Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
Shop
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

‘This Dangerous Book’: Hobby Lobby Founder, Wife Share Story Behind Bible Museum

November 28, 2017
Staff

WRITER

Hobby Lobby president Steve Green and his wife, Jackie Green, shared their passion for the Bible as a sacred text and a crucial part of history on today’s show, discussing their new book, “This Dangerous Book: How the Bible Has Shaped Our World and Why It Still Matters Today.”

The Green family is backing the privately funded Museum of the Bible, which recently opened in Washington, D.C. just a couple of blocks from the National Mall. Entry to the museum and its Bible Garden is free.

Glenn shared a quote from one of his kids, who asked why a museum about the Bible was in Washington, D.C., where it doesn’t seem likely that many people would want to see it.

“I said, ‘I think that’s the point,’” Glenn said.

“It was the right place for us to be,” Steve Green added.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: You know, most families don't impact people over multiple generations as much as this family has impacted our world in one and two generations.

Steve and Jackie green join us. They're the founding family of the museum of the Bible in Washington, DC. And the author of this dangerous book. How the Bible shaped our world. And why it still matters today.

Steve and Jackie, welcome.

STEVE: Thank you, Glenn. It's good to be here.

GLENN: So I was just in Hobby Lobby over the weekend. And we were talking as a family. And one of my older children was there. And we were talking about the museum of the Bible. And they -- and she said, how did this all begin, Dad? How did this -- how did this happen?

And I said, well, I know Hobby Lobby started with, you know, frames in a garage. And the family just kind of grew up in it.

But Steve and Jackie, how did the Bible part of it start?

STEVE: Well, for me, it started in my home. My parents grew up in a Christian home. My grandfather was a minister himself. My dad's dad. And, you know, my parents took us to church and taught us to love God's word. And follow his ways in our lives. And in our family. And so we -- we just -- that was part of our life. And my wife was the same. She grew up in a Christian home as well. And the Bible just being a part of our life from when we were born.

GLENN: So, Jackie, you guys have a remarkable family. And you have seen what money usually does to a family. I just read a book.

I can't remember the name of it. But it was about Jay Paul Getty and his family. And how the money just destroyed them.

What is it that keeps your family on the track?

JACKIE: Well, I think that, first of all, I would just say, you know, God helps us to realize and remember that everything we have, we've given to him. And he gave to us. And we just give it back to him.

And so our blessings come from above. And there's great joy in realizing that, you know, we don't really have all the ownership. That it really belongs to God.

So being a family of faith, thankfully, we -- we have a family that everyone has embraced their own faith. And embraces the teachings of the Bible for themselves. And I think that's paramount in where we are today.

GLENN: Do you think you could have done -- do you guys think you could have accomplished, just as a family, I don't even mean business, just as a family, do you guys think you could have accomplished what you accomplished if you lived in New York City?

JACKIE: I don't know. I mean, I think God can do anything anywhere. But it would be -- we would have different challenges, of course. We live in a great part of the country, in the Bible Belt. And, you know, it's a great place to raise a family and to, you know, work hard and run a business.

GLENN: So we are -- you know, we were talking as we were walking through Hobby Lobby. And we were talking about the museum of the Bible. And my daughter said, why wouldn't they build it where people would want to go see it? I mean, it's in Washington, DC. Nobody wants the Bible.

And I said, I think that's the point.

What's the reaction that you guys have seen?

STEVE: Well, when we first started looking, we were actually looking in your town in Dallas. And then one opened up -- said, what if God does one in Dallas?

And when I looked up at the top two -- ten metros, the other two that stood out to me was New York City and Washington DC. And we did a survey. The survey showed, it would be best attended in DC, which really makes sense. Because that's the hub of museums in our country. Where museum goers go.

So we just feel like that God knew best. That ever that this facility we acquired was a great location. Just two blocks from one of the most attended museums in our country. And that it was the right place for us to be.

Some kind of chide us thinking that our intent is to impact politics. And, of course, I'm sitting here thinking, who isn't in this town to impact politics? And what would be wrong if that was our motive?

