley, Todd Hampson, and Jack Hibbs.
These programs can be useful for personal viewing, family discussions, youth groups, and small-group studies.
Sometimes watching a full teaching program isn’t practical. Podcasts make Christian content easy to fit into driving, exercise, chores, or other parts of the day.
The Jack Hibbs Podcast discusses Scripture, culture, current issues, and Christian living in a conversational format. Ignite with Barry Meguiar focuses on helping believers become more comfortable sharing their faith.
The Prophecy Pros Podcast with Jeff Kinley and Todd Hampson explores biblical prophecy, while Victor Marx brings conversations shaped by ministry, hardship, faith, and real-world experiences.
For something much shorter, Groundworks with Steve Wiggins offers brief, Scripture-based devotional teaching that can fit into just a few minutes.
There are also programs such as Living Fearless with Andy and Hedieh, which offers conversations about faith, courage, and living faithfully through difficult circumstances.
Christian streaming also gives viewers access to stories that can educate, challenge, and entertain.
For apologetics and prophecy, Before the Wrath explores the connection between ancient Galilean wedding customs and biblical teaching concerning Christ’s return.
Those interested in Christian history and biography can watch titles such as C.S. Lewis: The Most Reluctant Convert, Billy Graham: A Life Remembered, Billy Sunday, and Louis Zamperini: Captured by Grace.
Other documentaries offer very different experiences. The Listening Road follows conversations about faith across America. The Call examines what can happen when the Great Commission becomes part of a church’s culture. 7 Days in the Holy Land takes viewers to biblical locations, while Scarred Earth considers the Grand Canyon from a creationist perspective.
Families looking for a movie night can explore titles including Seven Days in Utopia, The Jesus Film, and the animated The Pilgrim’s Progress.
The variety is an important point. “Christian entertainment” no longer describes just one kind of program.
Parents looking for alternatives to mainstream children’s programming have their own selection of options.
Superbook brings children into the events of Scripture through animated adventures. iBible presents the biblical narrative visually, while Ryan Defrates: Secret Agent combines humor and adventure with lessons about Christian character.
Star-Spangled Adventures gives children an animated introduction to American history and faith, and The Pilgrim’s Progress provides a full-length family movie based on John Bunyan’s classic Christian allegory.
These programs can do more than occupy children’s screen time. They give parents opportunities to ask questions, discuss Scripture, and connect entertainment with family discipleship.
Christian streaming can also help believers put their faith into practice.
Way of the Master focuses on evangelism and real Gospel conversations. Ignite with Barry Meguiar encourages Christians to share their faith naturally in everyday situations. Content from Samaritan’s Purse provides glimpses of Christian service and humanitarian ministry around the world.
For those serving in churches, ministries, workplaces, or other leadership roles, RLN also offers leadership-focused teaching designed to connect biblical principles with the responsibilities of Christian leadership.
These programs help move Christian streaming beyond simply learning more. They encourage viewers to consider what faithful action looks like.
A Christian streaming library can serve very different purposes from one day to the next. Monday might mean catching up on the news. Tuesday could include a Bible teaching during lunch. A podcast might accompany Wednesday’s commute, followed by a documentary with a small group on Thursday and a family movie on Friday night.
That breadth is one of the advantages of Real Life Network.
Instead of searching separately for Christian news, sermons, apologetics, podcasts, movies, children’s programming, and documentaries, viewers can explore them in one biblically curated environment without adding another subscription bill.
For anyone wondering whether free Christian streaming offers enough variety to become a regular part of their viewing, the answer is worth discovering firsthand.
Explore free Christian news, teaching, podcasts, documentaries, movies, family shows, and more anytime on Real Life Network.
From Christian news and Bible teaching to apologetics, podcasts, documentaries, movies, and kids’ programs, free Christian streaming gives individuals and families more ways to enjoy content that supports a biblical worldview.

There are moments that should transcend politics.
A memorial honoring nearly 3,000 Americans murdered on September 11 should be one of them. It should be a place for grief, remembrance, gratitude, and reverence. Families who have carried that loss for 25 years deserve something increasingly rare in American public life: a moment in which their pain is not reduced to another political opportunity.
