Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
Shop
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Getting to know Ben Carson's Seventh-day Adventist Faith

October 22, 2015
Ted Tuttle

Editor

While speaking with presidential hopeful Dr. Ben Carson on Wednesday, Glenn asked him if he was ready to respond to criticisms about his religion. He resolutely said yes.

Knowing next to nothing about Carson's Christian faith other than that he's a Seventh Day Adventist, Glenn thought it would be a good idea to get someone from the religion to shed some light on things, before the inevitable attacks from the media begin.

The secretary of the North American division of the Seventh Day Adventist, Alexander Bryant, joined Glenn on the radio Thursday to discuss.

Listen to or read the revealing interview below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

Two, two lines that have changed my life and guided me. And the first one has come from Thomas Jefferson, and I've said it a million times. Thomas Jefferson said this in a letter to his nephew Peter Carr. And he talked about how he needs to learn mathematics and how he needs to learn literature and all of the different things he needs to know. And the very last section is on religion. And he said, "When it comes to religion, above all things, fix reason firmly in her seat, for if there be a God, he must surely rather honest questioning over blindfolded fear." So there is no such thing as a question that comes from the devil. There is no such thing as questioning, as long as it is honest. If you're trying to prove yourself right, then that falls out of the category.

The second thing that has guided my life is "by their fruits, ye shall know them." When I watch Dr. Ben Carson and his wife, and I watch him on the campaign trail and I watch him personally, I see the fruits of his religion, and I see the fruits of his faith. He seems like a very good, decent, honorable man.

Now, when I talked to him yesterday, I said, "Are you prepared -- because I know what Mitt Romney went through. "Are you prepared because you are a religious person for what's going to happen to you?" Because I read between the lines. And I could be wrong. Because I read between the lines and he seems to believe that we're living in the latter days, which I do. But that makes you a kook to the media. And when I said that to him, "Are you prepared," he was more resolute -- correct me if I'm wrong, boys. I think he was more resolute on that than anything else he said.

STU: Anything else you talked about.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: Right? When it came to his faith, he was unshakable.

So when he left, we started talking about it. We realized none of us have an idea what the Seventh Day Adventist -- except Stu thinks that they're vegetarians, and I think it has something to do with Saturday is the Sabbath. And that's as deep as we go.

STU: We're really informed on this one.

GLENN: We're very informed.

So we called the church and we said, "Is there a spokesperson?" Mr. Alex Bryant, he's the secretary for the North American division of the Seventh Day Adventist church. And he joins us now. Alex, welcome to the program.

ALEX: Thank you. It's good to be here, Glenn.

GLENN: Thank you.

First of all, I want you to know, you're not walking into a hostile situation, and I think that's important as a media person to say to a person of faith.

We really just want to know what you guys believe and what sets you apart and different and, quite honestly, I want to get all of the stuff out on -- because every church has its kind of kooky quirks. And from inside the church, it's totally normal. Outside the church, it will look crazy. And every church has that.

So I'm trying to figure out, what is it they're going to? Let's understand in a reasonable way so everybody can defend someone else's faith and say, "Back off, Jack. Back off." So can you tell us -- give us a nutshell first of what you guys believe.

ALEX: We believe that Jesus Christ died and rose again. We're part of the Christian faith community. We believe that God's grace encompasses all of humankind, their entire world. And that God loves everyone. We are Bible-believing people. We base our beliefs, our faith, our actions, and our behavior on the Bible. We're also Seventh Day Adventist, where we keep the Sabbath and we believe in a second coming of Christ. But we're part of the larger Christian community and the Christian family who uplifts the name of Jesus Christ. And we believe that the gospel of Jesus Christ is designed to lift humanity into hope and wholeness out of our brokenness.

GLENN: Now, you believe --

ALEX: And that's what we advocate.

GLENN: Okay. You believe that Jesus rose from the dead. He -- body and all, and he was taken up into heaven and all of that, right?

ALEX: Yes.

GLENN: Okay. When you say -- now I want you to know, I'm a Mormon. So I'm the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, so I'm not asking you this in a hostile away.

I believe we are in the latter days. What that means, I don't know. The apostles have believed that for when they were there, they thought Jesus was coming back. I have read, in doing a little bit of research, that your church said that it was in the 1800s that Jesus would come back. I think my church might have said that he was coming back.

But do you believe we are literally living in the latter days, whatever that might mean to God?

