The World and Everything in It — January 27, 2020

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning!

Baby boomers are suing to fight age discrimination on the job. One case is pending at the U.S. Supreme Court, where five boomers sit, including the Chief Justice:

ROBERTS: …one comment about age …the hiring person who’s younger, says, you know, “OK Boomer,” once, uh, once to the applicant. …So is that actionable?…

NICK EICHER, HOST: That’s ahead on Legal Docket. 

Also the Monday Moneybeat: markets respond to fear of the unknown as China struggles to contain a deadly coronavirus.

AUDIO: [Sound of solving Rubik’s Cube]

Plus, the WORLD Radio History Book, hear that? That’s an expert solving Rubik’s Cube. And since we’re talking about age discrimination, Old Rubik turns 40.

And WORLD commentator Trillia Newbell on staying vigilant.

REICHARD: It’s Monday, January 27th. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.

EICHER: And I’m Nick Eicher. Good morning!

REICHARD: Now here’s Kent Covington with the news.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: Trump defense team resumes arguments today » President Trump’s defense team will take to the Senate floor today—resuming opening arguments in his impeachment trial.

After arguing their case for two hours on Saturday, the Senate took Sunday off. But Trump attorney Alan Dershowitz told Fox News Sunday that House Democrats are on shaky constitutional ground. 

DERSHOWITZ: Even if the factual allegations are true—which are highly disputed, and which the defense team will show contrary evidence—but even if true, they did not allege impeachable offenses. 

Dershowitz will press that argument on Capitol Hill today, alongside former independent counsel Ken Starr and former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi.  

Democrats, meantime, continue to criticize the process. Lead House impeachment manager Adam Schiff told NBC’s Meet the Press… 

SCHIFF: I think they’re deathly afraid of what witnesses will have to say, so their whole strategy has been deprive the public of a fair trial. 

And Democrats may get a boost in their effort to force new witnesses after someone leaked portions of a draft of a forthcoming book by former national security adviser John Bolton. In that draft, Bolton reportedly states the President Trump said he wanted to freeze military assistance to Ukraine until it agreed to launch investigations involving Democratic rivals.

President Trump calls it a “profound honor” to address March for Life »President Trump turned his attention to other matters over the weekend. He says it was a profound honor to be the first sitting U.S. president to attend the annual March for Life Rally last Friday. The president addressed tens of thousands who gathered on a chilly day at the National Mall in Washington.

TRUMP: We are here for a very simple reason, to defend the right of every child, born and unborn, to fulfill their God-given potential. 

Republican Minority Whip Steve Scalise also spoke at the event—as well as two Democrats from Louisiana. 

State Senator Katrina Jackson said it’s “important to let people know everywhere that the fight for life doesn’t have a partisan stance.”

Louisiana’s first lady also spoke. She said “our faith is the guiding force in both of our lives and we’re not shy about it.” Her husband, Democratic Governor John Bel Edwards, recently signed one of the strongest pro-life “fetal heartbeat” laws in the country. 

HHS issues notice of violation over California abortion policies » Hours before the president addressed the crowd on the National Mall, the Trump administration issued a notice of violation to the state of California over its abortion policies. 

The Department of Health and Human Services said the state could lose access to federal healthcare funds because it requires insurance plans to cover abortions.

HHS gave California 30 days to comply with the federal Weldon Amendment. The law bans federal healthcare money from going to states or entities that discriminate against organizations for not providing abortions. 

Nuns from two California ministries had submitted complaints about the state’s requirements.

Coronavirus continues to spread as death toll rises » The deadly new coronavirus continues to spread. The latest figures reported Sunday revealed that 15 more people have died. The virus has now claimed the lives of at least 56 people, all of them in China. 

At least 10 other countries have confirmed cases of the virus, including several in the United States. 

DIAZ: The primary risk factor is travel from China or close exposure to someone who has traveled from China. 

That is Dr. George Diaz with Providence Regional Medical Center in Everett, Washington. His hospital is treating the first person to test positive for the virus on U.S. soil. Officials have also confirmed cases in Chicago and Southern California. 

The State State Department is now ordering American employees at the U.S. Consulate in Wuhan, China to evacuate. That is the epicenter of the outbreak. 

Chinese leader Xi Jinping is calling the outbreak a grave situation and says the government is stepping up efforts to restrict travel and public gatherings.

Kobe Bryant killed in helicopter crash » Former NBA superstar Kobe Bryant died in a helicopter crash near Los Angeles on Sunday. 