GLENN: Yeah.

STEVE: But it was really because this is where the best attended it -- a lot of visitors here are international, who will have an international impact. And we just think that our -- our legislators ought to know the foundation of our nation and its biblical roots. And, hopefully, they would come in and it would impact them as well.

GLENN: Are you surprised at the number of people in Washington that -- that -- they really have no clue as to our real heritage?

STEVE: Yeah. You know, I -- I think that that is a sad commentary not just here, but in our nation, is the lack of understanding of biblical influence that -- the Bible had on our Founders. And how that it shaped our nation, our freedoms, our economy, our government.

It just had a huge impact.

And I think we probably know it less today than ever, partly because we don't teach the Bible in our schools like we once did. And so there's a great need to educate America on the Bible's impact on our world.

GLENN: So how do you -- how do you do that with -- I mean, even Christopher Hitchens, you know, who was a huge atheist, he said, if you want to understand western culture, you must understand the Bible. You won't understand Shakespeare if you haven't read the Bible.

You know, it is the cornerstone. And he said that it should be taught as -- as literary in a literary class.

But you're not going to get that now. How do we make this shift?

STEVE: Well, and he's not the only -- even Richard Dawkins in his book, The God Delusion, says something very similar. He said to be culturally literate, you need to know it. And he lists over 100 examples of phrases just in our everyday language that comes from the Bible. Good Samaritan, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, and so forth.

GLENN: Yeah.

STEVE: So even they recognize to be educated in our world, you need to know this book, because it's had such an impact. And that's one of the reasons why we've taken the position in the museum of not espousing our faith. We're just teaching the facts of the book because we are interested in having a curriculum to educate students in our schools about the Bible, in a nonsectarian way, not espousing faith, just teaching the facts of this book.

Because we agree with Christopher Hitchens, that it ought to be a part of our educational system.

GLENN: You -- the name of the book that you guys have just put out is this dangerous book.

And I look at what's happening in the Middle East. People won't recognize that the group of people that are probably rivalling the first century, that are under attack now, more than anybody else, are Christians. And it is for that dangerous book.

They seem to -- I know you guys travel all over the world. The people I have met in the Middle East, have a very different view of their responsibility as a Christian, to that book and to those words and to their faith, than I think most Americans do.

STEVE: Yeah. In our nation, it is just easy. And I think that as a society starts down a path of persecuting Christians, it really separates those that are serious about their faith and those that are just pretending. And it's easy to pretend, to have a faith and attend church from time to time. But there are parts of our world where it's a life and death situation if a person wants to follow the principles of this book.

And part of why we called it this dangerous book. We talk about those that have given their life, because of their life for this book. And it's no different today. I understand there's probably more people that are suffering for their faith today than ever before. Because it's a challenging world. And there are people that love this book. And there are people that hate it. And it shows up in our news from time to time.

STU: Jackie, you talk a lot in the book about something I think Christians have a difficult time with, as I think everybody does, which is tithing and giving -- giving your money away. And it's not just about being charitable. It's also about leading with the charity. Giving that money away first. Giving the money to God first. Can you talk about that a little bit?

JACKIE: Well, yeah, sure. I think as a family, that we -- as I mentioned earlier, we do feel like our blessings come from God. And when you can -- when you realize that, when you know that in your heart, it makes it a lot easier to understand it. We also -- you know, we're taught in the Bible to give to the -- to take care of the widow, the orphan, and to help those in need. And feed the hungry. And, you know, clothing.

And that sort of thing. And I think that when you embrace the principles taught in the Bible, it becomes much easier to do that. Recognizing everything we do comes from God. And we share some of that. We share some of our personal experiences with the Bible, in our book. And we look at the impact of the Bible and its influence in our world, in our culture, every day. All around us.

And then, you know, we feel like it's important for people to understand and be encouraged to read the Bible and learn more about it. Because it's the best-selling book of all time. Consistently, year after year.

STU: More than Harry Potter. That's confirmed.

GLENN: Listen to this. This is in the book. I love this. Let's see. Da Vinci Code. C.S. Lewis. Lion, Witch, and the Wardrobe. Estimated about 80 million each.

Don Quixote, 150 million. Catcher in the Rye, 65 million. Black Beauty, 50 million. Harry Potter, 100 million, along with The Little Princess, 100 million. Tolkien, Lord of the Rings, 150 million copies. The Bible is estimated to be 5 billion copies. Five billion.

STU: It seems like it deserves a museum. It really does.

JACKIE: We think.

STEVE: Well, and some have said, why now? And, of course, more times, you get the question, why hasn't this been done before? I think we have the best material of any museum here in DC because this book has impacted our world unlike anything else.

So its story needs to be told, and that's why we wanted to tell it, in a state-of-the-art, first class museum.

GLENN: And I appreciate the book that you guys have just put out too, because it talks about your personal life. I'm fascinated by how grounded your family is. And you talk about -- you know, you talk about the adoption in your family and -- and just a lot of stuff that I can really relate to. And I appreciate you sharing the personal side as well. Thank you so much. God bless, guys.

STEVE: Well, and one of those is just that we feel like it was providential. And our Founders in this nation felt the same thing, time and time again. They just felt like God was in the middle of it. And we feel that with this museum and our adoption, and those are some of the stories that we share.

GLENN: Thank you, guys. God bless you. Have a good holiday.

Trump v. Slaughter: The Deep State on trial

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The administrative state has long operated as an unelected super-government. Trump v. Slaughter may be the moment voters reclaim authority over their own institutions.

Washington is watching and worrying about a U.S. Supreme Court case that could very well define the future of American self-government. And I don’t say that lightly. At the center of Trump v. Slaughter is a deceptively simple question: Can the president — the one official chosen by the entire nation — remove the administrators and “experts” who wield enormous, unaccountable power inside the executive branch?

This isn’t a technical fight. It’s not a paperwork dispute. It’s a turning point. Because if the answer is no, then the American people no longer control their own government. Elections become ceremonial. The bureaucracy becomes permanent. And the Constitution becomes a suggestion rather than the law of the land.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

That simply cannot be. Justice Neil Gorsuch summed it up perfectly during oral arguments on Monday: “There is no such thing in our constitutional order as a fourth branch of government that’s quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.”

Yet for more than a century, the administrative state has grown like kudzu — quietly, relentlessly, and always in one direction. Today we have a fourth branch of government: unelected, unaccountable, insulated from consequence. Congress hands off lawmaking to agencies. Presidents arrive with agendas, but the bureaucrats remain, and they decide what actually gets done.

If the Supreme Court decides that presidents cannot fire the very people who execute federal power, they are not just rearranging an org chart. The justices are rewriting the structure of the republic. They are confirming what we’ve long feared: Here, the experts rule, not the voters.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

The founders warned us

The men who wrote the Constitution saw this temptation coming. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in the Federalist Papers hammered home the same principle again and again: Power must remain traceable to the people. They understood human nature far too well. They knew that once administrators are protected from accountability, they will accumulate power endlessly. It is what humans do.

That’s why the Constitution vests the executive power in a single president — someone the entire nation elects and can unelect. They did not want a managerial council. They did not want a permanent priesthood of experts. They wanted responsibility and authority to live in one place so the people could reward or replace it.

So this case will answer a simple question: Do the people still govern this country, or does a protected class of bureaucrats now run the show?

Not-so-expert advice

Look around. The experts insisted they could manage the economy — and produced historic debt and inflation.

The experts insisted they could run public health — and left millions of Americans sick, injured, and dead while avoiding accountability.

The experts insisted they could steer foreign policy — and delivered endless conflict with no measurable benefit to our citizens.

And through it all, they stayed. Untouched, unelected, and utterly unapologetic.

If a president cannot fire these people, then you — the voter — have no ability to change the direction of your own government. You can vote for reform, but you will get the same insiders making the same decisions in the same agencies.

That is not self-government. That is inertia disguised as expertise.

A republic no more?

A monarchy can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A dictatorship can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A constitutional republic cannot. Not for long anyway.

