The Founders Wanted A Christian Nation But Not A State-Enforced One
Demanding, as Douglas Wilson seems to do, that public officials proclaim their personal faith in Christ is neither wise, nor moral, nor American, nor Christian.Demanding, as Douglas Wilson seems to do, that public officials proclaim their personal faith in Christ is neither wise, nor moral, nor American, nor Christian.Why America can — and must — outlaw pornography
My daughter is 7 years old. She is adorable, kindhearted, and full of life. I would do anything to protect her.
Now think about all the 7-year-olds in your life — children, nephews, nieces, neighbor kids. Statistically speaking, 50% of them will be exposed to pornography in the next five years. Read this paragraph repeatedly until the gravity of it hits you.
Family is the building block of society, and pornography is the corrosive acid that is eating away at its foundation.
As bad as a Playboy would be, I am not talking about a magazine. I am talking about the most depraved, hard-core, and often violent sexual intercourse footage ever conceived in the human mind that is available with a few clicks to anyone with access to a smartphone or computer. The median age of first exposure to this content is 12 years old; 15% will view hard-core pornography before they graduate elementary school.
As Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier is finding out, age verification checks are doing little to deter any of this and are as easy to pass through as our border during the Biden administration.
What kind of sick society allows this?
Pornography's effects
Pornography is a corrosive acid that rots the soul; steals innocence; destroys marriages; fuels objectification, exploitation, and sex trafficking of women and children; increases rape and abuse rates; and unravels the moral fabric of society, causing great public harm. It increases anxiety, shame, sexual dysfunction, and relationship unhappiness among those who use it.
As J.C. Ryle said well, “Nothing darkens the mind so much as sin; it is the cloud which hides the face of God from us.”
Porn use affects every part of our mind, body, and soul. It inflicts immense external harms on individuals and society.
Not only does it directly warp the minds of America’s children, it affects them in indirect ways. Recent data indicates that marriages in which at least one spouse views pornography are nearly twice as likely to result in divorce, and the effects of divorce on children are staggering. Children of divorced parents often experience heightened levels of anxiety, depression, and behavioral issues.
A study by the University of Illinois Chicago indicates that divorce may lead to social withdrawal, attachment difficulties, and increased behavioral problems in children.
RELATED: Pornography is a threat to families — and to civilization
Research published in the Journal of Divorce & Remarriage found that children from divorced families are more likely to exhibit lower academic performance compared to their peers from intact families. Data from PLOS One indicates that individuals who experienced parental divorce before the age of 18 have a 61% higher risk of experiencing a stroke in adulthood. Research from Baylor University indicates that adults who experienced parental divorce during childhood have lower levels of oxytocin, a hormone associated with relationship bonding and emotional regulation.
Family is the building block of society, and pornography is the corrosive acid that is eating away at its foundation. Without any redeeming element whatsoever, pornography destroys marriages, destroys lives, and steals the innocence and protection of the young.
All of these outcomes are the result of a choice made by public officials who refuse to stand in the way of this obscene content being published.
What kind of sick society allows this?
What about the First Amendment?
Pornography is not “speech” in any meaningful, constitutionally protected sense. We rightly prohibit prostitution. Yet somehow, when the same act is filmed and distributed to millions of people over the internet, prostitution becomes exalted as “protected speech.”
This is legal nonsense of the highest order. It insults the intelligence of the American people and is a crime against children and the moral fabric of any society. To claim that the founding fathers fought and bled to secure a right to broadcast prostitution is as absurd as it is evil.
No serious person believes this legal framework is the result of honest lawmaking or faithful judicial interpretation. Rather, this perverse outcome is a product of cultural rot and late 20th-century judicial activism. Our courts were captured by ideologues more committed to preserving the sexual revolution at any cost than upholding constitutional fidelity.
But common-law tradition and Supreme Court precedent provide a clear path to prohibition.