The chopper went down in Calabasas, west of LA. There were four other people on board, including Bryant’s 13-year-old daughter, Gianna. None survived. No word yet on the cause of the crash. 

Bryant wore the number 24 for much of his career. And last night, the San Antonio Spurs and Toronto Raptors paid tribute. They began the game by allowing the 24-second shot clock to expire in his honor.

AUDIO: Fred VanVleet holding onto it, and the crowd recognizing what this means. [buzzer, applause]

The 41-year-old played 20 years in an LA Lakers uniform, winning five championships. He was an 18-time NBA All-Star and was named league MVP in 2008. 

Bryant retired in 2016 as the third-leading scorer in NBA history. He held that spot until Saturday night, when the Lakers’ LeBron James passed him for third place.

Billie Eilish wins big at Grammy Awards » The biggest stars in music turned out last night for the 62nd Annual Grammy Awards at the Staple Center in LA. Alicia Keys began the evening with a tribute to Kobe Bryant. 

KEYS: We never imagined in a million years that we’d have to start the show like this. Never, never, never, never.

Boys II Men joined her to sing a verse of It’s So Hard to Say Goodbye to Yesterday

MUSIC: [Its So Hard to Say Goodbye]  

As for the winners—it was a huge night for Billie Eilish. She won Best New Artist, Album of the Year, and Song of the Year for “Bad Guy.” 

MUSIC: [Bad Guy]

The Grammy for Best Contemporary Christian Song went to For KING & COUNTRY and their co-writers won for “God Only Knows.” 

MUSIC: [God Only Knows]

They also won best Contemporary Christian Music Album for “Burn the Ships.

And Kirk Franklin won Best Gospel Album, also Best Gospel Song for “Love Theory.”

I’m Kent Covington. Straight ahead: Age discrimination at the Supreme Court.

Plus, Trillia Newbell on confronting injustice wherever we see it.

This is The World and Everything in It.

MARY REICHARD: It’s Monday morning and welcome to another week of The World and Everything in It. Today is the 27th of January, 2020. Good morning to you, I’m Mary Reichard.

NICK EICHER: And I’m Nick Eicher. Good morning to you! It’s time for Legal Docket, and on today’s agenda: age discrimination.

Now before we get to that, let’s take a moment to remind you of our offer for two months of WORLD Magazine. We are excited about the new look of the magazine, and we want to put it in your hands if you’ve never seen it before—or maybe you have in the past but stopped. This is your opportunity to take a fresh look.

Or maybe you are a current WORLD reader and you know someone or many someones who would benefit from what WORLD has to offer. 

Between now and the end of next month, we’re offering WORLD to all comers. No cost to you, no obligation, no credit cards, none of that. We will bear all the cost. You can find all the details online at

REICHARD: Yes, and when you say many someones, you mean as many people as you think would like to try the magazine.


REICHARD: It’s this sleek new design that makes articles easier to read with beautiful photography, just primo print journalism. 

Here’s what we know. You are most likely to know people who think like you do. You’re listening to this program, and that’s evidence you believe in biblically objective journalism, and we suspect that many of your friends and family members believe as you do. So if you’re willing to tell us who they are, we’ll put WORLD into their homes at no cost. We just want to spread the word the same way we’ve been able to build this program. Just one person telling another, simple as that.

So once again, just go to and you’ll find all the details there.

EICHER: Well, as I said a moment ago, the subject is age discrimination, a newsworthy topic beyond even the Supreme Court case we’ll tell you about. We talked about it on Culture Friday, you may remember. A church in Minnesota seeking to attract a younger congregation by clearing out the older folks, specifically asking its gray haired members to worship elsewhere for a year or so.

REICHARD: As you can imagine, that didn’t go over well. Here’s how a member of Grove United Methodist Church in Cottage Grove felt about it. Here’s what Bill Gackstetter told KARE11 tv.

GACKSTETTER: It made me feel sick that they treat other Methodists like that. I feel it’s totally age discrimination, just wanting youth, the younger families.

Now, the lead pastor says this is strictly about church survival and part of what he calls a “relaunch.”

EICHER: Relaunch or age discrimination. Whatever you call it, when you single out a group of people based on age, it’s really not a good look. But when it comes to employment, age discrimination is more than mere optics. 

As a legal matter it’s illegal. Thing is, it’s gone mostly unchecked, because it’s also very difficult to prove in a court of law.

But that might be changing, partly because of technology.

Help-wanted ads posted online leave a digital record that can reveal systematic discrimination. You might see ads that say, “new college grads welcome to apply,” or “not looking for people with a lot of experience.” Lawyers can take a record like that and show a pattern. 

But for now, it’s tough for an individual alleging age discrimination to win in court. So tough that lawyers often won’t even take such a case. Because lawsuits are costly, and the odds of victory so long, it’s frequently just not worth it.

REICHARD: But a case argued this month at the Supreme Court might change that.  

First, the facts. 

A woman from Florida named Noris Babb worked for the Department of Veterans Affairs as a pharmacist for 16 years. She says the V-A passed her over for training and promotions in favor of younger workers.

So she sued under a law called the ADEA, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. President Lyndon Johnson signed it into law back in 1967. It applies to federal workers over age 40. It says: “All personnel actions shall be made free from any discrimination based on age.” 

But wait. 

Does that mean employers can’t consider age at all in hiring someone? Even a tiny bit? And if they do, is it enough to win an age-discrimination lawsuit? 

Or does it mean employers can think about age along the way, but age can’t be the dispositive factor in deciding whether to hire or promote?

Babb’s lawyer, Roman Martinez, says his client need only prove the boss considered her age at all.

Listen as Chief Justice John Roberts tries to sort that out with this nod to the zeitgeist. I’ve edited the audio for you to make it easier to follow.

ROBERTS: … let’s say in the course of the…weeks’ long process…one comment about age …the hiring person who’s younger, says, you know, “OK Boomer,” — once to the applicant. …So is that actionable?…. I’m just trying to see how many stray comments do you need and who has to make them before you decide that, although it says “any,” we don’t really mean any, we mean some discrimination that has a particular effect?… I’m just wondering if your position is going to become a really just a regulation of speech in the workplace.

MARTINEZ: Well, of course not your honor.

ROBERTS: Well, of course– then explain how not?

Martinez argued disparaging remarks would be enough to sue over. It would be up to a jury to decide if the words were in fact disparaging. 

His brief mentioned how Noris Babb’s supervisor said she was part of the “mow-mows” who were “always complaining.” Mow-mows she took to mean “grandmothers.” And it wasn’t only Babb. Some other middle-aged people among her colleagues also filed complaints alleging age discrimination.

Martinez argued that it’s too much for an employee to prove conclusively that age was the sole reason for the loss of job opportunities.

Justice Samuel Alito wondered just where in the process of making a job decision do we apply this law?

ALITO: But what happens if age plays no role whatsoever in the actual decision but at some prior point in the process, age was considered…I don’t think your argument depends on whether we look just at the final decision or we look at the whole process. But what would happen in that situation?

MARTINEZ: I think it would — it would depend.

Many of the justices heard “it depends” too many times, and it seemed to flummox them. That’s where the lawyer arguing for the government sought a foothold. Solicitor General Noel Francisco had a clever analogy.

FRANCISCO: Suppose you had a statute that said: all cakes shall be made free from the use of any eggs. In the course of the cake baking process, I whisk up a bowl of eggs, I think about dumping it into the batter, but then I say, oh, I’m supposed to be making a cake without eggs. So I throw it in the trash. I have made a cake free from the use of any eggs, notwithstanding my use of eggs in the cake baking process because the final cake that I have baked is free from the use of eggs.

No egg in the final result, he said, no discrimination in the final decision—an easy rule and the one Congress intended. 

But Justice Alito pressed further.

ALITO: But what if there is a little bit of egg that’s put in the final batter? That’s the problem. So even if we focus right on — just on the actual decision making process, the moment of the decision making process…I have a terrible time fitting your argument into the statutory language. Can you explain how you can do that? 

Well, Francisco referred to the word in the statute: “made,” as in this sentence: “all personnel actions shall be made free from any discrimination based on age.” Meaning, the final employment decision. 

If that had nothing to do with age, then all’s well.

Now, the elephant in the room was of course the ages of the justices hearing this case. Baby Boomers dominate with five: Justices Clarence Thomas, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Alito and the Chief Justice. There’s the two youngest, part of Generation X: Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. And two from the Silent Generation: Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. She’s 86. He’s 81, and here Breyer sets up a scenario for government lawyer Francisco.

BREYER: Look, I’m trying to think of where could this come up. A promotion. The promoting person thinks, “I see her result on this test. It’s highly subjective. I’m not sure, but I certainly don’t want people who are over the age of 82.”  et cetera. (Laughter.) You say okay. So —

FRANCISCO: Nobody here —

BREYER: — There he is.

FRANCISCO: — thinks that,Your Honor.

BREYER: It’s flashing around in his mind. And — and so he ends up — yeah, no, the answer is no. Okay? That’s the possible real-world situation. But, more likely, it’s also a question of lawyers and burdens of proof.

Francisco agreed, and pushed for the idea that to qualify as discrimination, the law requires proof that age is the sole driver of an employment decision.

Further, Francisco argued to keep the standard of proof the same across all employees, public and private. In 2009, the Supreme Court made it more difficult for older employees in the private sector to sue. The majority justices in that case said age must be the key factor in employment decisions to prove bias. Francisco argued, why make different standards of proof for federal employees than for state and private employees?

Justice Breyer had a reason why.

BREYER: And you say why would Congress do that? Why would it make the Feds have to do this? For the same reason they passed that statute. The feds should be the leader in this. It’s not enough. The Federal Government should be the leader. So we have states, private, not just federalism.  But who fought more than any group of people for freedom from discrimination? Look at history. It was the Federal Government, and they should be holier than, okay?


BREYER: So we have a reason. We have an interpretation of the statute.

A lot of discussion was around what sort of remedy exists when the courts do find age discrimination. Sometimes it’s not that the individual worker was discriminated against. But during the course of that same discovery systematic discrimination shows up—for example, in the way a company hires or promotes. 

Equitable remedies like an injunction could stop the behavior the ADEA intended to correct.

The decision in this case has wide application. An amicus brief filed in support of Noris Babb says that federal agencies employ nearly 2 million full-time employees. 

Of those, nearly one and a half million are 40 or older and covered by the law. 

Now, with apologies to the Beatles, let me put it this way:

Congress indicates precisely what it meant to say—enacting protections of the ADEA.

Now, maybe you’re not that old yet, but don’t worry. Lord willing, you will be.

And that’s this week’s Legal Docket!

MUSIC: When I get older losing my hair, many years from now. … Indicate precisely what you mean to say, yours sincerely wasting away. … Will you still need me? Will you still feed me, when I’m 64?

MARY REICHARD: Coming next on The World and Everything in It, the Monday Moneybeat.

NICK EICHER: Signs of economic health had been powering a rally on Wall Street that’s been running for about a month and a half. But last week, concerns about human health stopped the rally.

The Dow Jones Industrials, the Standard & Poor’s 500, and the Nasdaq stock indexes lost an average of 1 percentage point on the week—with all eyes on China and a deadly coronavirus there that prompted a full-on quarantine of a major industrial center.

Wall Street was up and down last week: up after the World Health Organization opted not to declare the viral outbreak a global emergency; then after health officials confirmed a second case of the coronavirus in the United States, the markets dropped. On Saturday, with markets closed, came a third American case in Southern California, and in Toronto, the first Canadian case of that coronavirus.

REICHARD: Back in 2003, an outbreak in Asia of severe acute respiratory syndrome—SARS—caused up to $50 billion in economic losses over the course of six months. Add to the actual physical toll of illness and death, fear of disease. That tends to cause people to stop traveling, shopping, and eating out at restaurants, among other economic activities. Stocks in Hong Kong, for example, lost about 10 percent in just two months when SARS cases were accelerating.

EICHER: For a sense of scale, the U.S. government estimates that on average, storm damage from hurricanes causes as much economic loss each year as the SARS outbreak did a decade and a half ago. Still, SARS accounted for fewer than 800 deaths, yet each year the ordinary flu virus kills hundreds of thousands of people. What raises alarm when new diseases like the coronavirus appear is fear of the unknown: How deadly might it be? How quickly might it spread? And, crucially, when will it stop? That’s the uncertainty you’re seeing reflected in the global markets right now.

REICHARD: Last week, we told you that new home construction spiked in December to the highest level in more than a decade. Well, this week, we can tell you it’ll be awhile before the supply catches up with ordinary demand. Even though December home sales jumped 3.6 percent month-on-month and more than 10 percent year-on-year, the inventory of homes available is at a record low level. The National Association of Realtors says home supply is the lowest since the association started keeping these statistics back in 1982. Right now, the estimate is a three-month supply. But in a typically balanced market, it’d be six months. This tight market has pushed the median home sales price up to $275,000. Median means simply midpoint, that there’s an equal number of homes selling below that price as above it.

EICHER: The long-awaited trade agreement among the United States, Mexico, and Canada is about to become official, finally. The White House announced a signing ceremony for Wednesday, day after tomorrow. That same day, the Canadian government will unveil legislation to ratify the USMCA. 

And that is today’s Monday Moneybeat.

NICK EICHER: Some of us in the news business sometimes feel as though impeachment talk is crowding out everything else going on in the world. Maybe you do, too. But how much attention are Americans really paying to the proceedings? 

Well, I realize this is highly anecdotal, but if contestants on Jeopardy are any indication, you might think the answer is not very much at all

On a recent episode of Jeopardy, contestants viewed a picture of the man who has led the impeachment effort and here’s what happened.

AUDIO: U.S. representatives for 12. 1/53 of California’s House delegation is this Intelligence Committee chairman. [buzzer] His name is Adam Schiff. Back to you Veronica.

In fairness, I should note that Jeopardy does tape its shows well in advance of their air dates. And Schiff has, of course, gotten a good bit more face time lately in front of the cameras.

Still, Schiff’s probe started last September. And Trump defenders would say he’s been at it since, roughly, inauguration day.

It’s The World and Everything in It.

NICK EICHER: Today is Monday, January 27th. Thank you for turning to WORLD Radio to help start your day. Good morning. I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD: And I’m Mary Reichard. Coming next on The World and Everything in It:  the WORLD Radio History Book.

Today, President Harry Truman announces the U.S. hydrogen bomb program. Plus, the 40th anniversary of a 3-D puzzle that fascinated the world.

But before that, the first confirmed sighting of Antarctica.

Here’s Paul Butler.

PAUL BUTLER, REPORTER: In 150 AD, Greek mathematician and astronomer Ptolemy published a book that, among many other things, postulated the existence of a large southern landmass. He called it Terra Australis. Ptolemy believed that the northernmost lands must be balanced by similar features in the southern hemisphere.

Legends of this “unknown land of the South” persisted and spread for a millennia. After the discovery of Cape Good Hope and Cape Horn in the 15th and 16th centuries, Renaissance cartographers began including the implied continent on maps and globes—even though no one had seen it.

In 1773 James Cook came close—he was the first European to cross the Antarctic Circle. He discovered a handful of islands off the coast of Antarctica, but as he was still more than 150 miles off shore, neither he nor his crew caught sight of the continent itself.

About 50 years later, on January 30th, 1820, Irishman Edward Bransfield discovered the northernmost point of the Antarctic mainland, known as Trinity Peninsula. He believed he was the first to see the Terra Australis

But just three days earlier, about 1,500 miles away, a Russian expedition observed a large ice shelf off the eastern Antarctic coast. Naval officers Fabian Gottlieb von Bellingshausen and Mikhail Petrovich Lazarev came within 20 miles of the shore and are credited as the first explorers to see Antarctica. Over the next 16 months, they circumnavigated the continent twice while exploring the surrounding southern seas. 

A handful of sailors and cartographers mapped the coast of the continent over the following decades, but it wasn’t until the late 1890s that the Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration began. Adventurers from nearly a dozen nations started exploring the interior of the landmass that is about the size of the United States and Mexico combined.   

Next, 70 years ago, the U.S. takes a step closer to creating the first hydrogen bomb. 

NEWSREEL: In closely guarded Oakridge Laboratory, American scientists work out the blueprints of a terrifying weapon a thousand times more powerful than the now outdated atom bomb… 

In the fall of 1949, Russia detonated a large atomic bomb at one of its test sites. U.S. government advisors and military officials began pressuring president Harry Truman to respond by developing an even bigger weapon. After months of consideration and internal administration debate, Truman publicly throws his support behind the development of the H-Bomb on January 31st, 1950. 

He directs the Atomic Energy Commission to continue with its work on “all forms of atomic energy weapons,” including the super-bomb or H-Bomb. A few years later, Truman appears on Edward R Murrow’s radio program: “This is What I Believe.”

TRUMAN: It has been my policy to obtain the facts, all the facts possible, then to make the decision in the public interest and to carry it out. If the facts justify the decision at the time it is made, it will always be right. A public man should not worry constantly about the verdict of history or what future generations will say about him. He must live in the present. Make his decisions for the right and on the facts as he sees them and history will take care of itself. 

The U.S. successfully detonated the world’s first hydrogen bomb in the Pacific Marshall Islands in 1952. It has never been used in war.