We are supposed to live in a system where the people set the course, Congress writes the laws, and the president carries them out. When agencies write their own rules, judges shield them from oversight, and presidents are forbidden from removing them, we no longer live in that system. We live in something else — something the founders warned us about.

And the people become spectators of their own government.

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The path forward

Restoring the separation of powers does not mean rejecting expertise. It means returning expertise to its proper role: advisory, not sovereign.

No expert should hold power that voters cannot revoke. No agency should drift beyond the reach of the executive. No bureaucracy should be allowed to grow branches the Constitution never gave it.

The Supreme Court now faces a choice that will shape American life for a generation. It can reinforce the Constitution, or it can allow the administrative state to wander even farther from democratic control.

This case isn’t about President Trump. It isn’t about Rebecca Slaughter, the former Federal Trade Commission official suing to get her job back. It’s about whether elections still mean anything — whether the American people still hold the reins of their own government.

That is what is at stake: not procedure, not technicalities, but the survival of a system built on the revolutionary idea that the citizens — not the experts — are the ones who rule.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

1 in 20 Canadians die by MAID—Is this 'compassion'?

Vaughn Ridley / Stringer | Getty Images

Medical assistance in dying isn’t health care. It’s the moment a Western democracy decided some lives aren’t worth saving, and it’s a warning sign we can’t ignore.

Canada loves to lecture America about compassion. Every time a shooting makes the headlines, Canadian commentators cannot wait to discuss how the United States has a “culture of death” because we refuse to regulate guns the way enlightened nations supposedly do.

But north of our border, a very different crisis is unfolding — one that is harder to moralize because it exposes a deeper cultural failure.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order.

The Canadian government is not only permitting death, but it’s also administering, expanding, and redefining it as “medical care.” Medical assistance in dying is no longer a rare, tragic exception. It has become one of the country’s leading causes of death, offered to people whose problems are treatable, whose conditions are survivable, and whose value should never have been in question.

In Canada, MAID is now responsible for nearly 5% of all deaths — 1 out of every 20 citizens. And this is happening in a country that claims the moral high ground over American gun violence. Canada now records more deaths per capita from doctors administering lethal drugs than America records from firearms. Their number is 37.9 deaths per 100,000 people. Ours is 13.7. Yet we are the country supposedly drowning in a “culture of death.”

No lecture from abroad can paper over this fact: Canada has built a system where eliminating suffering increasingly means eliminating the sufferer.

Choosing death over care

One example of what Canada now calls “compassion” is the case of Jolene Bond, a woman suffering from a painful but treatable thyroid condition that causes dangerously high calcium levels, bone deterioration, soft-tissue damage, nausea, and unrelenting pain. Her condition is severe, but it is not terminal. Surgery could help her. And in a functioning medical system, she would have it.

But Jolene lives under socialized medicine. The specialists she needs are either unavailable, overrun with patients, or blocked behind bureaucratic requirements she cannot meet. She cannot get a referral. She cannot get an appointment. She cannot reach the doctor in another province who is qualified to perform the operation. Every pathway to treatment is jammed by paperwork, shortages, and waitlists that stretch into the horizon and beyond.

Yet the Canadian government had something else ready for her — something immediate.

They offered her MAID.

Not help, not relief, not a doctor willing to drive across a provincial line and simply examine her. Instead, Canada offered Jolene a state-approved death. A lethal injection is easier to obtain than a medical referral. Killing her would be easier than treating her. And the system calls that compassion.

Bureaucracy replaces medicine

Jolene’s story is not an outlier. It is the logical outcome of a system that cannot keep its promises. When the machinery of socialized medicine breaks down, the state simply replaces care with a final, irreversible “solution.” A bureaucratic checkbox becomes the last decision of a person’s life.

Canada insists its process is rigorous, humane, and safeguarded. Yet the bureaucracy now reviewing Jolene’s case is not asking how she can receive treatment; it is asking whether she has enough signatures to qualify for a lethal injection. And the debate among Canadian officials is not how to preserve life, but whether she has met the paperwork threshold to end it.

