Are we living in a post-Christian world?

June 29, 2015

WRITER

Immediately after the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, supporters took to social media to not only celebrate their victory, but to also trash anyone who believes in traditional marriage. It seems that if #LoveWins, then anyone who doesn’t support same-sex marriage implicitly loses - especially Christians. Time Magazine even printed an article about America transforming into a post-Christian nation. The fight over gay marriage was never about who you sleep with and everything to do with the right of conscience.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it may contain errors:

GLENN: I don't know about you, but I spent some time this weekend with my family. And spent some time myself in quiet reflection trying to figure out truth and tolerance. What is -- where do we go from here? TIME Magazine said this weekend that we now live in a post Christian America. They went so far as to say, Christians now find themselves as exiles in their own land.

Those are some pretty intense statements. This has nothing to do with who you sleep with. Because I don't care who you sleep with. Do you care who I sleep with, honestly? Do you want to know about my sexual habits? Because I barely want to know about my sexual habits.

This has nothing to do with who you sleep with. This has everything to do with the right of conscience.

One ruling puts us into a post Christian world? Yes. Because the president has signed some executive -- some executive orders that now put us into a situation to where, if you receive any federal money, any federal grant, you happen to be Liberty University, you're going to lose that money, unless you now accept and you preach what the Supreme Court preaches. Right of conscience. Truth and tolerance.

I think that we have to -- we have to regather now, and we have to -- the world has changed. I told you at one point, you won't recognize your own country. We are here. You are now on the outside looking in. And, again, it has nothing to do with who you sleep with.

It has everything to do with your right to say what you believe. See, we're picking and choosing now. They're talking about banning the statue and taking down the statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest. I completely agree with that. That guy was -- he was a great general, but he also was the founder of the KKK. Should we have that? No. But if you're going to take that down, we also should not have any statue -- or, we certainly shouldn't have a school of foreign policy named after Woodrow Wilson.

See, we're getting into a real problem here because somebody has got to tell us exactly what's right and what's wrong. Well, who is that someone?

We used to believe in absolute truth. I still do. I want to say that again. I believe in absolute truth. I believe there is the existence of absolute truth and right and wrong as established by God's commandments. Now, that may make me an exile in my own land, so be it, that's okay.

I believe in all truth. No sect, no denomination, no single principle of truth is out there that I don't accept or will reject. I accept the existence of truth, and I'm willing to receive all truth from whatever source that truth may come from. Because the truth will stand and will endure.

We don't even recognize truth anymore. We ask, well, whose truth? What is truth? Truth is the acknowledgment of things as they are, as they were, and as they will be in the future. Truth doesn't change.

Truth exists and so does evil. There are some things that are simply, seriously an everlasting evil, period. Things that I can tell you that you know are wrong. Mixing sex with death. You know that's wrong. It just feels wrong. It's evil.

People are now telling us that there is no absolute right and wrong. And that all authority and all rules of behavior are all man-made choices that can prevail over the commandments of God. That everything is a man-made choice. And that's why we can't decide which cakes we can make and which cakes we can't make. That's why we're down to micromanaging cakes!

People are questioning whether there is a God. Faith is on the retreat. The philosophy of moral relativism, which holds that every person is free to choose for himself what is right and wrong. I believe that you have the choice between right and wrong, and you are the only one that can make it.

But that you can make up your own right and wrong, I disagree with. It's absurd. It's why we are caught up in -- in our self-serving pleasures, in the things that we just want to do. If it feels good, I'm going to do it. It's why you could walk down the street with your children and nobody watches their language anymore. You can be anywhere, and nobody -- you want to say to them, hey, can you stop for a second? Don't you see I have my child here? And what do they say, you don't like it, go someplace else. Because they will not recognize the difference between right and wrong.

There was a study done in about 1995 that showed -- or, sorry -- 79 percent of Americans believed that there were, quote, clear guidelines about what was good and what was evil that applied to everyone, regardless of the situation. This is 1995. Think about what was happening in America. We thought the world was coming to an end then. 1995. 79 percent said that the rules apply to everyone, regardless of the situation.

There's a new college -- new poll out of college seniors. 75 percent of them now believe the difference between right and wrong is relative and up to the individual. That's 20 years. It's why we are lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God.

Gang, the world has changed. We are now at the beginning of the place that I said that we would eventually find ourselves. Greece is on fire today. The banks are closed for up to ten days. Nobody knows what's going to happen.

#LoveWins was the big hashtag. But did you read anything online? Love lost. Why?

Because winning -- winning was the goal, not reconciliation. Winning. Which implies there's a winner. And everybody who won wanted to rub the nose of anybody who lost. Anybody who lost was seeking vengeance and revenge. Love didn't win. A political action committee won.

We have a duty to stand at this time. Do you know what tolerance is defined as? Tolerance is defined as a friendly and fair attitude toward unfamiliar opinions and practices or towards persons who hold or practice those things.

What is that 1955 when we were all reading National Geographic? When that was the only way we could see things that were unfamiliar -- what is unfamiliar to us now? We live in a global community. We are so diverse now in our thinking. We can see and talk to people on the other side of the planet.

We are diverse. And it has enriched our lives, but it has also complicated them.

When does tolerance apply? This is really a hard question for those people who say there is a God and there is absolute truth. It's a really tough question for those people. Because the weaker your belief in God, the fewer things that you believe are absolutes. The fewer occasions when something happens to you that you're like, hey, hey, hey, hey.

An atheist doesn't need to decide what kind and occasions profanity or blasphemy can be tolerated and what kinds should be confronted. An atheist never has to stand up and say, hey, that's kind of blasphemous. Persons who don't believe in God or absolute truth in moral matters can see themselves as the most tolerant people alive. But those of us who say there is a right and wrong, there is a moral standard, well, wait a minute. Hang on just a second. I got to stand up. I know I'm not as tolerant as you because you have no standards. I do. That doesn't make me right and you wrong, it just says, these are the things that I believe in. And I have to stand. I'm compelled to stand.

But we have to -- there are few things that are absolutely true, that God teaches us, that are true. And the first thing he teaches us is that we are all brothers and sisters. We're all taught this in our various religions, and we're all taught that we have to serve one another.

We might disagree or have different interpretations of Him. But we are all sons of God. Therefore we have to work harder to build mutual respect. We have to respect one another. We have to do what Paul taught us. Follow after those things that make for peace. We don't bash each other.

I had a discussion before we went on the air. I don't know how to do my job anymore. None of us do. There are things that we cannot say anymore if we want to work tomorrow. There are also this lie, I think, that talk radio is built on confrontation. I'm -- I don't want confrontation. I don't want any more confrontation. I'm tired of confrontation. I'm tired of the hatred between each other. That's not who we are. That's not who I want to be. That's not who I've ever tried to be. None of us have. But that's the role that we're put into. That's what the world makes us, and we help it along. I'm tired of it.

We have to respect one another. But more importantly, we have to respect ourselves. We cannot abandon the truth. There is no middle ground on truth. We have to stand up for the truth, even while we practice tolerance and respect for beliefs and ideas that are different than ours and for the people that hold those ideas. We must practice tolerance and respect for others and their beliefs, including their constitutional right to state them openly.

But first and foremost, we're losing our kids, man. We're losing our kids because we don't practice what we preach. First, the one thing we should not tolerate is a deviance from truth in our own lives. We must be ruled by the demands of truth. We must be strong in keeping the commandments ourselves.

Forget about everybody else. How are you today? How am I today? What other people is not nearly as important in the grand scheme of things for our family as what we're doing today. What our children are witnessing us do today. We must be the ones that stand for the right, even if we stand alone.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep