The World and Everything in It: May 16, 2023 | #lovescams | #military | #datingscams

PREROLL: The World and Everything in It is made possible by listeners like us. Hi! My name is Sarah Knowles, and I am a college student at James Madison University. I love listening to WORLD as I walk between classes. I want to give a shoutout to my family in Roanoke, Virginia. Love you guys. I hope you enjoy today’s program.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning!

The state of Oregon requires adoptive parents to affirm transgender medical intervention for children. One woman stands up to fight the policy:

JESSICA BATES: And I told her, No, you know, I’m gonna treat them just like my other children. Not going to be able to do that.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Also today, the continuing quest for accountability following America’s chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Plus, the work of an adoption attorney.

AUDIO: Representing a birth parent is painful because there’s sorrow in separating from her baby. Representing adoptive parents, high anxiety, but great joy when they’re placed.

And how political correctness in the U.K. hurts people. WORLD Commentator A. S. Ibrahim explains.

REICHARD: It’s Tuesday, May 16th. 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 the news. Here’s Kent Covington.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: Durham report » The FBI “failed to uphold” its mission of loyalty to the law when it launched its Trump-Russia investigation.

That’s the conclusion of special counsel John Durham’s long-awaited report on a yearslong investigation into the Russia probe.

Former U.S. Attorney Brett Tomlin:

BRETT TOMLIN: This really does confirm that this was more an opp than it was a valid investigation driven by reasonable suspicion — that’s the standaRd in order to open an investigation and then probably cause in order to pursue it further.

But the special counsel’s probe found no basis for reasonable suspicion.

The report scolds the FBI for hastily launching a full-scale investigation of Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign relying on questionable leads provided or funded by Trump’s political opponents.

House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan said Monday that he has reached out to Durham to ask him to testify next week.

State Dept. religious freedom report » The State Dept. released its international religious freedom report on Monday. Secretary of State Tony Blinken:

TONY BLINKEN: Governments in many parts of the world continue to target religious minorities using a host of methods, including torture, beatings, unlawful surveillance, and so-called reeducation camps.

China is among the biggest offenders in forcing people into such camps. The report points to potential crimes against humanity in China which is listed as one of 16 countries of particular concern.

The State Department issues the report each year in accordance with federal law.

Zelenskyy » Volodymyr Zelenskyy paid a surprise visit to London on Monday where the Ukrainian president met with British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. Zelenskyy said the focus of the talks was:

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY: Urgent support for Ukraine and security I think not only for Ukraine it’s important — for all of Europe.

Sunak promised to send hundreds of air defense missiles and drones to Kyiv.

And he told Zelenskyy:

RISHI SUNAK: This room that we’re standing in, Winston Churchill made many of his famous speeches in WWII from this room. And in this same way today, your leadership, your country’s bravery and fortitude are an inspiration to us all.

Zelenskyy met with Western leaders in Italy, Germany, and France over the weekend … looking to shore up military support from the West.

Iran-Russia » Meantime, at the White House, officials warned that Russia is looking to buy more attack drones from Iran. National Security Council spokesman John Kirby:

JOHN KIRBY: We see that Russia is interested in more advanced versions of those UAVs, more capable and more lethal.

Officials say Russia has used up most of the 400 drones it had previously bought from Tehran.

Trump attacks DeSantis on abortion » Donald Trump is taking aim at a Republican rival for being too pro-life. WORLD’s Mary Muncy has more:

MARY MUNCY: In an interview on Monday, Trump criticized Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis for signing a bill that protects babies after six weeks suggesting it was “too harsh.”

When asked if he would support legislation that protects unborn lives starting at six weeks, Trump replied simply, “I’m looking at all options.”

DeSantis is expected to announce a White House bid soon and is Trump’s closest competitor in Republican polls.

For WORLD, I’m Mary Muncy.

Border report / CA terror suspect arrested » Border Patrol officials have apprehended an Afghan male listed on the FBI’s terror watch list near San Diego.

Congressman Darrell Issa:

DARRELL ISSA – He did not intend to be caught, he thought he would get through because the open border policy is now globally understood to be pretty much a free entry for 5 million plus people a year.

Border Patrol says it has encountered 80 individuals on the FBI terror watchlist crossing the southern border this fiscal year.