This is the dark inversion that always emerges when the state claims the power to decide when life is no longer worth living. Bureaucracy replaces conscience. Eligibility criteria replace compassion. A panel of physicians replaces the family gathered at a bedside. And eventually, the “right” to die becomes an expectation — especially for those who are poor, elderly, or alone.

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

The logical end of a broken system

We ignore this lesson at our own peril. Canada’s health care system is collapsing under demographic pressure, uncontrolled migration, and the unavoidable math of government-run medicine.

When the system breaks, someone must bear the cost. MAID has become the release valve.

The ideology behind this system is already drifting south. In American medical journals and bioethics conferences, you will hear this same rhetoric. The argument is always dressed in compassion. But underneath, it reduces the value of human life to a calculation: Are you useful? Are you affordable? Are you too much of a burden?

The West was built on a conviction that every human life has inherent value. That truth gave us hospitals before it gave us universities. It gave us charity before it gave us science. It is written into the Declaration of Independence.

Canada’s MAID program reveals what happens when a country lets that foundation erode. Life becomes negotiable, and suffering becomes a justification for elimination.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order. If compassion becomes indistinguishable from convenience, and if medicine becomes indistinguishable from euthanasia, the West will have abandoned the very principles that built it. That is the lesson from our northern neighbor — a warning, not a blueprint.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

A Sharia enclave is quietly taking root in America. It's time to wake up.

NOVA SAFO / Staff | Getty Images

Sharia-based projects like the Meadow in Texas show how political Islam grows quietly, counting on Americans to stay silent while an incompatible legal system takes root.

Apolitical system completely incompatible with the Constitution is gaining ground in the United States, and we are pretending it is not happening.

Sharia — the legal and political framework of Islam — is being woven into developments, institutions, and neighborhoods, including a massive project in Texas. And the consequences will be enormous if we continue to look the other way.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

Before we can have an honest debate, we’d better understand what Sharia represents. Sharia is not simply a set of religious rules about prayer or diet. It is a comprehensive legal and political structure that governs marriage, finance, criminal penalties, and civic life. It is a parallel system that claims supremacy wherever it takes hold.

This is where the distinction matters. Many Muslims in America want nothing to do with Sharia governance. They came here precisely because they lived under it. But political Islam — the movement that seeks to implement Sharia as law — is not the same as personal religious belief.

It is a political ideology with global ambitions, much like communism. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently warned that Islamist movements do not seek peaceful coexistence with the West. They seek dominance. History backs him up.

How Sharia arrives

Political Islam does not begin with dramatic declarations. It starts quietly, through enclaves that operate by their own rules. That is why the development once called EPIC City — now rebranded as the Meadow — is so concerning. Early plans framed it as a Muslim-only community built around a mega-mosque and governed by Sharia-compliant financing. After state investigations were conducted, the branding changed, but the underlying intent remained the same.

Developers have openly described practices designed to keep non-Muslims out, using fees and ownership structures to create de facto religious exclusivity. This is not assimilation. It is the construction of a parallel society within a constitutional republic.

The warning from those who have lived under it

Years ago, local imams in Texas told me, without hesitation, that certain Sharia punishments “just work.” They spoke about cutting off hands for theft, stoning adulterers, and maintaining separate standards of testimony for men and women. They insisted it was logical and effective while insisting they would never attempt to implement it in Texas.

But when pressed, they could not explain why a system they consider divinely mandated would suddenly stop applying once someone crossed a border.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

AASHISH KIPHAYET / Contributor | Getty Images

America is vulnerable

Europe is already showing us where this road leads. No-go zones, parallel courts, political intimidation, and clerics preaching supremacy have taken root across major cities.

America’s strength has always come from its melting pot, but assimilation requires boundaries. It requires insisting that the Constitution, not religious law, is the supreme authority on this soil.

Yet we are becoming complacent, even fearful, about saying so. We mistake silence for tolerance. We mistake avoidance for fairness. Meanwhile, political Islam views this hesitation as weakness.