Justice William Rehnquist, writing for the Supreme Court in Barnes v. Glen Theatre (1991), rightly noted that public nudity was a criminal offense at common law. The founders did not interpret the First Amendment as a shield for public obscenity, indecency, or exhibitionism. In fact, Miller v. California (1973) gives us the legal test we need: If material appeals to the prurient interest, depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way as defined by contemporary standards, and lacks serious political, educational, or artistic value, it is not protected by the First Amendment.
Modern pornography clearly meets all three criteria — except where legislatures have failed to define and prohibit it accordingly.
RELATED: Porn has transformed into horror
Pornography’s advocates point to Reno v. ACLU (1997), but the ruling was based on the failure of the bill in question to distinguish “obscene” from “indecent.” Moreover, the court justified its decision by claiming the internet was less invasive than radio or television.
How well does that assertion hold up 28 years later?
The internet is now the primary battleground for the soul of this generation. Because of its incorrect factual findings and clear disregard for the power clearly reserved to the states, any element of Reno and other opinions that would prohibit states and municipalities from banning public obscenity should be overturned. There are upcoming opportunities to do so. State legislatures need to provide more.
It is past time for us to recognize that publishing prostitution footage is not speech — it is an attack on human decency and the moral fabric necessary to hold families and the republic together. We must deal with it as such.
That is why I filed SB593 to abolish pornography in Oklahoma.
What SB593 does
SB593 would define “obscenity” according to the Miller test and outlaw the production, distribution, sale, and possession of obscene pornography in Oklahoma. It would re-establish the state’s authority to prosecute those who profit from the destruction of marriage, innocence, and society. It would empower law enforcement to shut down pornography rings that exploit women and children. It also increases penalties for child pornography.
The American people — many suffering the effects of a culture drowning in pornographic material — are increasingly supportive of bills like this one.
A society without pornography is better than one with it.
A 2024 YouGov poll found that support for and opposition to the total pornography ban suggested by Project 2025 were split evenly at 42-42. Among Republican voters, 60% were in support, with only 27% opposed. Republican officials can ban pornography, knowing their voters have their back by a greater than two-to-one margin.
Many object that the bill, or others like it, will be challenged in court, but that is no reason to shrink back. The goal is to pass the bill, but not merely that — it is also to force a reckoning. The Miller test provides a well-established framework to ban obscene pornography. The factual findings from Reno have been proven disastrously wrong.
Public opposition to pornography is rising. There is no better time to put this discussion before the American people and the Supreme Court.
Time to act
The left possesses no limiting principle to forcing its twisted, Marxist vision of the good on society. Leftists weaponize agencies to perform raids on political opponents, meme-makers, and pro-life protesters. They collude with social media companies to censor right-leaning opinions. They shut down businesses and churches.
Yet too many on the right still flinch at any minor deviation from utter libertinism.
A society without pornography is better than one with it. Everyone knows this, yet too many cling to unlimited, laissez-faire state approval of public prostitution footage. People have been conditioned to believe that the highest conservative principle is inaction and “neutrality.”
It is children who pay the biggest price for this folly.
Pornography exemplifies this crisis: It objectifies people made as God’s image-bearers, reducing them to commodities for gratification, thus defacing the imago Dei and alienating us from our creator. Neurologically and spiritually, it rewires the brain's reward pathways, creating addictive filters that pervert sexual perception and fracture body-soul unity, as Jesus warns in Matthew 5:28.
This echoes broader anthropological harms, fueling exploitation, addiction, and societal division that undermine human flourishing and the common good.
In legislating against it, we affirm God's design for humanity. This is not about criminalizing private lustful thoughts (a sin for the church) but addressing external actions that exploit, addict, and divide (a crime for the state). By enacting such a law, we honor God, protect the vulnerable, and fulfill our duty to promote the common good.
What kind of sick society allows pornography?
For the sake of children and the survival of the republic, pornography must be abolished.
Christian woman goes viral for saying she wants a divorce. Here's why she's wrong.