Meanwhile, some of the many thousands of migrants released inside the United States in recent days may not have to appear in federal court for at least another 10 years. That’s according to a new report from the Washington Examiner, which documented some “I-862 forms revealing notices to appear in court reaching as far into the future as 2033.”

I’m Kent Covington.

Straight ahead: gender ideology is coming between foster kids and parents who want to adopt. Plus, navigating the ins and outs of voluntary adoption law.

This is The World and Everything in It.

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s Tuesday the 16th of May, 2023.

Glad to have you along for today’s edition of The World and Everything in It. Good morning, I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard.

First up adoption, law, and gender ideology. The Supreme Court two years ago permitted a religious organization to keep placing children under Philadelphia’s foster care system, as it had for years. The city attacked Catholic Social Services for its commitment to God’s design for marriage as one man and one woman. But the high court struck down the city’s policy on narrow grounds.

EICHER: The high court’s decision hasn’t stopped other states from discriminating against religious groups and even Christian families who seek to adopt.

Back in March, the state of Oregon denied Jessica Bates her application to adopt. The reason was because Bates would not sign a form affirming gender identity and gender transitions for children. The young mother of five contacted Alliance Defending Freedom to file a lawsuit against the state in federal court.

REICHARD: Here to fill us in is World legal reporter, Steve West. Good morning, Steve.


REICHARD: Can you tell us a little about Jessica Bates and what led her to want to adopt?

WEST: Well, Jessica is a single widowed mom. She lives in Oregon. Her husband was tragically killed in an automobile accident six years ago. She already has five kids, ages 10 to 17. So she really wasn’t necessarily looking to add more kids to the family. And then one day on the way to work, she really felt the Lord Lord’s leading in regard to adopting children.

JESSICA BATES: And I’m listening to Focus on the Family, and I think the name of the broadcast was like Boone and Me. But it was a single dad who had adopted a son out of foster care. And I remember saying, Oh, that’s really cool, you know, and I’m almost to work. And then it’s not an audible voice, but really clear four words in my spirit, it was ‘those are my children.’ And so kind of felt called to look into adopting. And got into work and parked and just you know, your mind is thinking about that and praying about it. Like, what do you what do you want me to do?

EICHER: So Jessica decides to adopt. She starts the process and then encounters a roadblock. What happened?

WEST: Yeah, this is not a simple process, she filled out an application, she took 27 hours of live online training that’s three nights a week for three weeks in a row. And she turned over all her financial documents. So she, you know, everything that she had, and during the training, she heard that she had to basically support a child’s gender identity. And that concerned her so she raised those concerns with a certifier with the state agency. And there was some back and forth. But ultimately, she got a phone call that really was the end of the road for her in terms of adoption.

BATES: And we just had a conversation on the phone and kind of walked through the hypothetical situations. And she said, Okay, well, so what if you have a child in your home that is wanting to transition genders, and needs to be taken to hormone injection appointments, will you drive them to their appointments? And I told her, No, you know, I’m gonna treat them just like my other children. Not going to be able to do that.

So basically, what the state was telling Jessica was that she actually had to agree to completely and totally support a child’s gender identity. That means she would have to take the child to a Pride Parade, if they wanted to go to a Pride Parade, have to use the pronouns that the child wanted to use. And, like Jessica mentioned, she would also have to the she would also have to take them for homework, hormone treatments, or perhaps support some type of sex reassignment surgery. So that’s pretty drastic, and she couldn’t do that as a believer.

REICHARD: Is there any precedent to deny an application on the grounds that some sincerely held religious belief is unacceptable? What makes this Oregon rule unique?

WEST: Well, it’s not exactly unique, but it is unusual. We often hear of, you know, Christian adoption agencies who there’s litigation over the fact that they, they don’t want to allow a same sex couple, or perhaps sometimes an unmarried couple or non Christian couples to adopt. In other words, folks that can’t subscribe to their bases of belief. But those couples or singles can go to another adoption agency that doesn’t have those same, same guidelines. But here, if you want to adopt a foster child in Oregon, this is the only place to go, to the state. And so religious people who have these beliefs and biblical beliefs about marriage and sexuality cannot adopt foster children and Oregon, and that’s religious discrimination that’s not unique to Oregon. There was also a rule in Washington state to the same effect, but in 2020, a judge struck down that rule as applied to a Seventh Day Adventist couple who wanted to adopt their great granddaughter, and the court struck that down, so there was success there. Hopefully there’ll be success here.

