Military Rescue in Iran, Pam Bondi, Artemis II, and Social Media Addiction Trial

As hosts of the Bulletin, we are passionate about featuring voices you know and love as

we share breaking news and discuss issues that are shaping our world.

If you'd like to contribute to the production of Bulletin, consider subscribing to Christianity

today using our special link, orderct.com slash the Bulletin.

Bulletin listeners like you get 25% off your subscription and unlimited access to the

platform that elevates the stories and the ideas and the Kingdom of God.

Orderct.com forward slash the Bulletin, all one word, we look forward to having you join us.

From Christianity today, you're listening to the Bulletin, a podcast about the people, events

and issues that are shaping our world. I'm Clarissa Mall. This week, the U.S. rescues a

downed airman in Iran, Pam Bondi gets the boot and four astronauts venture to the dark side

of the moon. Michael Reno and I discuss these headlines and Mark, Rachel and Sarah Linear

join us to talk about their landmark case against Mehta. Welcome to the show.

Good morning listeners, welcome to our Tuesday round table where we let you know what's

catching our eye as the week begins. Joining me today is managing editor of the dispatch,

my friend Michael Reno. Michael, thanks for joining me today. Thanks for having me, Clarissa.

Happy to be here. Over the weekend, the U.S. military searched frantically for a U.S.

weapons system officer who was shot down on Friday morning in enemy territory over Iran.

While the man hid in a crevice of a mountainside, combined military and CIA forces discovered

his location, mounted a distraction campaign and sent in Navy SEAL 6 commandos to rescue him.

After the rescue, President Trump took to truth social on Easter Sunday morning to threaten Iran

with further destruction in an expletive laden post saying, quote,

Tuesday will be power plant day and bridge day all wrapped up in one in Iran. There will be

nothing like it. Open the f**k straight, you crazy f**ks or you'll be living in hell.

Just watch. Praise be to Allah. President Donald J. Trump.

Michael, is this typical Trump social media fair or do you see the president

really emboldened by this rescue of the airman to come down harder on Iran now?

I do think it's pretty bold to use language like that, particularly on Easter Sunday.

If you remember a year or two ago, the Biden administration was in the middle of controversy for

posting some kind of trans affirming language on Easter Sunday. You have the president himself

kind of going to the opposite extreme and making fun of Muslims with praise Allah on Easter Sunday.

In terms of being emboldened on Iran, the deadline for some kind of cease fire or peace still

negotiated, the deadline for that it was supposed to be 10 days ago. Then it got pushed back now.

We're talking about Tuesdays the day and you see reports of Tuesday night. The objectives here

just have not been clear from the beginning. And so when you have different members of the

administration, one day it's Marco Rubio, the next day it's Pete Hickseth and next day it's the

president himself setting new goals for the entire campaign. I think it's very easy just to kind

of flail about in the wind and look for any kind of exit strategy you can get.

We've often said here on the show that international laws only as good as the parties who are

willing to follow it. So under the Geneva Convention, hitting civilian infrastructure is

against international law. We're talking about bridges, power plants. What consequences could

there be for actions like the president is proposing? So there are allowances for hitting civilian

infrastructure if you can prove that it's got military value. So if you can hobble the military

capabilities of an enemy, then it gets around that international law that prohibits civilian

infrastructure such as utilities. In terms of the teeth to that, there really is not any. To your

point, international law is only as strong as the countries are willing to sign on. The US

historically has not signed on to some of these laws and regulations. So I don't think that some

play the acronym tacos become pretty well used in the vernacular here lately. Trump always

chickens out. So it wouldn't surprise me in the least if we don't actually hit

Carg Island or other targets of particular value for energy and infrastructure. At the same time,

we woke up on a Saturday morning six weeks ago, right? Five weeks ago, and all of a sudden we

were bombing Tehran. So I don't think Taco holds all the time either, but I don't think it's going

to be international law that dissuades the Trump administration from attacking some of these targets

if the powers would be deemed them worthy effort. We have this vulgarity that has become a part of

the military conversation. Secretary of Defense Hegseth has adopted similar vulgarities in his FAFO.

How does a Christian get behind a military offensive like this with such vulgarity really woven

into the fabric of the campaign? I'm not one to advocate for compartmentalizing as a believer.

I want to integrate the gospel and I want to integrate the scriptures into all facets of my life.

