The seven mountains of culture - Glenn says 'if we lose these two, we're done'

September 24, 2015

WRITER

On radio Thursday, Glenn was joined by David Barton and George Barna - a pollster and researcher on American culture. Glenn started by introducing seven cultural elements, which are required if you want to destroy or build a culture.

The Seven Mountains of Culture:

1. Business

2. Government

3. Media

4. Arts and Entertainment

5. Education

6. Family

7. Religion

Glenn said we've already lost all the mountains except for two - family and religion - but they too are clearly under attack.

"If we lose these two, we're done," Glenn said.

Then they discussed what can be done to preserve our culture by defending the principles our nation was founded upon. According to Barna's research, it starts with encouraging America's pastors to become better leaders by preaching about the important issues affecting American society today.

Listen or read the transcript below for more.

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

GLENN: I want to give you the seven mountains of culture. Business, government, media, arts, and entertainment, education, family, and religion. Those are seven mountains of culture. And if you want to destroy or build a culture, you have to have those seven mountains. We have lost the mountain of business. They don't even teach ethics anymore. We're not teaching moral sentiments anymore. We're just teaching raw capitalism. The best business schools in the country, when the professor stands up and says, "Okay, so here's your case study, was that good or bad, was that right or wrong? The hands go up and say, did it make money?" And so we've lost business.

We've lost government. The media, I don't know if we've ever had. Arts and entertainment, we've never had. Education is gone to us. The last two mountains of culture -- and if we lose these two, we're done. The family. It is absolutely under attack. And the last one is religion. And religion, I think at this point, is neutral. It could go either way. The same thing with the family. But it is certainly not a positive impact. And I will get into that here, just a bit with this amazing pollster and researcher on the culture, George Barna. And he's with the Barna Group. And he's a Christian polling firm that goes out and looks for what is affecting the culture. What is actually happening?

David Barton is joining us, because this actually started with a conversation we had, how long ago, David Barton?

DAVID: Oh, it's probably been about almost two months ago, Glenn.

GLENN: Okay. So we started having a conversation -- why don't you tell the story how we got here.

DAVID: Yeah, we were having a conversation, and you said, "We need to get people to get their pastors to preach about stuff. What do we ask them to preach about?" And I looked at you and said, "I don't have a clue, but I think I know someone who does." So I called George that night and said, "George, here's the deal. Glenn would like to have people ask their pastors to preach about certain things. What do people want to hear? What do they want to --

GLENN: Looking for leaders.

DAVID: Looking for leaders.

GLENN: In our pulpits.

DAVID: Yep.

GLENN: Because I contend they're not shepherds, they're sheep. They're afraid. Some of them don't know what to lead on. Most of them also don't know how to be active.

DAVID: Well, there's a difference between being a pastor and being a leader. There's a lot of pastors; there's just not a lot of leaders. And a lot of leaders -- one of the things I challenge pastors with now is, hey, if you announce on Sunday morning or Saturday morning, or whatever your service is, you announce you're shutting down your church, on Monday morning, will civic officials be lined up at your church saying, "No, don't leave. You're too valuable to the community. We can't have you leave. You offer too much good stuff." And most churches community would never know.

GLENN: What was the church I went to in Houston, Pat, for that funeral. What was the name of that?

PAT: Second Baptist.

GLENN: That church, because I talked to the city officials, they've said, "They've changed our community. They've changed our community."

DAVID: That's right.

GLENN: That church, if they close down, that church would have city officials --

DAVID: They would have city officials banging on the stage because there's too much value added. And that's leaders. Those aren't pastors. Now, he's a pastor, but he's a leader. And he's changed his community around him. Too many places of worship do not change their community.

GLENN: So, George, how did you put this polling together? How did you go out and conduct this? When you hear what the results of this poll are, it will blow you away.

GEORGE: Well, the first thing we did, Glenn, was we wanted to do some qualitative research, which means, rather than telling the people, these are the issues you can choose from, we simply asked them, "What are the things that are on your mind, on your heart? What do you want to hear about? Just give us a laundry list of whatever comes into your mind."

So we did that with 150 people across the country, and then we put together this exhaustive list and looked at I think it was 150 different issues that got mentioned. Then we took the ones that were toward the upper half of the list and said, okay, let's go out toward a larger more representative sample of people. Give them the list and ask them on a scale, which ones do you absolutely have to hear. So what we're going to be talking about are the ones where people said it was extremely critical or very critical.

GLENN: "Critical" was the word?

GEORGE: "Critical" was the word, where they said, "I need to know what -- not what my pastor thinks about this, but what does the Bible teach about this?"

GLENN: Okay. I want to start at number 13.

Number 13, the media influence on public, content responsibility, truth, moral standards, choices for exposure, and resistance.

DAVID: This is what they're asking their pastor to talk about.

GLENN: Right.

DAVID: This is unbelievable. I don't think a pastor has ever been asked to talk about media, but people are begging for that.

GLENN: And the media itself would dismiss any pastor talking about the media.

DAVID: That's right.

GLENN: Now, 70 percent of the sample said that is critical to talk about this.

GEORGE: Extremely or very critical for them to know about that. Now, I have to say, the sample that we talked to, these were conservative individuals who are religious. The vast majority of them are Christians.