REICHARD: What argument does ADF bring in its lawsuit against the state?

WEST: So ADF basically says that, that the state of Oregon is penalizing Jessica Bates for her religious views in violation of the First Amendment, forcing her to either abandon her religious convictions, which she’s not going to do, or forego adoption. So if you have those same religious beliefs as Jessica has, you may not adopt in Oregon. That’s religious discrimination, they say. And they also say that the state does not apply this policy consistently. So for example, a family that hunts does not need to give up hunting because an adopted child is a vegan, nor does a Jewish family need to allow a child to have a Hindu shrine. So they don’t apply consistently. But they do apply it to people like Jessica Bates who have biblical beliefs about marriage and sexuality. That’s religious discrimination.

EICHER: Well, Steve, it’s interesting. This week, World’s Effective Compassion podcast emphasizes the legal side of foster care, and in just a few minutes we’ll have a story that grew out of that reporting.

So I wonder, what else about this story do you think families considering adoption ought to consider?

WEST: Well, I thought of several things. One is not legal in nature. But just simply the fact that we can look to Bates example here she has five children, she’s able to take on two more children, she actually wanted to adopt a sibling pair here. So she’s really taking seriously the scriptural admonition to to take care of the orphans. And so that’s what she’s doing. She felt the Lord leading in that regard. And so other Christians can do that, too. And so I think the second thing is that families that decide to go down this route also need to be aware that there are challenges or challenges obviously, and, and raising these children. There’s challenges in raising all children. But there’s also legal challenges here that could be made, could be faced and they need to get advice, like Bates did from Alliance Defending Freedom. And the third thing is to if you go down this route, ask your church to come around and support you. That’s part of caring for orphans. Some people can’t adopt, more people likely than not can’t adopt foster kids. They’re not in a position to do that. But they can come around and support those who do adopt foster kids. And that’s what happened in Jessica’s case.

REICHARD: Before we let you go, some good news to report following a story from a few months ago. In Arizona, a public school district decided to cut ties with Arizona Christian University’s student teacher program, citing the university’s Christian identity! How did that case resolve?

WEST: Right, well there’s this complete turnaround on their part. You know, they were faced with a lawsuit in regard to this ending of the relationship with ACU over their religious viewpoint, now, of course, they can decide to contract with AC with an Arizona Christian university or not, that’s up to them. But what they can’t do is decide not to contract with them simply because of their religious views. And that’s what happened here. There was actually quite a bit of hostility toward their views on marriage and sexuality in this case, but I think, you know, I suspect here it’s not clear why they changed their mind, but they did face a lot of public opposition. They probably also got some legal advice that changed their mind about opposing this. So they, the good news is that they have the school board there has entered into a another five year contract with Arizona Christian University, agreeing to allow their student teachers to complete their student teaching at their middle schools and elementary schools in the school district, as they have before. And so the school was able to maintain its biblical stance, and the teachers were able to be, you know, finish their education by doing their student teaching in the school system, so it’s a win-win.

EICHER: Steve West is a legal reporter for WORLD. If you’d like to read more about Jessica Bates’s case, we’ve included a link in today’s transcript. Steve, thanks for your work!

WEST: You’re welcome.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Coming up next on The World and Everything in It: the ongoing saga of accountability over Afghanistan.

Back in March, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul gave Secretary of State Tony Blinken an ultimatum: Turn over a key document about America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, and do it by Thursday, May 11th, or suffer the consequences. Well, it’s May 16th Blinken has not yet complied with the congressional subpoena, and now he is at risk of being held in contempt of Congress.

NICK EICHER, HOST: The State Department says it has complied with Congress by providing written summaries of the cable and the department’s response. But it remains unwilling to hand over the document itself.

Congressman McCaul isn’t settling for summaries. Here he is on ABC News from Sunday.

TONY BLINKEN: But I am prepared to move forward to contempt proceedings. But I take it very seriously, Jonathan. I mean, this would be the first time a Secretary of State has ever been held in contempt by Congress and its criminal content. So I don’t take it lightly.