ALEX: Absolutely. We believe that we're living in the last days, according to what we read from the Bible in Matthew Chapter 24 and 25 and the signs that Jesus gave of his soon return and the things that will happen before he returns.

GLENN: You believe in the -- the devil and the Antichrist and all of that stuff from the Book of Revelation as well?

ALEX: Yes, we believe in the Book of Revelation and that there is a devil.

GLENN: Can you go into -- Stu seems to think that you guys are vegetarians.

STU: Well, I know there is at least some -- because I'm actually a vegetarian. Again, the only conservative vegetarian in America potentially. And I know we go to -- there are stores near your churches and schools that sell a lot of vegetarian stuff. Is that part of the faith? Is that a recommendation? What's the vegetarian connection?

ALEX: Well, Stu, you're correct. We do advocate healthful living, and that encompasses a vegetarian lifestyle and even a vegan lifestyle. And not all of our members are vegetarian or vegan --

GLENN: Can I tell you something, Alexander, that's what -- now I know why I didn't go -- I mean, I went to some crazy churches. I went to a church, when I was on a church tour, where the pastor didn't even believe in God. That's how crazy I went. That's why I didn't visit your church now, I'm sure of it. Because you said no to steak. I'm sorry, there is no God, if he's against steak.

ALEX: That's right. But we do advocate a healthful lifestyle.

GLENN: Okay. So it's not about -- is it about the care of animals or is it -- is it that and a healthy lifestyle, or what?

ALEX: It's a healthful lifestyle. And we do feel that God has made us stewards of the earth. But our -- most of our emphasis is on living healthier and having a better lifestyle here on earth.

PAT: Does that include not drinking and smoking?

ALEX: It includes not drinking alcohol and smoking and taking any other harmful substances to the body.

PAT: We have that in common.

GLENN: We have that in common. Ours is called the word of wisdom where we can't eat certain things for health reasons. So there's lots of similarities there. Can I ask you a question? Because you sound rather mellow yourself. Is it required to have a very even temperament like Dr. Ben Carson --

PAT: Has?

ALEX: Well, we believe and try to follow the example of Christ.

GLENN: Right.

ALEX: And the example of Christ, temperament is a part of what God teaches us in the development of our Christian character. We're not always perfect in that regard. But we try to advocate that example that Christ gave us and we believe part of that is an even -- you know, is being temperate in everything, including our temperament.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: So is Ben Carson the first Seventh Day Adventist to run?

ALEX: He's the first one I'm aware of to run.

GLENN: Is this kind of an exciting thing? Like when Mitt Romney ran and -- to the Mormons, that was like, whoa, that's cool. We're suddenly cool. And we're like, no, you're not. No, you're not.

Is this kind of a neat thing to have him run?

ALEX: Well, you have to understand Ben Carson's relationship to the church. Ben Carson has had a very storied life, where he came from, how he studied and how he lifted himself out of poverty. And he wrote the book, Gifted Hands. And many, many people in our church and outside of our church were blessed as a result, inspired as a result. And many lives have been changed as a result of reading how God used him, how God changed him. So his lifestyle, his life has been very inspiring to us from the beginning, even before the run for presidency. And we are very proud of what God has done through him. And how God has used him.

PAT: So you are pretty excited about it, but this is your excited voice?

(laughter)

ALEX: I guess that is as excited as it gets.

GLENN: So, Alex, I hope you understand the spirit this is in.

ALEX: Sure.

GLENN: We really admire Ben Carson has a man. We may not agree with his policies. But I'd vote for him. And I really, really admire him as a man. So you must be doing something right in your church.

PAT: What are some of the misconceptions of Seventh Day Adventists as you see it?

GLENN: First of all, are you the inventor of the Advent Calendar?

STU: Hmm.

ALEX: Not to my knowledge.

GLENN: Not to your knowledge. Okay. All right. Good.

ALEX: Not to my knowledge.

GLENN: So what are the things that are --

ALEX: Sorry. Go ahead.

PAT: What are the things that people have wrong about it?

GLENN: Right. That we'll hear on the news. Like, you're going to hear this, and this is not what it is.

ALEX: You know, I'm not exactly sure what we're going to hear wrong about the Seventh Day Adventist church on the news. I know that, you know, we are -- we worship on the Sabbath. We don't worship on Sundays as we believe from the Bible.

PAT: So the Sabbath being Saturday?

ALEX: The Sabbath being Saturday, that's correct.

PAT: Okay.