On the other hand, I do think that it helps to think about this in sort of a compartmentalized

way. Very few of us would say that weakening the Iranian regime is a bad thing. Very few of us would

say that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and the Mullahs in Tehran having access to enriched uranium

for the use of nuclear bombs, being able to project all this power through proxy groups like

Hezbollah and Hamas and others in the region. I think very few of us would say that weakening

their ability to do those things is a bad thing. You can say this is a campaign that hopefully

will bear fruit. This is a campaign that will weaken an authoritarian regime that has committed

atrocities, has murdered innocent people, has ruled with an iron fist for well-knife 50 years,

it threatens an important strategic partner in Israel and other neighbors in the region. All those

strategic goals that most people, again, unless you're Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping, you probably

can get behind. On the other hand, I think it's entirely possible to condemn not just the political

and strategic way that the administration has waged this war, but also the things like that Easter

tweet from Donald Trump. And if you have at all been critical of Donald Trump on the grounds of

morality and values for the last 10 years, this is familiar ground. You can say, yes, there are

some things that policy wise, we would hope that good things come out of decisions that the

Trump administration makes, but gosh, he acts like a really vulgar potty mouth for your old,

a four-year-old who would have a lot of stiff consequences if you were in my household.

You can't put that aside totally, but I think you can recognize that there's a

military and political strategy that would be good to see all the way through and execute here

while not condoning the way in which it's done on any number of levels.

While Iran offers one indication of how the president regards his enemies here at home,

the dismissal of US Attorney General Pam Bondi has some wondering if the president is beginning

to purge his cabinet of those who are unwilling or unable to fight for him in the way he desires.

Michael, why do you think Pam Bondi got the axe now, especially after we saw Christy

gnome dismissed just within the month? One is the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files and

Susie Wiles, Trump's chief of staff. Probably one of the only people who can really

kind of wrangle him to the degree that she can said a few weeks ago in an interview with Anity Fair

that Pam Bondi completely whiffed on handling the Epstein files and himming and hawing and saying

in a Fox News interview that there's a client list sitting on her desk waiting to be released when

in fact there was no client list. She had to go back and clean this comments up. She had an abysmal

performance at a congressional hearing. So I think the president was plenty hacked off at her

handling of the Epstein files and didn't give him a whole lot of cover, frankly, in the way that she

handled that. There's also the fact that the Department of Justice tried to go after all these

perceived enemies have Donald Trump himself, not even really the Trump administration. It was Donald

Trump the man. You have Latisha James, the New York Attorney General, you have James Comey,

Adam Schiff, Mark Kelly after Kelly and others made the comments about not having to obey illegal

orders. All these instances of Trump wanting to go after particular political enemies and Pam Bondi

was not able to deliver. I think if you look at the facts of all those cases and say there is not

anything there to deliver on as we have seen those indictments get thrown out as in the case with

Latisha James and James Comey. So it's really hard to hold her to that standard. However, that is

the standard that Donald Trump holds her to. As to the timing, it is interesting. Even if you go

back to look at Christy Nome, Christy Nome was like, oh, kind of weeks after some of the height and

the apex of the controversy with immigration enforcement and what happened in Minneapolis in

January with Renee Good and Alex Freddie, both gunned down by federal agents. And after reports and

rumors of inappropriate relationship with Corey Lewandowski in her office, wild spending on

advertising campaigns, I do think Trump is fairly calculating in terms of he's not going to make a

decision on these sorts of issues. Kind of at the peak of a crisis moment, he seems to let things

play out. Even if you read reports, I mean, Trump is still as personally fond of Pam Bondi,

even since he made the decision or informed her of the decision last Wednesday to let her go.

It still sounds like there's a fondness there. So the timing is interesting that it's kind of

lagging behind some of the loudest controversial moments of the administration.

I'm curious if you think that Christians who are concerned about the safety of our checks and

balances would read this dismissal of Pam Bondi as a positive or a negative.

The jury is probably still out. The Department of Justice, it's lost something like 16,000

employees. You had people in the DOJ advertising for open attorney positions, litigator positions

on social media, which is not typical operating procedure. I remember the couple of folks who

attorneys themselves are used to be attorneys. And I talked about the Department of Justice being

this, if you wanted to go into criminal law, the DOJ was kind of this aspirational place that you

hoped that you could get to in certain circumstances. I don't think it's that way anymore. So in one

sense, getting rid of Pam Bondi as the attorney general might bring some hope. On the other hand,

I think it's pretty clear that particularly in the second administration, the people who are

going to push back against what Donald Trump wants to do and try to restrain his worst impulses,

such as political prosecutions. I don't think those people are coming back. I don't think they're

not even left. And so now you have as possibilities for the new attorney general, Lee Zeldin, the current

head of the EPA, former congressman from New York, Todd Blanch, who is an assistant attorney general,

Donald Trump's personal attorney for those who are concerned about checks and balances and

whether or not the Department of Justice is being weaponized or being used inappropriately,

or perhaps if the big banner of Donald Trump's face will be taken down off the DOJ in Washington.