A TikTok of a Christian woman named Camille Wight has gone viral, as she claimed she wanted to divorce her “perfect” husband — which sparked an intense debate about marriage and divorce across all social media platforms.
“Earlier this year, I told my husband I wanted a divorce. I feel like I have been searching for something in my relationship that we don’t have for the whole time we’ve been married, which has been 10 years,” the woman said.
“There is not a single thing about my husband in and of himself that I do not love. Let me be very clear about that. He is the most self-disciplined, loyal, hardworking, good person that you could meet on this planet. And that is probably the reason why I have not left,” she continued.
The woman went on to explain that her expectations are not being met and that she doesn’t feel like she can be herself with her husband — emphasizing that she is a mom of three who still doesn’t know who she is.
She couched the confession by asking for advice and wanting to know how she can salvage her marriage.
“It won’t come as a surprise to you that I have a lot of problems with this, that God has a lot of problems with this person’s reasoning and what she is articulating here,” BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey says.
“Posting a video confessing your soured feelings about your husband — talking negatively about your spouse, talking negatively about your marriage — indicates a lot of very profound spiritual and mental issues going on here. You’ve got to honor your husband more than this. You’ve got to cherish your marriage more than this. You’ve got to protect your privacy better than this, love your kids more than this,” she continues.
Because Wight publicly claims the name of Christ, Stuckey speaks to her in Christian terms.
“Number one, marriage is for life. Except in rare circumstances, divorce is not allowed. Jesus says, ‘What God has joined together, let not man separate.’ Number two, life isn’t about finding yourself. It’s about denying yourself, as Jesus calls us to do. The journey to self-discovery is endless, and self-fulfillment is a very heavy burden to bear,” Stuckey says.
“Number three, your kids' well-being matters more than your wants. Your feelings will change. Your kids' emotional, psychological, and spiritual need for an intact home will not. And number four, marriage is not primarily about happiness. It is primarily about holiness,” she continues.
“And then finally, number five, feelings are real,” she says. “They are strong. And it is so tempting to follow our feelings, but it is a trap. Our hearts cannot be trusted. Jeremiah 17:9. So go to people at your church, in your life, that won’t just affirm how you feel, but will actually point you, as uncomfortable as it may be, to the unchanging truth of God’s word.”
Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?
To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Sex offenders can’t adopt. But they can buy a baby?
Last week, a gay couple — Logan Riley and Brandon Mitchell — went viral for posting photos of the baby boy they acquired through surrogacy. What began as a celebration quickly unraveled after it emerged that one of the men is a convicted sex offender.
Social media users raised obvious concerns. Was this arrangement in the best interest of the child? What risks come with separating a baby from his mother and placing him with unrelated adult males, one of whom has a record of sex crimes? Critics asked these questions and were met, as usual, with accusations of bigotry from gay activists. But once the facts surfaced, the activists who rushed to defend the couple fell silent.
Children are not accessories. Women are not rental space. And no one should be allowed to buy a baby — least of all someone who wouldn’t be permitted to adopt one.
The pattern is familiar. Critics of surrogacy are smeared until reality breaks through the narrative. By then, the damage is done — and the child is the one who suffers.
From fallback to moral imperative
The original case for gay adoption was flimsy. It presented same-sex couples as a last resort, a solution for children who would otherwise languish in the foster system. Even its advocates admitted that two men raising a child could not replicate the contributions of a mother and father. The goal was to offer love and stability in the absence of better alternatives.
That framing has since disappeared. As the LGBTQ movement moved from acceptance to dominance, the rhetoric shifted. Gay adoption was no longer a concession. It was equal to heterosexual couples adopting, then it was superior. Religious adoption agencies that prioritized married mothers and fathers were accused of discrimination and extremism. State governments and national organizations began steering children toward same-sex households, now presented as the cultural ideal.
Once equality became unquestionable dogma, the conversation shifted again. Adoption was no longer enough. Activists turned to surrogacy — not to rescue unwanted children, but to commission biologically related ones. The moral justification evaporated. This wasn’t about saving lives so much as satisfying adult desires.