GLENN: I love that because then you can watch football on Sunday.

PAT: But that's college football day, though. So does that eliminate college football for the day for you?

ALEX: Well, we have Jesus football on the Sabbath.

GLENN: If that's what stops you from joining, you've got a really -- you've got to reevaluate your life.

ALEX: Yeah. And we think Jesus football on the Sabbath trumps college football on the Sabbath.

PAT: Yeah, you're probably right. You're probably right. Quarterback. He's got a great arm.

STU: He does. He does.

GLENN: So we sure appreciate it, Alex. I hope that your faith doesn't come under attack. We have to stop attacking each other.

ALEX: That's correct.

GLENN: The body of Christ and the body of God needs to start standing together. The children of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob need to stand together because these are --

PAT: I've said that for years. How many times have I said that?

GLENN: Shut up.

JEFFY: Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: Alex is going to be nice. I'm not a Seventh Day Adventist, shut up!

This is truly a time where we really need to stand together.

ALEX: Yes.

GLENN: Because perilous times are coming, and I wish you all the best. And, Alex, thank you so much for having the guts to come on the program. Because you had to have thought, "I could be walking into a buzz saw."

ALEX: Yes.

GLENN: Let me say it more like Ben Carson, you had to have thought --

ALEX: Well, we're hopeful that if attention does come to our name that the good works of the Seventh Day Adventist church, some of the humanitarian things that we do that we're involved in, the disaster relief that we do, what we do in the community -- we were just in San Antonio earlier in the summer where we provided free health care to over 6,000 people. Over 17,000 health professionals valued over $20 million.

PAT: Wow.

ALEX: And that's one of the heart -- that's one of the mainstays of the Seventh Day Adventist church. We have a very strong emphasis on community and helping our brother and sister, especially in the areas of health and education.

PAT: I've been saying that a lot.

ALEX: Disaster relief and hope is a major focus of what we try to do. And so if attention would come to the Seventh Day Adventist church's name, I hope that they could see that the Seventh Day Adventist church exists to help lift our brothers and sisters to join with our Christian brothers and sisters.

You know, Glenn, you have the Mercury One project. And we are in every state. And there are many ways we can come together as Christians to help lift our brothers and sisters. We have over 90 million people unemployed in this country. And it seems to me that we can use this as an opportunity, as Christian brothers and sisters, and join hands together and lift each other and not denigrate each other, not try to find all the negative things about each other or the differences that we have. There's so many, many things that we have in common. And I think if that can be accomplished as a result of attention brought to our name, I think the Lord would be blessed and the people that God has called us to be served would be lifted.

GLENN: Alexander Bryant, from the Seventh Day Adventist church, thank you so much, sir. I appreciate it. God bless you.

ALEX: Thank you. Okay. God bless you.

GLENN: God bless you.

Trump v. Slaughter: The Deep State on trial

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The administrative state has long operated as an unelected super-government. Trump v. Slaughter may be the moment voters reclaim authority over their own institutions.

Washington is watching and worrying about a U.S. Supreme Court case that could very well define the future of American self-government. And I don’t say that lightly. At the center of Trump v. Slaughter is a deceptively simple question: Can the president — the one official chosen by the entire nation — remove the administrators and “experts” who wield enormous, unaccountable power inside the executive branch?

This isn’t a technical fight. It’s not a paperwork dispute. It’s a turning point. Because if the answer is no, then the American people no longer control their own government. Elections become ceremonial. The bureaucracy becomes permanent. And the Constitution becomes a suggestion rather than the law of the land.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

That simply cannot be. Justice Neil Gorsuch summed it up perfectly during oral arguments on Monday: “There is no such thing in our constitutional order as a fourth branch of government that’s quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.”

Yet for more than a century, the administrative state has grown like kudzu — quietly, relentlessly, and always in one direction. Today we have a fourth branch of government: unelected, unaccountable, insulated from consequence. Congress hands off lawmaking to agencies. Presidents arrive with agendas, but the bureaucrats remain, and they decide what actually gets done.

If the Supreme Court decides that presidents cannot fire the very people who execute federal power, they are not just rearranging an org chart. The justices are rewriting the structure of the republic. They are confirming what we’ve long feared: Here, the experts rule, not the voters.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

The founders warned us

The men who wrote the Constitution saw this temptation coming. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in the Federalist Papers hammered home the same principle again and again: Power must remain traceable to the people. They understood human nature far too well. They knew that once administrators are protected from accountability, they will accumulate power endlessly. It is what humans do.