I don't think I personally will hold out much hope that there's going to be some 180 degree turn.

As we record this, Artemis 2 has reached lunar air space and is beginning its flyby of the moon.

The first time an American crew has gotten this close to the moon since 1972,

Commander Reid Wiseman and pilot Victor Glover, who are both Christians and their two mission specialists,

will venture to the dark side of the moon on Monday, reaching the furthest point Americans have

ever traveled from Earth. Michael, I'm fascinated by this new moon mission. I'm curious what stands out

to you most about what we're seeing with Artemis 2. I just get enamored with the historical

milestones we're hitting along the way. These guys are getting views of the moon that

no human has ever really seen before where they're naked eye. They're going to be

communicating with engineers and scientists in NASA trying to describe in their own words these

things that they have seen photographs of and seen satellite imagery of unprecedented as a word

that almost loses all meaning anymore the way things are going, but there should be an unprecedented

experiment about what human beings are actually seeing with their own eyes. The thing that also

kind of gets me jazz, so I was taking my kids to school this morning and gotten a conversation with

my daughters in fourth grade about their conversations in the classroom about Artemis 2. So I'm a

millennial. I grew up in the 90s and early 2000s and when it comes to exploration, I can't remember

kids in my classes ever being really excited about something that's happening in the moment,

the way that my dad or my mom would talk about watching the Apollo missions when they were kids.

And so there's the potential here with the Artemis missions and then the goal to get back to the

moon and then the goal to further explore eventually Mars for 10-year-olds, 11-year-olds, 12-year-olds,

and then their parents, too, to get excited about something that the US is doing or the US and our

friends, as it were in this case with the Canadian astronaut, something that we're doing that's not

politics, it's not war, it's not policy. I think we kind of get a sense of it when we have the

Olympics or things like the World Cup or I'm a baseball fan to the World Baseball Classic.

Just a sense of accomplishment. This is actually very high stakes, very high difficulty,

sorts of technology and capabilities that we're trying to achieve here. We walk around with

supercomputers in our pockets that the Apollo astronauts didn't have access to. It's very easy

to just take everything for granted. But I think something like this, the first time we can get back

to the moon in five decades plus, I think it arouses a sense of wonder. We were created to want to go

and explore and learn and experience and see and understand, and to the degree that we can understand

these big, huge cosmic realities, I think we're just geared toward that. I was reminded of the 1968

Apollo 8 mission where the astronauts read from Genesis 1 as a sort of Christmas Eve blessing.

And I began thinking, what would the Artemis 2 team read on Easter? And I landed on Colossians 1

for in him all things were created things in heaven and on earth visible and invisible. He is

before all things and in him all things hold together. Listeners will keep an eye on the moon and

we hope you do too. We're reviewing stories like these all week long as we cover the news for you

and we'll keep watching these and others as they develop. Today we dive deeper into the ruling

against meta in a landmark social media addiction case as I sit down with the attorneys who won the

case Mark Rachel and Sarah linear together. We talk about how meta and we must answer the question

who is my neighbor enjoy the conversation. Mark Rachel and Sarah welcome to the bulletin great

to be here thanks for having us thanks for having us is Sarah you have described your dad as

fighting the bad guys and sticking up for the little guy talk to me about the unique opportunity

to argue this case really any case together as a family I am a relatively new attorney

I get to watch both my dad and my older sister do what I've been hearing them talk about for so

many years I get to be part of it and it's on a case that's this meaningful and truly is the

epitome of fighting for the little guy it was a David first Goliath kind of battle essentially

getting to be part of it with them was incredible I remember there was one night of trial where

at 11 p.m. I got an assignment that had been requested by the judge and so we were working with

defense counsel on it and typically a boss would say okay like all review it in the morning thank you

but Rachel was like no I'm gonna help you finish it so she stayed up with me until I think

