Over the last couple months, my 8th grader has been lobbying to attend the public high school by our house. He’s a very social teenager who loves camaraderie, intimacy and shared experiences. He thrives on group dynamics and therefore is drawn to a bigger platform like the school with 2,000 students vs the 200 students in the private Christian school he’s slated to attend.

Recently, he presented me with a comparative grid of the positives and negatives of both schools. Social activities and strong athletic programs were big pluses for him. The list was thorough, and the very act of framing his argument this way demonstrated sincere initiative. Simply telling him, “I want a Christian foundation and good academics for you, and ultimately it’s my decision anyway,” would dismiss his effort.

I had been praying about this decision for some time, and proactively trying to make my own comparisons. As it turns out, the difference between the golf divisions isn’t all that meaningful, particularly since college recruiters rarely place much importance on high school golf performance. I even called the school for a visit and meeting, and when they didn’t return my call, this underscored the lack of attention families get from public schools. I had given both these reasons among others to my son, but they were, admittedly, surface level.

Ultimately, it was only fair to be sincere in my reflection. What kind of parent would I be if I couldn’t give an honest, articulated and well thought-out argument to defend my choices for him (especially, given his role as middle school debate club president, and mine as the supervisor and instructor)?

After reviewing his comparative list, I did more homework. I explored the school website and the “early college” program, a rigorous academic option available if he attended the public school. I also reviewed School Board meeting minutes to understand the school’s priorities. It was very telling. On the first page of the minutes, there was a land acknowledgment of the Patwin tribes. I learned that acknowledgments were also included on every class syllabus.

This raised the question: Why require land acknowledgements? I’m not one to quibble over them. If someone wants to place one on their website or say before a speech, fine. It’s like the Lilliputians arguing over whether to break their eggs on the small end or the large end. It doesn’t matter, just don’t force one side. But making these acknowledgements a mandatory philosophical position is akin to mandating which side of the egg is morally correct to break.

I want to be clear: while a voluntary acknowledgment is harmless — a small gesture of gratitude — the fact that it is institutionally mandated elevates it into a philosophical statement. It implies a moral framework: that colonization is a defining sin for which current generations, particularly descendants of settlers, must continually atone.

Adolescents have enough struggles as they attempt to justify their existence and find purpose in life; adding an imposed moral obligation to atone for past sins now brings with it a weighty unnecessary burden to carry.

A moral authority problem

There is also a conceptual “moral authority” problem to these acknowledgments. It frames the Patwin as morally blameless and settlers as morally tainted, suggesting that privilege and societal advantage are inherently sinful. Possessing privilege or advantage is not, in itself, a moral failing, any more than lacking advantage confers a moral claim on the said privileged.

I discussed this with my son who initially expressed sympathy for the Indian tribes. He was probably trying to minimize the implications of such a ritual. “It doesn’t hurt anyone.” “What’s wrong with paying respects and being grateful?” “What’s the big deal?”

To answer this, these symbolic acts may seem innocuous at first, but they have downstream effects on the way kids understand morality. The philosophy becomes part of the atmosphere of the school—something students absorb almost unconsciously as they move through the halls. They become unknowingly conditioned to accept the view of intrinsic guilt and virtue simply through identity. At that point, one’s identity or opinion becomes a moral proxy. This is the same view that undergirds the social justice movement that defines morality by the collective, not by the individual. But morality isn’t mediated that way. It’s mediated through our family, friends, communities, churches, employers, and yes schools - places where people know us and can judge us for our actions.

We should understand this reality as we reckon with our past through virtue signals that overlook the messiness and complexities of history. No one is blameless and purely peaceful.

Northern California consisted of multiple tribes that interacted, traded, and at times fought among themselves. In many cases, there were atrocities committed that were likely more brutal and ruthless than we could even stomach today. There was no morally perfect tribe, just as settlers were not universally sinful. How does one group, therefore, have moral authority over another? I asked him. He understood: “They don’t,” he answered.

Additionally, if we are to give thanks for stewardship, why not also recognize the Spaniards or Mexicans, who preceded Americans in colonizing California? Spanish missions were established in the early 1800s, decades before American expansion.

To ignore this is to simplify history into a selective moral narrative rather than to understand it.

Tip of the iceberg

The presence of a land acknowledgment also hints at a deeper ideological framework — a moral hierarchy based on identity rather than action. In California, for instance, those labeled as “climate change deniers” often occupy a morally inferior position. After Assembly Bill 873, which was intended to help students identify misinformation, one educator celebrated the prospect of students debunking “climate change denial” and other conspiracies. The implication, again, is that moral judgment is mediated through labels and group identity, rather than character. If our actions that reveal our character don’t matter, then how do we teach kids accountability?

I experienced a related dynamic firsthand. I was invited to speak on a panel titled “Engaging in democracy” at a Bay Area high school. The program was structured with four left-of-center speakers and myself representing the right. As the event approached, I was disinvited due to a change in the “makeup” of the panel, which could only mean the organizers decided to have five left-leaning speakers. In effect, their version of democracy was designed to create an echo chamber, insulating their moral hierarchy from challenge. If adults aren’t allowed to dialogue with people they disagree with to form consensus or derive some truth, what are we modeling for students?

California schools also have a very distorted view of gender. I can’t get my mind past this. The Supreme Court had to weigh in, thankfully, to block a California law that would ban schools from telling parents if their child identifies as transgender. Imagine, a young child going to a counselor with confusion and despair about their identity; and the counselor doesn’t share this dire and life-threatening information with parents.

Nearly half of kids suffering with this identity disorder suffer from suicide ideation vs 15% of the general youth population. One in four kids who suffer from gender identity disorder attempt to commit suicide vs 5% of the general youth population. Moreover, about three in four of these kids suffer from persistent depression.

Despite these signs, California lawmakers don’t think parents need to be alerted to help their children, you know - get better or seek help. Yet according to California Education Code 49423, schools must have a written permission from a parent before a kid can take aspirin.

With this kind of perverse, upside-down logic, how is a child supposed to develop a coherent moral compass? If education is built on a foundation of falsehoods, then the stakes are enormous—not just for knowledge, but for character. And that’s before you even consider laws compelling teachers to affirm every student’s preferred pronoun, regardless of their own understanding of reality. When you combine that with the fact that California public high schools rank significantly below other states academically, you’re asking children to navigate a world that is both morally confusing and intellectually deficient.

Final thoughts…

For the next four years, my son will spend about 20% of his time at school in a given year. That’s a lot!

My greatest hope is that he leaves high school as a young man who stands firmly in integrity, carries the weight of responsibility without complaint, meets life’s challenges with resilience, honors truth and others with steadfast courage, and walks with a guiding love for Christ as his foundation. These virtues are rooted in objective moral truths, not in selective narratives or moral relativism.

Choosing a school, therefore, is never just an academic, athletic, or social decision. It is bigger. It is a decision about the moral and intellectual environment in which a young person will form their character.

The decision is a moral one.

(Image source: NBCbayarea)

In a late night show format, Aaron Withe, CEO of Freedom Foundation, interviewed education leaders fostering faith in all aspects of learning. On the panel were Ryan Walters (CEO, Teacher Freedom Alliance), Michael McCoy (Chief of Staff, Turning Point USA); Dr. Corbin Hoornbeek (President, University of Northwestern St. Paul); Doug Napier (Executive Chairman, 1792 Exchange); and Willy Guardiola (Founder, Christian on a Mission).

Aaron kicked the panel off explaining the top priorities of the Freedom Foundation, which simply stated fights the unions. The goal of the organization is pretty simple, Aaron explained: 1) help government workers leave the unions and stop paying union dues 2) sue unions (for instance in California, the Freedom Foundation sued unions for unfair business practices 3) pass legislation (such as the Education Reform Bill) 4) and started an alternative to the unions, Teacher Freedom Alliance.

Below are some snippets of what was said by each panelist.

3:20 Ryan Walters is now the CEO of the Teacher Freedom Alliance. Ryan served as Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction from January 2023 to September 2025, and as the appointed Oklahoma Secretary of Education from September 2020 to April 2023.

Ryan: Teachers unions are the biggest force of destruction. They push DEI and transgenderism in our schools and shut down schools during Covid. The unions held out for hundreds of millions of dollars as ransom. What they cared about was money going to their union members and using that to push their left-wing agenda. Over 90% of their dues go into Democratic candidates. Teachers don’t support DEI or transgenderism and so why are they part of the Teachers Union? For those who want to opt out of the unions, they can go to: Optouttoday.com TFA also helps teachers once they leave the union.

10:24 Dr. Corbin Hoornbeek is the President, University of Northwestern St. Paul.

Corbin: There’s been no industry in America since Covid that has been more disrupted than higher education. But now is a great time to be in higher education. We need people in Christian higher education. At UNW St. Paul, the second president was the Reverend Billy Graham so I’m standing on the shoulder of giants. Here’s how we describe ourselves: theologically conservative and culturally engaged. It means we believe that the scriptures are true. We believe that we understand the world and how God is working in the world and we understand what is true through the lens of the scripture. That matters. We understand Christian education in lots of different forms. The reality is scripture has something to say about history, economics and every single subject. Scripture isn’t just an add-on, but understands God’s contour in the world. Second part of this - if you look into the scriptures, you will see the call of God in our lives and in every part of culture. We want our students to be culture changers, culture transformers.

18:06 Willy Guardiola is Founder of Christian on a Mission.

Willy: My biggest job is to make the Catholic Bishops and Catholic priests do their job. I serve as the President of the Palm Beach County Right to Life League. I started Pro Lifers for Trump back in 2016. This is important because why did we come so close to almost losing the Vote No on Abortion? To think that 54% of Catholics in Palm Beach County voted for abortion. Think about that. As President we’ve closed three Planned Parenthoods down in this county. It all starts with pro life. I meet with all the Catholic priests and bishops. My best friends are the priests that have been defrocked for speaking the truth. I’m trying to get to seminaries now. We want to get the young seminarians to learn about pro life and teach them what Jesus taught us. So when they graduate, they won’t afraid to talk about pro life at the pulpit.

26:40 Doug Napier is Chairman of 1792 Exchange.

Doug: We are a non-profit focused on primarily on corporate behavior. We were formed around 2021 when we realized how much influence corporations have on culture. There’s billions of dollars that influence our advertising and those advertisements tell a story. They communicate what American values are, but those values are distorted. The universities are the breeding grounds of ideas that make their way to the marketplace. They get incubated in the universities as theory; they get hatched in the marketplace as practice and then they find their way into the handbooks of major corporations. Every idea has consequences and bad ideas have victims. Those ideas get put ito corporations and affects HR department. They have all these DEI objectives that are mandated and corporate executives are getting bonuses and incentives to embrace a model that doesn’t work. We started thinking about how this corrupted the marketplace, and we are undertaking an additional data project with the universities.

36:44 Mikey McCoy is Chief of Staff of Turning Point USA.

Mikey: Since Charlie’s assassination we’ve seen an incredible amount of people who want to get involved in Turning Point. Chapter inquiries (for high school and college programs), we’re sitting at over 130k students who’ve reached out who want to start a chapter - whether it’s high school or college. We started 3k new chapters all since September 10th. We’ve had 115k students for the first time ever come to a chapter meeting. There’s a great harvest. In our TPUSA Faith, we doubled our church affiliates to 8k/ We have 200k people who signed up with TPUSA Faith. People are reaching out getting bibles. Since Charlie’s death, we’ve seen church attendance at an all-time high. But there’s still a lot of questions about what comes next culturally. For GenZ, Charlie was this guiding light, this north star, now with him gone, there’s a lot of questions. Two words come to mind when it comes to Charlie: hope and courage. Hope sees the world as it could be, courage steps into the fire to make it a reality. Courage without hope is reckless, hope without courage, is just a dream.

57:15 Branson Race Roizen started one of the first TP USA middle school chapters in the country.

On October 22nd at Culture, Religion & Technology, take III (CRT 2025) at Mar-a-Lago, it was the first time I opened up the event with a prayer. It was the first time I ever prayed to Jesus on stage at a CRT event, notwithstanding the word “religion” in the title. It was also the first time I had ever asked the Holy Spirit to fill the audience’s heart at any event I’ve hosted, and I’ve hosted dozens!

The fact that the Holy Spirit can enter all our hearts is a direct consequence of Jesus’ death on the cross and his resurrection: the gospel message. This simple good news was not lost on anyone.

During the event and reception, I was approached by a couple dozen people who thanked me for the prayer, adding that they felt relieved that there was freedom to speak about God’s truth alongside matters of technological innovation, education, national security, politics and culture. In a survey of attendees post-event, 100% of the respondents said they liked opening the event with a prayer. It was indeed freeing and validating for me, having lived in the Bay Area, where any reliance on Jesus was a sign of weakness or ignorance.

I couldn’t help but think, however, that some onlookers may mistake our event to be a gathering of Christian Nationalists with an objective to compel everyone to run America as a theocracy. After all, policy positions espoused on stage, such as being “spiritually ready” in defense, are a direct appeal to our faith. But there is something many critics don’t understand or simply ignore or find incredulous about conservative Christians. We are not forcing anyone to be Christians. That’s not our job. We know it is a narrow door (Matthew 7:13-14) to get into heaven and Jesus only wants those who choose Him to enter.