That’s why the Constitution vests the executive power in a single president — someone the entire nation elects and can unelect. They did not want a managerial council. They did not want a permanent priesthood of experts. They wanted responsibility and authority to live in one place so the people could reward or replace it.

So this case will answer a simple question: Do the people still govern this country, or does a protected class of bureaucrats now run the show?

Not-so-expert advice

Look around. The experts insisted they could manage the economy — and produced historic debt and inflation.

The experts insisted they could run public health — and left millions of Americans sick, injured, and dead while avoiding accountability.

The experts insisted they could steer foreign policy — and delivered endless conflict with no measurable benefit to our citizens.

And through it all, they stayed. Untouched, unelected, and utterly unapologetic.

If a president cannot fire these people, then you — the voter — have no ability to change the direction of your own government. You can vote for reform, but you will get the same insiders making the same decisions in the same agencies.

That is not self-government. That is inertia disguised as expertise.

A republic no more?

A monarchy can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A dictatorship can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A constitutional republic cannot. Not for long anyway.

We are supposed to live in a system where the people set the course, Congress writes the laws, and the president carries them out. When agencies write their own rules, judges shield them from oversight, and presidents are forbidden from removing them, we no longer live in that system. We live in something else — something the founders warned us about.

And the people become spectators of their own government.

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The path forward

Restoring the separation of powers does not mean rejecting expertise. It means returning expertise to its proper role: advisory, not sovereign.

No expert should hold power that voters cannot revoke. No agency should drift beyond the reach of the executive. No bureaucracy should be allowed to grow branches the Constitution never gave it.

The Supreme Court now faces a choice that will shape American life for a generation. It can reinforce the Constitution, or it can allow the administrative state to wander even farther from democratic control.

This case isn’t about President Trump. It isn’t about Rebecca Slaughter, the former Federal Trade Commission official suing to get her job back. It’s about whether elections still mean anything — whether the American people still hold the reins of their own government.

That is what is at stake: not procedure, not technicalities, but the survival of a system built on the revolutionary idea that the citizens — not the experts — are the ones who rule.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

1 in 20 Canadians die by MAID—Is this 'compassion'?

Vaughn Ridley / Stringer | Getty Images

Medical assistance in dying isn’t health care. It’s the moment a Western democracy decided some lives aren’t worth saving, and it’s a warning sign we can’t ignore.

Canada loves to lecture America about compassion. Every time a shooting makes the headlines, Canadian commentators cannot wait to discuss how the United States has a “culture of death” because we refuse to regulate guns the way enlightened nations supposedly do.

But north of our border, a very different crisis is unfolding — one that is harder to moralize because it exposes a deeper cultural failure.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order.

The Canadian government is not only permitting death, but it’s also administering, expanding, and redefining it as “medical care.” Medical assistance in dying is no longer a rare, tragic exception. It has become one of the country’s leading causes of death, offered to people whose problems are treatable, whose conditions are survivable, and whose value should never have been in question.

In Canada, MAID is now responsible for nearly 5% of all deaths — 1 out of every 20 citizens. And this is happening in a country that claims the moral high ground over American gun violence. Canada now records more deaths per capita from doctors administering lethal drugs than America records from firearms. Their number is 37.9 deaths per 100,000 people. Ours is 13.7. Yet we are the country supposedly drowning in a “culture of death.”

No lecture from abroad can paper over this fact: Canada has built a system where eliminating suffering increasingly means eliminating the sufferer.

Choosing death over care

One example of what Canada now calls “compassion” is the case of Jolene Bond, a woman suffering from a painful but treatable thyroid condition that causes dangerously high calcium levels, bone deterioration, soft-tissue damage, nausea, and unrelenting pain. Her condition is severe, but it is not terminal. Surgery could help her. And in a functioning medical system, she would have it.

But Jolene lives under socialized medicine. The specialists she needs are either unavailable, overrun with patients, or blocked behind bureaucratic requirements she cannot meet. She cannot get a referral. She cannot get an appointment. She cannot reach the doctor in another province who is qualified to perform the operation. Every pathway to treatment is jammed by paperwork, shortages, and waitlists that stretch into the horizon and beyond.

Yet the Canadian government had something else ready for her — something immediate.

They offered her MAID.