Adoption and surrogacy are not the same
Surrogacy is sometimes described as a form of adoption. That’s misleading. Adoption involves accepting responsibility for a life that already exists, often in difficult circumstances. Surrogacy deliberately creates a child to be separated from his mother and sold to strangers.
The physical and emotional toll on the mother is severe. Surrogates are often poor, vulnerable, and pressured into contracts they don’t fully understand. Children are ordered like designer fashion accessories. There are cases of forced abortions, abandoned babies, and severe trauma — all downstream from the commodification of life.
This is not a rare byproduct. It is built into the practice.
The risk to children is real
Children raised by unrelated adults face increased risks of abuse. One study found that preschool-aged children are 40 times more likely to be abused in a household with a stepparent than in one with both biological parents. The data is not absolute, but the trend is clear: Adults, especially men, are far more likely to abuse children to whom they are not biologically related.
This should alarm anyone watching the rise of surrogacy arrangements, particularly those involving male couples. These are homes where the child has no biological connection to either adult. And in some cases, as with Riley and Mitchell, one of the men has a criminal record that would disqualify him from adopting under state law.
RELATED: Trump moves to defund hospitals mutilating kids for money
In Pennsylvania, sex offenders are barred from adopting. But surrogacy remains unrestricted. The child in this case remains in the custody of a man the law has deemed unfit to parent.
This is not some oversight. It is a structural and legal failure.
The moral inversion is complete
We are told that the buying and selling of human beings was one of history’s greatest evils. Our education system and popular culture treat slavery as the ultimate moral horror. Yet, in the name of equality and inclusion, we now celebrate the legal sale of children — so long as it occurs under the banner of LGBTQ rights.
And so we have elevated identity above accountability. In any other context, a convicted sex offender taking custody of a newborn would be a national scandal. But when the arrangement involves a same-sex couple, basic standards are suspended. The child becomes secondary to the cultural narrative.
Enough of this
Surrogacy did not enter the mainstream through a national debate or democratic vote. It arrived through the back door, marketed as compassionate and modern. Most people didn’t understand the process. They didn’t consider the ethical costs. That time has passed. Ignorance no longer justifies our complacence.
We now see surrogacy for what it is: a commercial industry that exploits vulnerable women and treats children as consumer goods. The law must catch up with the reality.
This is not just a problem for gay couples. Surrogacy as a practice should be banned for everyone. No adult has a right to manufacture a child for personal fulfillment. No amount of wealth, influence, or legal maneuvering justifies the creation of human life as a transaction.
Children are not accessories. Women are not rental space. And no one should be allowed to buy a baby — least of all someone who wouldn’t be permitted to adopt one.
Here’s Why New Data Finds Continued Enrollment Slide For Public Schools
Most public schools are now failing in three critical areas that parents care about when deciding on their children’s K-12 education: academic rigor, student discipline, and the campus’ moral influence.The 10 Years Since Obergefell Have Proven Its Critics Right
Opposing same-sex marriage is essential to defending the truth about human nature and about how we flourish and are fulfilled.'SNL' openly mocks gay surrogacy — what is happening?
Over the past decade, the once universally loved “Saturday Night Live” has become a clear propaganda tool of the left — consistently pushing left-wing issues while poking fun at the right.
However, that may be changing after one April 12 "SNL" skit shockingly mocked gay surrogacy.
The sketch took place at a chaotic dinner party where guests shared bizarre personal updates. One gay couple at the dinner party had a newborn baby, and the other guests then begin asking questions as to where and how they acquired a baby — even asking if they stole it.
The skit took it so far as to ask the gay couple how just the other night they were going to a gay rave called “Bulge Dungeon” when there was a baby on the way.
“There are two different ways to see this,” Allie Beth Stuckey of “Relatable” says. “Either you can see it as using comedy to normalize two men purchasing a baby, or you can see it as a big vibe shift that we are actually starting to mock and deride something that deserves our mockery and derision.”