That is why images of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani smiling and laughing together during the 25th anniversary commemoration drew criticism. A photograph cannot reveal the context of every conversation or establish what prompted a smile. But juxtaposed with grieving families at Ground Zero, the moment raised a larger question worth asking: Does American culture still recognize that some things should be treated as sacred?
These are exactly the kinds of cultural questions worth examining on Real Life Network and The Daniel Cohen Show, where the headlines are considered alongside the biblical truths that should shape how Christians understand them.
Public leadership is not merely about legislation, budgets, speeches, or elections. Leadership also requires understanding the human consequences behind public events.
That principle extends far beyond a single 9/11 ceremony.
When thirteen American service members were killed during the 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan, controversy followed images of President Joe Biden appearing to check his watch during the dignified transfer ceremony at Dover Air Force Base. Biden later disputed some characterizations of the moment, but Gold Star families publicly described feeling disrespected.
Politics can make people remarkably selective about empathy. When someone on the other side suffers, compassion becomes conditional. When an uncomfortable tragedy threatens a preferred narrative, attention shifts somewhere else.
Christians cannot adopt that standard.
Human dignity does not change according to political usefulness. A child killed in an act of violence matters. A soldier returned home in a flag-draped casket matters. A family still grieving someone murdered on September 11 matters. An immigrant victim matters. An American citizen victim matters. Political affiliation does not determine the value of a human life.
A healthy society should be capable of looking at suffering and seeing a human being before seeing a political opportunity.
Jesus warned that a time would come when “the love of many will grow cold” (Matthew 24:12). That description should make Christians examine more than the behavior of politicians. It should make believers examine their own hearts.
Have politics made compassion selective? Has outrage become entertainment? Have human tragedies become useful primarily when they help defeat the other side?
If so, something far more important than an election is being lost.
The same problem appears when Christianity itself becomes a political instrument.
Texas politician James Talarico has increasingly incorporated Christian language into his political message. In one recent appearance, he invoked Matthew 25 while arguing that Jesus would condemn senators over food assistance, Medicaid, and deportations.
Christians should welcome politicians talking seriously about Scripture. But biblical vocabulary does not automatically make an argument biblical.
Matthew 25 unquestionably demonstrates Christ's concern for the vulnerable. Christians should care about hungry people, strangers, the sick, prisoners, and those suffering around them. But translating those commands directly into support for a particular government program requires an additional political argument. Christians can share the same biblical concern while disagreeing about which policies best address it.
The same principle applies to immigration.
Scripture repeatedly commands God's people to care for foreigners and strangers. Scripture also recognizes nations, governing authorities, boundaries, and civil order. Romans 13 gives government genuine authority, while Acts 17:26 speaks of God determining nations and their dwelling places.
Neither side gets to erase the passages that complicate its politics.
Scripture should judge political convictions. Political convictions should never be allowed to rewrite Scripture.
That requires biblical literacy.
A politician who can quote a verse fluently may still misuse it. A conservative can misuse Scripture just as easily as a progressive. Christians who know only fragments of the Bible become vulnerable to anyone capable of wrapping a political agenda in Christian vocabulary.
Read the Word. Know the context. Test the argument.
There is another quality disappearing from American life: the courage to stand alone.
The Lindsay Clancy case offers a difficult example. Clancy admitted killing her three young children but mounted an insanity defense. Her 2026 trial ended in a mistrial after eleven jurors favored acquittal and one juror held out.
According to another juror who later discussed the deliberations publicly, the lone holdout was a Black man.
Whatever conclusions people reach about the complicated legal questions surrounding mental illness and criminal responsibility, there is something worth recognizing in anyone willing to maintain a sincerely held conviction while an entire room pressures him to surrender it.
Standing with the crowd is easy. Standing alone costs something.
That lesson reaches far beyond a courtroom.
Christians will increasingly encounter moments when biblical convictions are unpopular, unfashionable, or professionally inconvenient. There will be pressure to remain silent because speaking could cost friendships, opportunities, influence, or reputation.
Conviction means deciding beforehand that truth matters more.
That does not grant permission to be reckless or cruel. Courage without humility quickly becomes arrogance. But humility without courage can become cowardice disguised as kindness.