Not help, not relief, not a doctor willing to drive across a provincial line and simply examine her. Instead, Canada offered Jolene a state-approved death. A lethal injection is easier to obtain than a medical referral. Killing her would be easier than treating her. And the system calls that compassion.

Bureaucracy replaces medicine

Jolene’s story is not an outlier. It is the logical outcome of a system that cannot keep its promises. When the machinery of socialized medicine breaks down, the state simply replaces care with a final, irreversible “solution.” A bureaucratic checkbox becomes the last decision of a person’s life.

Canada insists its process is rigorous, humane, and safeguarded. Yet the bureaucracy now reviewing Jolene’s case is not asking how she can receive treatment; it is asking whether she has enough signatures to qualify for a lethal injection. And the debate among Canadian officials is not how to preserve life, but whether she has met the paperwork threshold to end it.

This is the dark inversion that always emerges when the state claims the power to decide when life is no longer worth living. Bureaucracy replaces conscience. Eligibility criteria replace compassion. A panel of physicians replaces the family gathered at a bedside. And eventually, the “right” to die becomes an expectation — especially for those who are poor, elderly, or alone.

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

The logical end of a broken system

We ignore this lesson at our own peril. Canada’s health care system is collapsing under demographic pressure, uncontrolled migration, and the unavoidable math of government-run medicine.

When the system breaks, someone must bear the cost. MAID has become the release valve.

The ideology behind this system is already drifting south. In American medical journals and bioethics conferences, you will hear this same rhetoric. The argument is always dressed in compassion. But underneath, it reduces the value of human life to a calculation: Are you useful? Are you affordable? Are you too much of a burden?

The West was built on a conviction that every human life has inherent value. That truth gave us hospitals before it gave us universities. It gave us charity before it gave us science. It is written into the Declaration of Independence.

Canada’s MAID program reveals what happens when a country lets that foundation erode. Life becomes negotiable, and suffering becomes a justification for elimination.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order. If compassion becomes indistinguishable from convenience, and if medicine becomes indistinguishable from euthanasia, the West will have abandoned the very principles that built it. That is the lesson from our northern neighbor — a warning, not a blueprint.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

A Sharia enclave is quietly taking root in America. It's time to wake up.

NOVA SAFO / Staff | Getty Images

Sharia-based projects like the Meadow in Texas show how political Islam grows quietly, counting on Americans to stay silent while an incompatible legal system takes root.

Apolitical system completely incompatible with the Constitution is gaining ground in the United States, and we are pretending it is not happening.

Sharia — the legal and political framework of Islam — is being woven into developments, institutions, and neighborhoods, including a massive project in Texas. And the consequences will be enormous if we continue to look the other way.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

Before we can have an honest debate, we’d better understand what Sharia represents. Sharia is not simply a set of religious rules about prayer or diet. It is a comprehensive legal and political structure that governs marriage, finance, criminal penalties, and civic life. It is a parallel system that claims supremacy wherever it takes hold.

This is where the distinction matters. Many Muslims in America want nothing to do with Sharia governance. They came here precisely because they lived under it. But political Islam — the movement that seeks to implement Sharia as law — is not the same as personal religious belief.

It is a political ideology with global ambitions, much like communism. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently warned that Islamist movements do not seek peaceful coexistence with the West. They seek dominance. History backs him up.

How Sharia arrives

Political Islam does not begin with dramatic declarations. It starts quietly, through enclaves that operate by their own rules. That is why the development once called EPIC City — now rebranded as the Meadow — is so concerning. Early plans framed it as a Muslim-only community built around a mega-mosque and governed by Sharia-compliant financing. After state investigations were conducted, the branding changed, but the underlying intent remained the same.

Developers have openly described practices designed to keep non-Muslims out, using fees and ownership structures to create de facto religious exclusivity. This is not assimilation. It is the construction of a parallel society within a constitutional republic.

The warning from those who have lived under it

Years ago, local imams in Texas told me, without hesitation, that certain Sharia punishments “just work.” They spoke about cutting off hands for theft, stoning adulterers, and maintaining separate standards of testimony for men and women. They insisted it was logical and effective while insisting they would never attempt to implement it in Texas.

But when pressed, they could not explain why a system they consider divinely mandated would suddenly stop applying once someone crossed a border.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

AASHISH KIPHAYET / Contributor | Getty Images

America is vulnerable

Europe is already showing us where this road leads. No-go zones, parallel courts, political intimidation, and clerics preaching supremacy have taken root across major cities.