“Because it is a legitimate question. How could two men, who do not have the genetic material nor the wombs to create and bear children, have a child?” Stuckey asks.
While Stuckey is skeptical that the skit was pointing out the gay couple’s purchase of a baby as a bad thing, she did think one line from the skit was a home run.
“That line about ‘last night you were talking about going to Bulge Dungeon and now you have a baby and we’re just wondering how to square that circle,’ that was a good one. That was the best line, because if you see a lot of these men who are purchasing children, you do have some questions, like, ‘Do you know the first thing about raising a child?’” Stuckey says.
“And so I appreciate that whatever the motive is, that we are in the mode right now of mocking something that is absolutely depraved and destructive,” she adds.
Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?
To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Silence isn’t peace — it’s just surrender in slow motion
Blaze Media recently published my opinion piece “Agree to disagree? More like surrender to the script.” In the days that followed, readers left thoughtful and reasonable comments.
But when the Christian Post republished the same article, the comment section there sparked a firestorm.
If God the Father had been willing to 'agree to disagree' with humanity about sin, He wouldn’t have sent His Son to die in our place.
If you don’t have time to read the article or browse the responses, here’s the short version:
The piece centers on a conversation I had with my friend Jeffrey, who strongly dislikes President Trump. Over the four years of the Biden administration, Jeffrey never once criticized Biden or his team — no matter how egregious their actions. Yet, barely two months into Trump’s return to office, Jeffrey was already taking shots at him. And he did so during what had been, until that moment, a relatively uneventful phone call.
To be clear, I didn’t bring up the topic of the president. I knew it was a sensitive subject for Jeffrey. But during a conversation about a recent movie, he found a way to insert his objection to Trump’s deportation policy, calling those deported “asylum seekers.” He also declared that Trump was “bad for democracy.”
I pushed back gently, noting that America is not a democracy but a constitutional republic. Jeffrey agreed.
When I pointed out that an open border has led to sex trafficking, fentanyl deaths, and violent criminals infiltrating small towns, he said he didn’t support any of that. But then he quickly ended the conversation with, “Let’s just agree to disagree.”
Trump broke the truce
I found that well-worn phrase — “agree to disagree” — strange in this context. It suggests any disagreement, no matter how serious, can be casually brushed aside. Sure, my wife prefers chocolate ice cream, and I prefer vanilla. On that — and countless other minor things — we can “agree to disagree.” But when the stakes are higher? When lives are at risk — even the future of the nation? People should articulate and defend their positions.
After my “agree to disagree” article appeared in the Christian Post, commenters there came after me. Apparently, I wasn’t being a good Christian because I stirred the pot by bringing up Donald Trump — “the great divider,” as some called him. Never mind that I didn’t bring up his name. My friend did. But I wasn’t about to let his cheap shots go unchallenged.
In the original piece, I asked whether my friend — a faithful Christian — also sees his allegiance to the Democratic Party as an “agree to disagree” matter. Can a Christian’s loyalty to any political party cloud his judgment on what’s clearly right or wrong?
Jeffrey said he opposes sex changes for kids and drag queen story hours. But when it comes to deportation, he sees Trump’s second-term policies as domineering and out of bounds.
Disagreeing isn’t a sin
On critical issues — like the devastating effects of open borders — silence is complicity. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer warned, “Silence in the face of evil is evil. Not to speak is to speak.” When others looked the other way — or “agreed to disagree” — during the Nazi rise in 1930s Germany, Bonhoeffer stood firm. He was one of the few pastors who refused to be silent.
Today, the American left censors, cancels, and silences anyone who disagrees. Leftists expect us to “agree to disagree” but only if we’re the ones doing the agreeing — and the disagreeing. That demand for submission is part of why the country now finds itself in such dangerous and unstable times.