That said, we have to seek God’s moral clarity to guide us as heads of business, government, media, technology, education, defense and so on. This calling is nothing more than going back to America’s roots. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in his 1835 book Democracy in America: “there is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America.”

Embracing America’s Judeo-Christian foundation isn’t a Right or Left sentiment.

That is why when I see displays of God-centered worship outside of a church treated with disdain, I want to understand why such odium exists in preparation to defend my faith and actions. This brings me to my commentary of David Brooks’ critique of Charlie Kirk’s memorial service in his NYTimes essay: We Need to Think Straight About God and Politics. I’ve been wanting to write this for a while but I’ve been so busy with the event. So finally here it is.

America’s shared moral values

Let’s first begin with Brooks’ acknowledgment that America had a shared moral ethic and that it was essential to our democracy. He recognizes that democracy “relied on religious institutions to do that moral formation,” quoting John Adam’s famous statement: “Our Constitution was made only for moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Brooks defends religion and politics being integrally connected as long as publicly they’re in proper relation to one another — something, however, he believes was not evident at the memorial. For Brooks, the recognition of martyrdom sparking a Christian revival empowered by a conservative government was a spectacle of ignorance.

Like CRT 2025, the memorial was filled with voices espousing Biblical creeds and political wins in the same breath. So I can imagine, Brooks would have snubbed his nose at CRT 2025 with the same denunciation. As a Christian apologist I must prepare for such snubbing in order to explain to people like Brooks the hope that is in me that he doesn’t see. So let’s dive into the critique because we should expect push-back any time we praise God for the privilege to lead; we will all be called hypocrites or guilty of using God to stay in power. Or worshipping power more than God.

What therefore is our defense? First, let’s acknowledge, like Brooks, that America was founded on deep Judeo-Christian principles.

Not only does Brooks quote Adams, he quotes de Tocqueville’s book, in which he wrote: “For the Americans, the idea of Christianity and liberty are so completely mingled that it is almost impossible to get them to conceive of one without the other.”

Brooks is wistful for those days as he bemoans a faith that is now “privatized” and a “shared morality” that is “shredded.” Reminiscing on a world that once was, Brooks reminds his readers that faith and politics cannot exist independently. He quotes his friend who said that Christianity is a load-bearing wall and when it crumbles, so do institutions. “A crisis within Christianity is a crisis in America,” said Brooks. The question for him isn’t how to separate spirituality from politics because they are so reliant on one another but “how to put them in proper relation to each other.”

Apparently, MAGA Christians don’t know how to do this.

Putting faith and politics in proper relation

Brooks said as much in his assessment: “My problem with the Kirk memorial service and all the conversation about his assassination generally is that many people seem to have no coherent idea about the proper relationship between faith and politics. In their minds, the two spheres seem all mixed together higgledy-piggledy.”

The spheres he is referring to are part of a concept from Dutch theologian Abraham Kuyper’s theory of spheres, which says that there are different domains (spheres such as state, family, church) and they have their own sovereignty. But those states should not be mixed. For instance, the church should not govern the state nor should the state govern the church.

Yet at that memorial, where politicians spoke about their faith and their politics as God’s work essentially, Brooks concluded that “it was rarely clear if they were talking about the man who was trying to evangelize for Jesus or the one trying to elect Republicans.” In other words, if this was a Christian memorial service, the football stadium where it was held should have been the house of the Lord with Christ at the center. Not a political event with Pharisees triumphantly saying they were doing the work of God. The display created an “unexamined assumption that being a Christian and being a Republican are basically the same thing,” he decried.

Set aside the insult that Christians lack self-awareness, does Brooks not realize that many Christians and Republicans do align on values and hence political policies that protect those values?

Christian and Republican values are the same

The first and most obvious is that many Christians believe in the traditional view of gender. This has stayed consistent for at least a decade. In 2017, 84% of white evangelicals and 63% of all Christians believed that sex is binary, according to Pew Research. In 2022, those percentages rose as some 87% of white evangelicals and 70% of black evangelicals believed that sex is binary, according to that Pew survey. By contrast, almost 60% of religiously unaffiliated and 76% of atheists believe sex is on a spectrum.

This almost maps with the breakdown between Republicans and Democrats. Some 90% of Republicans believe in two genders vs only 44% of Democrats. Earlier this year, Donald Trump introduced an Executive Order that protects the rights of those who believe in two genders, which overturned President Biden’s executive orders that expanded rights for those who believe sex is on a spectrum.

So it very much seems if you are Christian and believe in two genders, you’re going to see yourself as a Republican.