America’s strength has always come from its melting pot, but assimilation requires boundaries. It requires insisting that the Constitution, not religious law, is the supreme authority on this soil.

Yet we are becoming complacent, even fearful, about saying so. We mistake silence for tolerance. We mistake avoidance for fairness. Meanwhile, political Islam views this hesitation as weakness.

Religious freedom is one of America’s greatest gifts. Muslims may worship freely here, as they should. But political Islam must not be permitted to plant a flag on American soil. The Constitution cannot coexist with a system that denies equal rights, restricts speech, subordinates women, and places clerical authority above civil law.

Wake up before it is too late

Projects like the Meadow are not isolated. They are test runs, footholds, proofs of concept. Political Islam operates with patience. It advances through demographic growth, legal ambiguity, and cultural hesitation — and it counts on Americans being too polite, too distracted, or too afraid to confront it.

We cannot afford that luxury. If we fail to defend the principles that make this country free, we will one day find ourselves asking how a parallel system gained power right in front of us. The answer will be simple: We looked away.

The time to draw boundaries and to speak honestly is now. The time to defend the Constitution as the supreme law of the land is now. Act while there is still time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The Crisis of Meaning: Searching for truth and purpose

Mario Tama / Staff | Getty Images

Anxiety, anger, and chronic dissatisfaction signal a country searching for meaning. Without truth and purpose, politics becomes a dangerous substitute for identity.

We have built a world overflowing with noise, convenience, and endless choice, yet something essential has slipped out of reach. You can sense it in the restless mood of the country, the anxiety among young people who cannot explain why they feel empty, in the angry confusion that dominates our politics.

We have more wealth than any nation in history, but the heart of the culture feels strangely malnourished. Before we can debate debt or elections, we must confront the reality that we created a world of things, but not a world of purpose.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

What we are living through is not just economic or political dysfunction. It is the vacuum that appears when a civilization mistakes abundance for meaning.

Modern life is stuffed with everything except what the human soul actually needs. We built systems to make life faster, easier, and more efficient — and then wondered why those systems cannot teach our children who they are, why they matter, or what is worth living for.

We tell the next generation to chase success, influence, and wealth, turning childhood into branding. We ask kids what they want to do, not who they want to be. We build a world wired for dopamine rather than dignity, and then we wonder why so many people feel unmoored.

When everything is curated, optimized, and delivered at the push of a button, the question “what is my life for?” gets lost in the static.

The crisis beneath the headlines

It is not just the young who feel this crisis. Every part of our society is straining under the weight of meaninglessness.

Look at the debt cycle — the mathematical fate no civilization has ever escaped once it crosses a threshold that we seem to have already blown by. While ordinary families feel the pressure, our leaders respond with distraction, with denial, or by rewriting the very history that could have warned us.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

We have entered a cultural moment where the noise is so loud that it drowns out the simplest truths. We are living in a country that no longer knows how to hear itself think.

So people go searching. Some drift toward the false promise of socialism, some toward the empty thrill of rebellion. Some simply check out. When a culture forgets what gives life meaning, it becomes vulnerable to every ideology that offers a quick answer.

The quiet return of meaning

And yet, quietly, something else is happening. Beneath the frustration and cynicism, many Americans are recognizing that meaning does not come from what we own, but from what we honor. It does not rise from success, but from virtue. It does not emerge from noise, but from the small, sacred things that modern life has pushed to the margins — the home, the table, the duty you fulfill, the person you help when no one is watching.

The danger is assuming that this rediscovery happens on its own. It does not.

Reorientation requires intention. It requires rebuilding the habits and virtues that once held us together. It requires telling the truth about our history instead of rewriting it to fit today’s narratives. And it requires acknowledging what has been erased: that meaning is inseparable from God’s presence in a nation’s life.

Harold M. Lambert / Contributor | Getty Images

Where renewal begins

We have built a world without stillness, and then we wondered why no one can hear the questions that matter. Those questions remain, whether we acknowledge them or not. They do not disappear just because we drown them in entertainment or noise. They wait for us, and the longer we ignore them, the more disoriented we become.

Meaning is still available. It is found in rebuilding the smallest, most human spaces — the places that cannot be digitized, globalized, or automated. The home. The family. The community.

These are the daily virtues that do not trend on social media, but that hold a civilization upright. If we want to repair this country, we begin there, exactly where every durable civilization has always begun: one virtue at a time, one tradition at a time, one generation at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.