In my earlier article, one line struck a nerve:
It’s hard to imagine these days that the words ‘Christian’ and ‘Democrat’ can be mentioned in the same sentence.
That line sparked outrage. One commenter at the Christian Post wrote: “Nothing ends discussions — or even friendships — faster than questioning someone’s salvation over their political party.”
But here’s the problem: That’s not what I said. That commenter assumed I questioned my friend’s salvation. I didn’t. Within the context of the article, it’s clear I questioned his wisdom — something entirely different.
Jesus didn’t flinch
A few years ago, it was trendy to wear wristbands with the initials “WWJD?” — short for “What Would Jesus Do?”
But I always thought the better question was “WDJD?” — “What Did Jesus Do?”
Without knowing the Gospels, we risk projecting our own preferences onto Christ. We imagine He would act just like us in any given situation. But if we read scripture and study His words, we begin to understand how He actually responded — and how we should, too.
Nowhere in the four Gospels does Jesus “agree to disagree.” He never split the difference. He never wavered. He always led from a position of authority.
Take His encounter in the Temple. Jesus didn’t debate the moneychangers. He didn’t issue a polite warning. He flipped their tables and drove them out (Matthew 21:12-13). He didn’t scold them and promise to check in again next Sabbath for a follow-up heart-to-heart.
Jesus didn’t agree to disagree. He made it unmistakably clear: God’s house would not be defiled.
Oswald Chambers, in his classic devotional “My Utmost for His Highest,” ends the March 24 entry with this piercing line: “You may often see Jesus Christ wreck a life before He saves it.”
He cites Matthew 10:34, where Jesus says, “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”
That doesn’t sound like someone looking to “agree to disagree.”
Debate or dodge
One commenter tried to compare disagreement to a hung jury — where jurors can’t reach a unanimous verdict. But that analogy falls apart under scrutiny. Hung juries don’t arise from casual disagreement or an early vote. They happen only after jurors rigorously examine the evidence, debate the facts, and dig into every detail.
A jury doesn’t begin deliberations by taking a straw poll and calling it quits. It doesn’t return to the judge after a 7-5 split and declare, “Let’s just agree to disagree.”
A fair trial demands serious discussion — so should any conversation where truth and justice are at stake.
If God the Father had been willing to “agree to disagree” with humanity about sin, He wouldn’t have sent His Son to die in our place. We could have gone on living however we pleased — hurting others, being hurt, and suffering the consequences. Jesus might have shown up just to stand on the sidelines, shaking His head as we destroyed ourselves.
Consider the woman caught in adultery in John 8:1-11. The Pharisees reminded Jesus that the law required her to be stoned. He could have done what Pontius Pilate would do later — wash His hands of the situation. He could have said, “The law is the law,” and let the crowd do as it pleased. Agree to disagree, right?
But Jesus didn’t do that. Instead, He delivered a mic-drop moment that spared her life. Then, He told her, “Go and sin no more.”
Compare that to what happened when Jesus stood before Pilate. Pilate, faced with the mob, knew Jesus was innocent. But instead of standing up to the crowd, he caved. He agreed to disagree — and sent Christ to the cross.
When it comes to sin and judgment, “agree to disagree” is just cowardice dressed up as compromise. Jesus never did that.
You posted, didn’t you?
Some readers of my original article accused me of sounding self-righteous for taking a firm stance with Jeffrey. But I don’t believe we should compromise — or “agree to disagree” — on matters of real consequence. That’s why I laid out the facts clearly, whether Jeffrey knew them or not.
There’s more to be said, but let me end with this:
A surprising number of commenters on the Christian Post insisted that we should always “agree to disagree,” even on major issues. But every one of those comments proved my point. Not a single person “agreed to disagree” with me. Instead, they made sure their dissenting views were heard — some twisting my words, others going straight for personal attacks.
If they truly believed in “agreeing to disagree,” they wouldn’t have commented at all.
So who’s right about the value of “agree to disagree”?
Well, it appears it's debatable, after all.
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com