As for the makeup of the military, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth is remaking the military to consist of the strongest combat ready force, which would therefore elevate strong men and eliminate many women who cannot meet the same physical standards. This is consistent with a Christian view of traditional gender roles. More than 75% of evangelical Christians believe in traditional gender roles, where the woman is the parent who stays home and is the primary caretaker of children. This aligns with 87% of Republican men who want a return to traditional gender roles and 79% of Republican women. Meanwhile, only 23% of women Democrats support a return to traditional gender roles. Given the proclivity of Republican men and women to embrace traditional gender roles, it’s not surprising that more Republicans are married vs Democrats. Again, if you’re a Christian and believe in traditional gender roles, you’re more likely to be attracted to the Republican party.

The polls bear this out. Christians gravitate to the Republican party. The Democrats went from being made up of 85% Christian in 2006, now down to 62% in 2022. While the percent of Republicans that are Christian went from 94% to 86% in the same period, according to PRRI. And the Democrats have nearly three times as many religiously unaffiliated in their party vs the Republicans. Given most Democrats don’t align with the vast majority of Christians, Brooks has no basis in making his claim.

Brooks reliance on “well-crafted,” “coherent” theories

Brooks then says that since conservatives lack a “coherent theory of how religion should relate to politics,” they can operate in the following ways, including being hypocritical. As an example, he brings up Tucker Carlson, saying it’s nice that Carlson talks about practicing a religion of love and harmony, “but is that actually the way he lives his life?” Never mind that Brooks ignores the plank in his eye, it doesn’t take any theory or lack thereof to be hypocritical. Most, if not all, people are. Romans 7:15 “What I want to do, I do not do, but what I hate I do.”

Then Brooks accuses conservatives of forgetting the power of sin. Brooks writes: “the civil rights movement had a well-crafted theory of the relationship between religion and politics. The movement’s theology taught its members that they were themselves sinful and that they had to put restraints on their political action in order to guard against the sins of hatred, self-righteous and the love of power. Without any such theory, MAGA imposes no restraints, and sin roams free.”

Brooks seems to have forgotten that any Christian worth his or her salt understands the cross. We certainly don’t need “well-crafted” or “coherent” theories, as Brooks requires. The cross does not need theories. It is the essence of Christianity. We are all sinners saved by grace. Romans 3:10 says “None is righteous. No, not one.” And that means we know that any of us can become consumed with hatred, self-righteousness and love of power. Knowing we are sinners means we put restraints on all action, not just political action. We don’t use this knowledge to stay humble in politics, we use God’s knowledge to stay humble in everything we do.

We preach Christ crucified

At the end of the day, Brooks attempt to establish some rational and biblical justification to mock conservative Christians is forced erudition. He is a self-admitted Republican exile and his bias is obvious. He does not support conservative policies and therefore doesn’t see how Christians can ever claim to be doing God’s work. But to criticize them by overly relying on “well-crafted” or “coherent” theories about what it means to be Christian just makes him sound like an annoying modern day Pharisee or gnostic.

The gospel is a pretty simple message. As Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 1:23, “we preach Christ crucified.” In other words, we don’t need man’s theories.

Especially if it dilutes the gospel. Brooks writes that without his theory of proper alignment, the problem is “that unrestrained faith and unrestrained partisanship are an incredibly combustible mixture.” No. Unrestrained faith and unrestrained allegiance to anything are an incredibly combustible mixture. We need to think straight about God and everything, not just God and politics.

In Matthew 23:3-4, Jesus tells the crowd: “Do not do what they [Pharisees] do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.” In other words, the hearts of the Pharisees are proud and callous, and demanding obedience and introspection of others but not of themselves.

It’s no wonder Brooks is blinded to the very humility he needs when he warns that Republicans are the ones who might become violent.

He writes: “I am one of those who fear that the powerful emotions kicked up by the martyrdom of Kirk will lead many Republicans to conclude that their opponents are irredeemably evil and that anything that causes them suffering is permissible. It’s possible for faithful people to wander a long way from the cross.”

How Brooks ends with this sentiment in an essay about Charlie Kirk - a man assassinated by an opponent who found him irredeemably evil that his death was permissible, is beyond words.

Yes Brooks, faithful people forget the cross, as you seem to have. I hope one day you find your way back to it.

I will be opening up the event with a prayer.

Hope to see you there! You can see who’s speaking here and REGISTER here.

Keynoting our event is Devin Nunes, CEO of Trump Media and Technology, parent company of Truth Social.

Please join us. REGISTER HERE and see AGENDA and speakers.

Not familiar with the CRT events? See our 2024 CRT wrap-up with Peter Thiel keynoting.