Christian conviction requires both: the humility to recognize when we are wrong and the courage to stand when God's truth is clear.
America does not merely need better political messaging. It needs adults capable of recognizing sacred things, leaders who understand the human cost of their decisions, Christians who know Scripture well enough to recognize when it is being manipulated, and ordinary people willing to stand for truth when standing becomes uncomfortable.
Politics will continue changing. Candidates will come and go. Headlines that seem enormous today will eventually disappear.
The deeper question is what kind of people Americans are becoming in the process.
When nothing is sacred, everything becomes political. Christians should resist that transformation by recovering reverence, compassion, biblical discernment, and courage.
Continue examining the cultural and political stories shaping America through a biblical worldview on The Daniel Cohen Show, streaming free on Real Life Network.
From the solemnity of September 11 to the use of Scripture in politics, America faces a deeper question about what it still considers sacred. Christians are called to respond with compassion, biblical discernment, and the courage to stand for truth.

Screens are part of modern family life. Children use them for school, entertainment, communication, creativity, and even Bible study. The question for Christian parents is no longer simply whether children should have screen time.
A more important question is: What is that screen time forming in them?
Every day, children are absorbing stories about what matters, what makes someone valuable, what relationships should look like, how problems should be solved, and what is ultimately worth pursuing. Some of those messages are obvious. Others are woven so naturally into entertainment that children may absorb them without recognizing them as messages at all.
For Christian parents, managing screen time therefore involves more than counting minutes. It means considering how media fits into the much larger work of spiritual formation.
Soul formation doesn’t happen only during family devotions or Sunday school.
Children are constantly developing beliefs, habits, desires, and assumptions about life. Parents, teachers, friends, churches, books, music, social media, and entertainment all contribute to that process.
Jesus said, “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matthew 6:21 NKJV). What consistently receives a person’s attention often begins to shape that person’s affections.
That makes attention an important part of parenting.
If a child spends a few minutes reading Scripture but several hours each day immersed in entertainment, games, videos, and social media, parents should at least consider which voices are receiving the greatest opportunity to influence that child.
Much of the conversation surrounding children and technology focuses on quantity: How many hours are too many?
That can certainly be useful. Families need boundaries, and unlimited access to screens can crowd out sleep, physical activity, responsibilities, relationships, church participation, and time outside.
But two children can spend the same amount of time watching screens and have very different experiences.
An hour spent watching random short-form videos isn’t the same as an hour spent watching a meaningful story with the family. A Bible program isn’t equivalent to a violent video game. A documentary that leads to an hour-long family conversation isn’t necessarily comparable to mindless scrolling.
Christian parents can therefore ask two questions:
How much is my child watching?
And just as importantly:
What is my child watching?
Stories carry values.
They teach viewers which characters should be admired and which should be ridiculed. They show what produces happiness, what makes someone successful, what families look like, how authority should be treated, and how people respond when something goes wrong.
Sometimes those values align with Scripture. Sometimes they don’t.
That doesn’t mean Christians can only watch explicitly Christian programs. It does mean parents should recognize that entertainment is rarely worldview-neutral.
An animated show can communicate ideas about identity. A sitcom can normalize particular attitudes toward marriage or parents. A superhero movie can raise questions about justice, sacrifice, and power. Even comedy reveals something about what a culture considers worthy of celebration or ridicule.
Helping children identify those messages is an important part of discipleship.
One way parents can become more intentional about screen time is by adding content that supports the beliefs and values being taught at home.
For younger children, Superbook brings biblical stories to life through animation, while iBible presents the biblical narrative in an accessible visual format. In Depth Apologetics for Kids can help children begin thinking about why Christians believe what they believe.
Older children and teens may benefit from programs that tackle larger worldview questions. The Creation Today Show explores creation, science, and apologetics, while LifeWise Academy content can encourage conversations about Bible education and living out Christian faith in the broader culture.
Sometimes even very short content can be useful. Genesis Science Minute with David Rives delivers a creation and science insight in just 60 seconds, giving parents an easy way to introduce a topic that can continue around the dinner table or in the car.