GLENN: Yeah, I mean, we're asking churchgoers. Yeah, we're asking church people, what is it -- what do you want to have your pastor talk about?

Number 12, no pastor in America would say this is even in the top 20. Islam. The core beliefs, response to Islamic aggression, threat to peace and domestic stability.

GEORGE: Here you have a group of people coming to church week after week, they're not sure they know what their own faith is about. And then in the news, they're reading all kinds of conflicting reports about Muslims and Islam and Iraq and Iran. They don't even know where these places are on the map. And so there's all these kinds of issues that are swirling around in their head. They're crying out for somebody to help them make sense out of this, and not just from a news perspective, but from a biblical perspective because they want to serve God well. They're begging leaders to lead them in this arena.

DAVID: Three out of four want to hear that. Three out of four.

GLENN: Number 11, church in politics and the church in government, separation of church and state, legal boundaries, church resistance to government. 73 percent say that's critical that it is preached from the pulpit.

GEORGE: And once again, to them, they're coming into this whole arena completely confused. Because they're being told all the time, no, we shouldn't talk about these things in public. In a church, are you kidding me? Why would you do that, talk about politics and government? They think there's nothing in the scriptures about this. They think there's no reason to even bring this up. But they're saying, God must have a position.

GLENN: Number ten is self-governance, biblical support, personal conduct, impact on freedom, and national sovereignty. Maybe I've heard one church talk about this, you know. That David Barton wasn't speaking at. Where I've heard them actually get up and on a Sunday start teaching about our -- our self-governance and what it means for the -- the governance of the people of the United States.

DAVID: You know, if you want to be a hero, just get in front of the bandwagon, like you're the band director. Three out of four want to hear this stuff, just be a hero, start talking about what they want to hear about. I mean, this should be a no-brainer. In a self-governing country, you can't be a self-governing country without self-governing citizens, and we won't talk about that?

GLENN: Number nine is bioethics, cloning, euthanasia, genetic engineering, cryogenics, organ donation, and surrogacy, 76 percent.

Then eight, role in government, the biblical view, the church/state relationship, our personal responsibility and limitations. What's the difference between eight and ten, self-governance?

GEORGE: Essentially, people don't know the difference. They just know that there's so much wrapped around these issues that they want them covered in full.

GLENN: Because there's three of them. There's church in politics, self-governance, and the role of government.

GEORGE: Yeah. And when you look at something like self-governance, remember the kind of culture we live in where people are basically saying, "Don't tell me what to do." Here's a group of people saying, "Please tell me how I should behave."

GLENN: Don't you think this kind of goes to our kids. People say, "Don't -- let your kids be free." No, kids want boundaries.

GEORGE: And structure.

GLENN: And I think we as a people know we need structure. We need universal structure. We don't want to be told what to do or treated like children, but we do want to know, there are some eternal answers here. Why are we just making this up, and why isn't anyone teaching us this?

DAVID: We're into kids and sports. Tell me any sports that kids are involved with that doesn't have boundaries and that we don't teach them boundaries from the very start. Why don't we do that with the rest of life?

GLENN: Correct. Number seven is Christian heritage and the role of Christian faith and American history, the church role in the US development, and the modern day relevancy. This is you, David.

DAVID: And I get my brains beat in by people saying, "You can't talk about that in church." 79 percent of Americans want to hear this in church. And I'm seen as an extremist for doing this kind of stuff.

GLENN: Right. Now, let me go to the top six, because I think these are stunning. There's not a preacher in the country -- would you agree with that? You poll these people all the time. How stunning is the top six.

GEORGE: I had to go back and rerun the data to make sure that I didn't get something wrong in the program that ran the data because it was not what I expected.

GLENN: Here's number six. 81 percent -- sorry, 80 percent are saying that it is extremely critical or critical that their pastor, priest, or rabbi speaks about Israel, its role in the world, the Christian responsibility to Israel, US foreign policy toward Israel and its enemies.

You guys were on TV last night and I said, "I knew we're doomed as a country when I stood in front of the capitol building and there were maybe 3,000 people there, 4,000 people there, and there should have been --

DAVID: And that was the Iran rally.

GLENN: Yeah, that was the Iran rally. There should have been maybe 10,000 pastors there alone.

DAVID: Yeah.

GLENN: Where were the churches? Where were they? The answer, they don't know.

DAVID: Right.

GLENN: The people, they have no idea.

DAVID: But people want to know.

GLENN: Correct.

DAVID: And, by the way, it's worth pointing out on this, also in the poll, he found out that 33 percent of pastors said they talked about Israel, but only 24 percent of people said they heard their pastor talk about Israel.

GLENN: So what does that tell you, David?

DAVID: It tells me that the guys who think they're talking about it, don't talk about it very much. Or they made a comment in passing or they thought they made an illusion that somebody understood. 80 percent of people want to hear this. Pastors, 33 percent said, "Well, I talk about this." But only 24 percent actually heard them say something. Which means they're not communicating what they think they are from the pulpit to the people in the pews.

Colorado counselor fights back after faith declared “illegal”

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

When did Americans start cheering for chaos?

MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND / Contributor | Getty Images

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.

When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.

Moral erosion

For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.

Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.

And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.

How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.

Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.

The buck stops with us

That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.

Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.

Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.

But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.

The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.

The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”

We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.