EICHER: What’s at stake here? WORLD Washington bureau reporter Carolina Lumetta is here now to talk about it.

REICHARD: Good morning, Carolina.

CAROLINA LUMETTA, REPORTER: Hi Mary, good to be with you.

REICHARD: So tell me, what is a dissent cable, and why is this particular one so important?

LUMETTA: So a dissent cable is a memo that diplomats can send through something called the dissent channel, which was created in 1971, kind of at the height of Vietnam War tensions, and so offered a way to allow diplomats, State Department employees to write a letter criticizing a particular policy or program without going through their chain of command. This also gave them the opportunity to voice their concerns based on their specific assignments without having to be afraid of retaliation or punishment for expressing their views. So Rep. McCall wants this particular dissent cable that was written on July 13, 2021. And this was just weeks before the very rapid, chaotic withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. The Wall Street Journal broke the news that at least 23 diplomats stationed in Kabul warned the Biden administration that the Taliban was stronger than they originally had thought they could take power really quickly. And if this is true, it could mean that the President and the State Department ignored credible information that could have saved lives.

REICHARD: So, why isn’t the State Department handing it over?

LUMETTA: So Blinken and the State Department have essentially one line, it’s not that they’re hiding this particular cable, it’s that they’re trying to protect the overall channel. The State Department said it would be a breach of protocol to hand over a document that’s issued through a confidential channel. So Blinken also said he would worry about what he calls a profound chilling effect. He’s afraid that exposure would dissuade other diplomats from using this channel in the future. So instead, he sent the policy planning team to give a private briefing to the House Foreign Affairs Committee to basically give the gist of the cable. But the lawmakers came away from that and said that wasn’t enough. The cable they’re looking for is four pages long. And the summary was a one page report and McCall said most of their questions weren’t even answered. The other caveat here is that McCall offered to see the cable privately instead of having it sent over. He offered to see over camera if there are security concerns. He agreed to leave all the names of the people who signed it redacted. But Blinken still says it’s the principle of the thing. And because of that he might be held in contempt.

REICHARD: What will happen next with Blinken?

LUMETTA: Well, essentially, the Washington version of a slap on the wrist. Contempt of Congress sounds very intimidating. In reality, he could face up to $1,000 fine, maybe a year in prison. But for officials as high ranking as he is, it’s unlikely that he’ll see any actual jail time.

REICHARD: What’s your takeaway from looking at the bigger picture of this story?

LUMETTA: Overall, I think this really shows that there is an ongoing trust deficit on both sides. The State Department doesn’t trust a Republican led house to keep quiet about confidential matters. And with a lot of other leaks happening right now, national security issues are top of mind for them. The House doesn’t really take the State Department at their word. A press release from a call said that briefers in that classified briefing they had before got details wrong about the procedure or they started changing their story. And he said we can’t really trust what the State Department is telling us. So it’s kind of this big standoff over whose word can you take here.

REICHARD: Carolina Lumetta is WORLD’s Washington D.C. reporter. Thanks so much for joining us today!

LUMETTA: Thank you for having me.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Last week, police took a distress call around a country road near Enid, Oklahoma. When the officers arrived, they heard something, but they weren’t quite sure what it was.

AUDIO: I think that’s a person. [SOUND OF RUNNING]

Officers David Sneed and Neal Storey thought they heard someone yelling for help. It was a few hundred yards away, hard to discern because of a dog barking in the background. They started running toward an outbuilding.

Body cam footage shows that as they got closer they could see the source of the cries: a very upset goat.

AUDIO: Hellllpppp. Heelllpppp.

The goat’s owner explained the animal was upset because he’d been separated from one of his buddies.

GOAT: Heeellllpppp

OFFICER: From a long-distance it sounds like “help.”

Back at the station, the Enid P-D social media department had some fun with this one. What could’ve been a difficult situation turned out, and I quote, “not so baaaaaad.”

It’s The World and Everything in It.

REICHARD, HOST: Today is Tuesday, May 16th. Thank you for turning to WORLD Radio to help start your day. Good morning. I’m Mary Reichard.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher. Coming next on The World and Everything in It: adoption law and ethics.