Religious freedom is one of America’s greatest gifts. Muslims may worship freely here, as they should. But political Islam must not be permitted to plant a flag on American soil. The Constitution cannot coexist with a system that denies equal rights, restricts speech, subordinates women, and places clerical authority above civil law.

Wake up before it is too late

Projects like the Meadow are not isolated. They are test runs, footholds, proofs of concept. Political Islam operates with patience. It advances through demographic growth, legal ambiguity, and cultural hesitation — and it counts on Americans being too polite, too distracted, or too afraid to confront it.

We cannot afford that luxury. If we fail to defend the principles that make this country free, we will one day find ourselves asking how a parallel system gained power right in front of us. The answer will be simple: We looked away.

The time to draw boundaries and to speak honestly is now. The time to defend the Constitution as the supreme law of the land is now. Act while there is still time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The Crisis of Meaning: Searching for truth and purpose

Mario Tama / Staff | Getty Images

Anxiety, anger, and chronic dissatisfaction signal a country searching for meaning. Without truth and purpose, politics becomes a dangerous substitute for identity.

We have built a world overflowing with noise, convenience, and endless choice, yet something essential has slipped out of reach. You can sense it in the restless mood of the country, the anxiety among young people who cannot explain why they feel empty, in the angry confusion that dominates our politics.

We have more wealth than any nation in history, but the heart of the culture feels strangely malnourished. Before we can debate debt or elections, we must confront the reality that we created a world of things, but not a world of purpose.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

What we are living through is not just economic or political dysfunction. It is the vacuum that appears when a civilization mistakes abundance for meaning.

Modern life is stuffed with everything except what the human soul actually needs. We built systems to make life faster, easier, and more efficient — and then wondered why those systems cannot teach our children who they are, why they matter, or what is worth living for.

We tell the next generation to chase success, influence, and wealth, turning childhood into branding. We ask kids what they want to do, not who they want to be. We build a world wired for dopamine rather than dignity, and then we wonder why so many people feel unmoored.

When everything is curated, optimized, and delivered at the push of a button, the question “what is my life for?” gets lost in the static.

The crisis beneath the headlines

It is not just the young who feel this crisis. Every part of our society is straining under the weight of meaninglessness.

Look at the debt cycle — the mathematical fate no civilization has ever escaped once it crosses a threshold that we seem to have already blown by. While ordinary families feel the pressure, our leaders respond with distraction, with denial, or by rewriting the very history that could have warned us.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

We have entered a cultural moment where the noise is so loud that it drowns out the simplest truths. We are living in a country that no longer knows how to hear itself think.

So people go searching. Some drift toward the false promise of socialism, some toward the empty thrill of rebellion. Some simply check out. When a culture forgets what gives life meaning, it becomes vulnerable to every ideology that offers a quick answer.

The quiet return of meaning

And yet, quietly, something else is happening. Beneath the frustration and cynicism, many Americans are recognizing that meaning does not come from what we own, but from what we honor. It does not rise from success, but from virtue. It does not emerge from noise, but from the small, sacred things that modern life has pushed to the margins — the home, the table, the duty you fulfill, the person you help when no one is watching.

The danger is assuming that this rediscovery happens on its own. It does not.

Reorientation requires intention. It requires rebuilding the habits and virtues that once held us together. It requires telling the truth about our history instead of rewriting it to fit today’s narratives. And it requires acknowledging what has been erased: that meaning is inseparable from God’s presence in a nation’s life.

Harold M. Lambert / Contributor | Getty Images

Where renewal begins

We have built a world without stillness, and then we wondered why no one can hear the questions that matter. Those questions remain, whether we acknowledge them or not. They do not disappear just because we drown them in entertainment or noise. They wait for us, and the longer we ignore them, the more disoriented we become.

Meaning is still available. It is found in rebuilding the smallest, most human spaces — the places that cannot be digitized, globalized, or automated. The home. The family. The community.

These are the daily virtues that do not trend on social media, but that hold a civilization upright. If we want to repair this country, we begin there, exactly where every durable civilization has always begun: one virtue at a time, one tradition at a time, one generation at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.