 And finally, January 29th, 1980:

TV COMMERCIAL: There’s never been a puzzle quite like the Rubik’s Cube…

The Ideal Toy Corporation debuts its puzzle toy: The Rubik’s Cube.

TV COMMERCIAL: Sure, Sir Isaac Newton unravelled the mystery of gravity, but could he have unravelled the mystery of the Rubik’s cube?

The popular gadget was invented five years earlier by Ernő Rubik, a Hungarian sculptor and architecture professor. The original invention wasn’t a toy at all, but an attempt to solve a design problem surrounding moving parts. When he scrambled the cube, he discovered it was very difficult to put back in order. 

RUBIK: The knowledge that you can find now on the internet in connection with how to solve the cube [is] tremendous. For me there was no help so I was alone. I spent several months to do it and I finally succeeded. So that was a great enthusiasm for me. 

Audio from a Time Magazine interview. 

Speed cubing competitions draw tens of thousands every year all around the world. Ernő Rubik says his fastest solution took about a minute. The current world record for solving the 3 by 3 cube is 3.47 seconds, set by China’s Yusheng Du in 2018.

That’s this week’s WORLD Radio History Book, I’m Paul Butler.

MARY REICHARD: Today is Monday, January 27th. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.

NICK EICHER: And I’m Nick Eicher. The scriptures teach that evil exists and that each of us must be ready to confront that truth. Here’s WORLD commentator Trillia Newbell.

TRILLIA NEWBELL, COMMENTATOR: From the Warsaw ghetto where Jews were transported to concentration camps came the cries of “never again.” Never again would people suffer under the tyranny of anti-Semitism. Never again would there be a mass execution of innocent lives. 

Today is the 75th commemoration of the liberation of the Auschwitz Concentration Camp where an estimated 1.1 million people died. As someone who values life at all stages and in all forms, I join those who have ever proclaimed never again.

When I think about the holocaust, genocide of European Jews in World War II, it’s hard for me to imagine that anything could ever happen like this again. Of course we know that evil like this is not only possible but has indeed happened again.

Consider the Rwandan genocide of 1994. During 100 days, an entire ethic group in Rwanda was nearly wiped out. An estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 Rwandans were killed—men, women, children. No one was spared. This happened in our lifetime. And if we are honest, we must admit that not many of us blinked an eye. Not many of us were aware.

It’s important for us to remember tragedies such as these so that “never again” doesn’t become “that happened again.” It can be easy to become apathetic and forget. Evil like this seems so unimaginable. And it is because it has happened and yet seems unimaginable that we must stay aware.

At the end of 2019, at least three anti-Semitic incidents rocked the United States.

In Washington, D.C., vandals tagged a synagogue with swastikas; in Jersey City, gun-wielding terrorists killed a police officer and three other people inside a kosher supermarket; and in Beverly Hills, California, someone broke into a synagogue and desecrated symbols and property. These are only a few well-documented incidents of many others we may never hear about.

No, these aren’t necessarily the signs of an impending genocide. But they are evidence of hate that should not be ignored. 

We don’t have the power in and of ourselves to stop mass killings but we can be diligent. We can speak for those who are vulnerable to such hate. We can proclaim a better way. And we can value every person walking on this earth regardless of his or her ethnicity or religion. This is non-negotiable for Christians. We are called to love our neighbor as ourselves and our impartial Lord doesn’t give us qualifiers. 

Today, as we remember the liberation of Auschwitz, let’s ask the Lord to give us the fortitude to stand up and speak up when we see injustice. And let us pray for our Jewish neighbors who likely feel threatened and fearful. May we be able to say and it be true: never again—never again.

For WORLD Radio, I’m Trillia Newbell.

NICK EICHER: Tomorrow: The White House wants changes to the World Trade Organization and it’s using America’s economic leverage to press harder. We’ll hear what that could mean for global trade.

And, President Trump issued an executive order on religious liberty in schools. We’ll tell you what that means for both students and teachers.

That and more tomorrow. 

I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD: And I’m Mary Reichard.

The World and Everything in It comes to you from WORLD Radio.

WORLD’s mission is biblically objective journalism that informs, educates, and inspires.

The Apostle Paul wrote the hour has already come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed.

Go now in grace and peace.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.

Like this story?

To hear a lot more like it, subscribe to The World and Everything in It via iTunes, Overcast, Stitcher, or Pocket Casts.







Pocket Casts

(Requires a fee)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.