Today, we launched Episode 5 of Effective Compassion. It tells the story of adoption from a legal perspective, circumstances where a child is removed from a home because of abuse or neglect and permanently placed with another family. That’s when a judge gets involved to help decide what’s best for the child.

REICHARD: But what about adoption by choice? When birth parents voluntarily place a child for adoption? The courts don’t typically get involved in those situations. But lawyers do. Today, WORLD reporter Jenny Rough talks with an adoption attorney who has dedicated her life to walking families through the process.

JENNY ROUGH, REPORTER: In 1883, a Christian businessman from New York opened the first Florence Crittenton home. He wanted to provide shelter for unwed pregnant women, and share the gospel with them. In the decades that followed, Crittenton homes spread to major cities across the country.

BARBARA JONES: You know, back in those days, they would whisk the girls away from school or wherever. It was kind of shameful if she was pregnant before she was married.

Barbara Jones lives in Clifton, Virginia. Her home is located on a former Crittenton farm. The pregnant women lived in a dormer home on the back of the property.

JONES: And they planted in the garden, and they actually worked on the farm. And then, after the babies were born, they went back to their life.

The babies were adopted. It’s fitting that Jones lives there now. She works as an adoption attorney.

JONES: It is a boutique specialty. I gravitated into it very quickly after I obtained my law license and just fell in love with it because it’s family oriented.

In the greeting area of her office, every wall is covered with photos.

ROUGH: Are these all the babies?

JONES: No, they’re some of them. The reason is now people do digital pictures. 

Depending on the case, Jones works with birth parents and adoptive parents.

JONES: Representing a birth parent is painful, because there’s sorrow in separating from her baby, probably the hardest thing she’ll ever do. Representing adoptive parents, high anxiety, but great joy when they’re placed.

A stack of old newspapers sits on her conference table. Thirty-five years ago, when Jones first started practicing adoption law, matches were made through the classifieds 1-800 numbers.

JONES: Here’s a classified ad. Virginian-Pilot. Come to adoption. Sam and Sue wish to adopt healthy newborn child. Will pay legal, uninsured medical.

Now, those who hope to adopt advertise online. Either directly through word-of-mouth networking, or through an agency.

Adoption lawyers like Jones advise birth mothers of the law and help them think through what they want.

JONES: She can complete a hospital plan. A nursery consent, stating who could come into the nursery and hold and feed her baby. Who she wants in the delivery room. Does she want pictures?

She also helps birth moms fill out forms for medical history, family history, social history. Authorization releases and oaths that affirm the information is true.

One of Jones’ most important duties: helping the birth mom obtain the consent of the birth father. This can be harder than it sounds.

JONES: “I was drunk at a party,” we hear way too much. Sometimes there are girls prostituting or sex trafficking.

Jones has encountered many cases where the birth father is unknown.

JONES: And if a mother says, “I don’t know who he was. He said his name was Dave or Tripp,” You know how many Daves there are in Virginia? 

State laws vary. But today, over 35 states, including Virginia, have a system in place to help track down fathers.

JONES: We implemented the birth father registry so we didn’t have to chase men in dark alleys at night, and we could say, “Hey, we’re representing Susie Smith. Step up now.” We want to protect fathers if they want to parent, but they need to step up in the window of time.

Adoptive parents also have a lot of paperwork. Most notably, a home study. An intensive process that involves everything from a criminal records check to biographical history.

So that’s the law of adoption. But what about ethics? Adoption scams are becoming more common. Historically, it was considered ethical for hopeful adoptive parents to cover some expenses for the birth mom—medical and pregnancy-related expenses, like maternity clothes. But in some states, it’s now the norm for adoptive parents to cover living expenses for the birth mom. Thousands of dollars a month.

JONES: Often I’ll get a call from some of the states in the west and they’ll say, well, what is your birth mom’s budget? If she comes in here and it’s all about money.

Jones’ antenna goes up! The practice can be coercive on both ends. The pregnant woman might feel coerced to give up her child, even if she wants to legitimately change her mind, if the adoptive parents have been sending money. And adoptive parents may feel coerced to keep paying lest the birth mom go off and find someone else. Some states have implemented laws to guard against that.