The point isn’t to replace every form of entertainment with a sermon. It’s to make sure some of the voices entering the home are intentionally reinforcing biblical truth.
One of the simplest ways parents can make screen time more formative is to participate.
Watching together gives parents opportunities to notice what their children are seeing and ask questions afterward.
These conversations do something parental controls cannot. They teach children discernment.
Eventually, parents won’t choose every movie, video, or social media post their children encounter. Children need more than a list of prohibited titles. They need the ability to recognize truth and error for themselves.
Shared viewing provides a low-pressure place to practice.
Even excellent Christian media has limits.
Watching a Bible program isn’t the same as reading Scripture. Streaming a church service isn’t the same as belonging to a local church. Listening to Christian conversations isn’t a substitute for talking with parents, mentors, pastors, and other believers.
Christian media should support those relationships and practices, not replace them.
Children need time to pray. They need unhurried conversations with parents. They need friendships. They need church. They need service, play, reading, outdoor activity, boredom, imagination, and face-to-face interaction.
Sometimes the most spiritually healthy decision regarding a screen is simply to turn it off.
Children notice what adults do.
A parent can establish strict limits for children while spending every spare moment checking a phone. That contradiction can communicate more than the rule itself.
Parents can model healthier habits by putting devices away during meals, choosing programming intentionally, avoiding endless scrolling, talking about why certain shows are or aren’t appropriate, and occasionally choosing something the whole family can watch together.
It also helps children understand that media discernment isn’t punishment.
It’s something Christians practice because what occupies the heart and mind matters.
The goal of Christian parenting isn’t to create children who have never encountered a questionable idea. Eventually, they will.
The deeper goal is to raise young people who know Scripture, love Christ, recognize truth, understand the beliefs shaping the culture around them, and have learned how to make wise choices.
Media can either make that job harder or help support it.
Real Life Network gives Christian families another option by offering free, biblically curated programming across children’s shows, Bible teaching, apologetics, documentaries, family content, and more.
Parents still have the responsibility to decide what fits their children and their household. But instead of spending every evening filtering an enormous mainstream library, they can begin with content created or selected to support a biblical worldview.
Screen time is ultimately only one part of childhood. Yet because screens occupy so much attention in modern life, they deserve thoughtful consideration.
The question isn’t simply, How long have they been watching?
For Christian parents, an even better question may be: Who are they becoming while they watch?
Explore free Christian kids’ programs, family shows, Bible teaching, apologetics, and more on Real Life Network.
Screen time is about more than minutes. Christian parents can help children develop biblical discernment by considering what media is forming their hearts, habits, beliefs, and understanding of the world.
.jpg)
Some truths become easier to understand when you hear them through another person’s experience. A sermon may explain forgiveness, while an interview with someone who has forgiven an enemy can show what forgiveness looks like when it costs something. A Bible study may teach about trusting God through hardship, while a conversation with someone who has survived persecution, addiction, grief, or war can bring that truth into everyday life.
That is part of what makes personal interviews so valuable in Christian media. They allow viewers to hear ideas explored through stories, questions, experiences, and honest reflection. When those conversations are grounded in biblical truth, they can strengthen faith while also helping Christians think more carefully about the world around them.
Christians often know important biblical principles long before they understand how those principles play out in difficult circumstances. It is one thing to read that believers should trust God. It is another to hear someone explain how he or she continued trusting God after losing a career, facing persecution, walking through serious illness, or experiencing personal tragedy.
Programs such as The Resilient Show, hosted by Chad Robichaux, can open conversations about trauma, recovery, purpose, and resilience through the experiences of people who have endured significant challenges. Stories like these help viewers see that biblical faith is not reserved for ideal circumstances. It is meant to shape how believers live when life becomes difficult.
Strong interviews do more than provide inspiring stories. They ask questions: Why did you believe that? What changed your mind? How did your faith affect your decision? What would you say to someone who disagrees?
Those questions create space for ideas to be examined rather than merely stated. This can be especially valuable when discussing theology, culture, politics, science, or apologetics because viewers get to hear not only a conclusion but also some of the reasoning behind it.