JONES: Virginia is very restrictive. You can pay living expenses for the birth mom, but only if her doctor writes a note and says she cannot work due to medical complications or reasons of the pregnancy.

Finally, Jones draws up post-adoption contracts. An agreement between the parties to stay in touch through letters, pictures, and visits.

JONES: Oftentimes the birth parents like that. They know they picked a good family, they like them, but they’re just so afraid they’ll separate and that family will forget them. We will type it up, and we put the terms that the parties have agreed. They might do two visits a year. Birth parents may send gifts. The adoptive parents will send videos and pictures, whatever they agree upon.

Birth mothers do have time to change their minds. How long again, varies by state. Maryland is one the longest at 30 days.

JONES: And then in Virginia she has 7 days to revoke. 

ROUGH: Okay. 

JONES: No matter what. It’s a very small percentage that change their mind after the mom goes home and the baby goes out the door with the agency or the family.

When the time period to revoke passes, the child is adopted, welcomed into a new family, with the family’s full name, identity, and rights.

To this day, Jones tries to carry on the history of her property as a safe haven.

JONES: There’s peace in this place, and I know there was much prayer that went on here. And sometimes my clients will come in and say, “This place is so peaceful.” And I just feel like the Lord was here ahead of time.

Reporting for WORLD, I’m Jenny Rough in Clifton, Virginia.

REICHARD: This was a companion piece to Episode 5 of Effective Compassion, Season 4. You can find it today wherever you get your podcasts.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Today is Tuesday, May 16th. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. Up next: incompatible values in the U.K.

Last October, a report by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse shed light on how ethnicity may have played a role in giving sexual predators access to victims. Britains’ conservative leadership has put forth policies to counter so-called “grooming gangs.”

Here’s WORLD Opinions commentator A. S. Ibrahim.

A. S. IBRAHIM, COMMENTATOR: Political correctness is crippling Western societies, and it is leading to very real harms in the lives of innocent people. Britain’s new conservative government is taking a hard stance against such crimes. U.K. Home Secretary Suella Braverman told BBC, “The perpetrators are groups of men, almost all British Pakistani, who hold cultural attitudes completely incompatible with British values.” Let’s be clear: Those would be British values against sexual predation.

While identifying the predators as “Pakistani” goes against cultural sensitivities advanced in liberal societies, Braverman wasn’t talking about a few random cases, but some of “the most notorious grooming gang cases.” She criticized a culture of silence that discourages citizens from identifying the Pakistani male gangs behind such crimes.

In support of Braverman’s statements, U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak stated that “Victims of grooming gangs have been ignored because of political correctness.” The IICSA’s report indicates that abusers evade justice due to cultural sensitivities, allowing these gangs to operate unrestricted and unchallenged, out of political correctness and out of a fear of being called racist. In his reaction, Sunak stated: “Political correctness must no longer prevent the police from using the ethnicity of suspects to identify grooming gangs.”

Braverman and Sunak are both British citizens of Asian descent, and they called out the reality of the gangs behind these crimes. Among some British citizens from a Pakistani—also Asian—origin, their remarks didn’t go well. BBC reports that Braverman’s remarks were criticized as “racist rhetoric,” supposedly emboldening racists and putting British Asian families at risk. Braverman refused to yield, and her spokesperson said she would “not shy away from hard truths.”

This remark goes against the politically correct fanciful notion that all cultures are inherently valuable and essentially good—a notion often known as “cultural relativism.” Advocates of such relativism often oppose any sincere discernment about a different culture. While one can certainly appreciate and commend valuable aspects in every culture, the insistence on cultural relativism cripples our societies when it destroys the moral consensus and boundaries on behavior that civilization requires.

We should all hope for the success of the government’s efforts to identify the abusers and that British citizens aid their government in doing so. As for political correctness, let’s all work diligently to send it to oblivion.

I’m A. S. Ibrahim.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Tomorrow: A special report on the persecution of Christians in India. That’s on World Tour. And, the search for clean water. We’ll hear how a mother of five is leading a drill team across the globe. That and more tomorrow.

I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: 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: “So to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from becoming conceited. Three times I pleaded with the Lord about this, that it should leave me. But he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.’” 1 Corinthians chapter 12, verses 7 through 9.

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.

Click Here For Your Original Story

. . . . . . .