Programs such as Small Talk Big Issues bring together conversations with faith leaders, journalists, entrepreneurs, political figures, and other guests to explore significant issues from a Christian perspective. The interview format makes room for nuance that is often missing from headlines or short social-media clips.
Personal testimony has always had an important place in Christianity. The New Testament repeatedly records people describing what Christ had done in their lives. The man healed by Jesus in John 9 offered one of the simplest examples: “One thing I know: that though I was blind, now I see” (John 9:25 NKJV).
A testimony does not replace Scripture, but it can illustrate Scripture. Hearing how someone came to faith, overcame fear, remained faithful under pressure, or experienced God’s provision can encourage believers facing their own struggles.
Living Fearless with Hedieh, for example, draws in part from Hedieh Mirahmadi’s experience of leaving Islam and becoming a follower of Christ. Conversations shaped by experiences like hers can introduce viewers to questions involving religious belief, freedom, culture, fear, and the work of the Gospel.
It is easy to form opinions about people we have never heard speak for themselves. Interviews slow that process down by allowing viewers to hear how another person understands an issue, why someone holds a particular belief, or how circumstances shaped his or her perspective.
That does not require Christians to agree with everything a guest says. In fact, disagreement can be useful when viewers are learning to compare ideas with Scripture. A strong biblical worldview is developed as believers learn to identify assumptions, examine arguments, recognize truth, and test what they hear against God’s Word.
That kind of discernment is especially important in a culture where complicated issues are often reduced to slogans.
Christians do not live their faith in isolation from the world. Questions about government, education, technology, religious freedom, economics, international conflict, family, and culture all affect daily life.
Interview-based programs can help connect those developments with biblical principles. The Daniel Cohen Show, Rose Unplugged, Cure America, and The City of God each use conversations and interviews to engage cultural or public issues from faith-informed perspectives.
Rather than treating Christianity as something confined to church services, these discussions encourage viewers to consider how biblical truth relates to public life.
Some of the most valuable interviews are uncomfortable. A person who has experienced persecution may challenge a casual approach to religious freedom. A missionary may challenge assumptions about evangelism. A veteran may speak differently about courage or sacrifice than someone who has never faced danger. A Christian serving the poor may cause viewers to reconsider how they think about generosity.
Programs connected with ministries such as Samaritan’s Purse, Fred Jordan Missions TV, and Evangelism Explosion International can introduce viewers to Christians putting faith into action through service, outreach, disaster response, and evangelism. Those stories can move the question from “What do Christians believe?” to “What should Christians do because they believe it?”
Not every interview is an apologetics program, but interviews can still help Christians understand why they believe what they believe. A scientist can discuss evidence for creation. A former skeptic can explain objections that once kept him from Christianity. A historian can discuss the reliability of biblical accounts. A pastor or theologian can respond to difficult questions about suffering, morality, or the resurrection.
Programs such as Cross Examined and The Creation Today Show give viewers opportunities to hear Christian truth claims examined through questions and conversation. Sometimes a thoughtful interview can accomplish something a formal debate cannot because it lets viewers follow the reasoning at a more natural pace.
Christian faith ultimately rests on the truth of God’s Word, not the personality or experiences of an interview guest. But personal conversations can help illuminate those truths in memorable and practical ways.
A good interview lets viewers encounter people they might never meet, hear perspectives they might never otherwise consider, and see biblical principles applied to real circumstances. It can encourage faith, expose assumptions, deepen understanding, and prompt better questions.
That is why interviews occupy an important place in Christian media. They remind us that faith is not merely a collection of ideas. It is lived out by real people facing real choices in a complicated world.
Explore personal interviews, Christian conversations, cultural discussions, testimonies, and more for free on Real Life Network.
Personal interviews bring biblical truth into real life through stories of faith, hardship, testimony, and conviction, helping Christians grow in discernment and understand how Scripture applies to a complicated world.
.jpg)
The Real Life Network is founded by Jack Hibbs, who also serves as the senior pastor of Calvary Chapel Chino Hills in Southern California and the voice of the Real Life television and radio broadcasts. Dedicated to proclaiming truth and standing boldly in opposition to false doctrines that distort the Word of God and the character of Christ, Jack’s voice challenges today’s generation to both understand and practice an authentic Christian worldview.