1.30 a.m. helping me knock it out and get it done so it's so special Marcus this sort of like a

dad's dream come true oh absolutely it's so much fun to watch them and Rachel of course being 10

years older than Sarah was such an integral part of helping us take care of Sarah as a baby in a

sense almost a second mom to her and to watch them now as mature adults come into their own both

incredibly gifted and talented but both using those gifts and talents for such a good cause

sometimes I have to pay attention to what I'm doing because I'm just instead just the doting parent

who's loving watching their kids do their thing mark one of the things that's been really important

throughout your professional career is this integration of your faith with your work and

as I was preparing for this conversation it kept hitting me Jesus told the story of the good

Samaritan to a lawyer from your seat in the courtroom from your experience as a bible teacher

can you unpack that for me a little bit what does it mean for a lawyer to hear the particular

parable of the good Samaritan I love that parable for a number of different reasons first I do find

it engaging that a lawyer is debating the law if you will with the one who really wrote the law

and gave it to Moses you know in a very real sense as the Lord and so I find it a bit presumptuous

then you get to the story itself and I love this story because the story presents the question of

who's your neighbor and the answer apparent from the story is the person who you see in the road

of life that needs help you can give that person is your neighbor and so in my road of life while

I'm walking from Jerusalem to Jericho figuratively who do I come across then God has put in my path

with needs that I can help address in the practice of law for example lots of cases come my way

but which cases particularly need me to do something in that case because the others have passed it

by or will pass it by and so I'm challenged to try to find those that are in my path that God would

have me bring my resources my abilities my efforts to that certainly seemed to be the case with

the lawsuit that we just finished trying together a Rachel could you give us the lay of the land

as it were many of us have seen this trial against meta in the news but what are the key points

that our listeners need to understand about the case you argued on behalf of the plaintiff this case

was about one plaintiff Kayley who is now 20 years old she is one of thousands of young adults

in her generation that have grown up in a world where social media accounts are sort of the norm

for their friend groups and for their socialization we went to trial up against meta and against

Google for YouTube and the key elements of the case were that these companies targeted kids

like Kayley and they didn't care how young kids were when they used these apps these companies

didn't care if they communicated about certain risks they didn't warn parents and they set out

to make their apps addictive and it caused a lot of mental health harm and a lot of damage to her

and thousands of other children similar like her what the platform does is it changes your

concept of what's normal you get filters where young ladies are able to get on and give themselves

the perfect cheekbones take care of all the teenage acne and smooth the skin out with a perfect

glowing tan fix their eyes so they're symmetrical and then they post these pictures and every time

you look in a mirror you look so different than these other people who are truly just make believe

at that point then you get these other features that get you on the app at all hours they'll send

you notifications so that you'll hear a ding and you'll think oh somebody's commented on

something I've done and the kid wakes up in the middle of the night and they get on to check and

then when they're there hey might as well see this and pretty soon their fingers going and before

long as 3 a.m. and this teenager preteen has missed four hours of sleep before going to school

and the next day there a behavior problem they're an education problem and it's snowballs

and the studies of the companies show this that maybe a third of the young children and teenagers

on these apps have not just distorted perceptions of self-image but they have core sleep

they have increased depression they have anxiety they have social phobia and these traits really

stand out in magnified ways for people who are on these platforms at a young age

this episode is brought to you in part by the table podcast from the Hendrick Center at Dallas

Elogical Seminary I'm Darrell Bach one of the hosts and I invite you to join us as we discuss

issues of God and culture which includes anything and everything listen on your podcast app or at

DTS.edu slash the table. Sarah I know that Kaylee was under the age of 13 when she first got

on to these platforms is this akin to underage drinking like she had her first beer before she

turned 21 she was clearly violating the apps terms of service right I think where the distinction

with lies in terms of accessibility you don't have to input an age when you get into YouTube so

it would be the equivalent of her going to serve yourself kind of bar where they don't check your

ID you maybe aren't placing an order but you can get whatever you want so while you can't really

upload a video unless you say that you're 13 or older you can get on youtube.com without logging

into any account and you can watch any video that you want and that's where we do see as sort of a

gateway a lot of people getting on to YouTube getting addicted to the platforms and then making

an account once they're already addicted a lot of platforms like Instagram didn't even ask for

people's ages until relatively recently so a lot of people who were underage got on the platforms

at a time where they weren't being asked their age by the time they're already on the apps if they

ever are asked their age they know just lying about your age is how you can stay on the app and in

some cases people are never asked at all for Kayleigh's mom she was aware at least of dangers for

example on Facebook so she never let her daughter on Facebook she didn't want her daughter downloading

any apps on her phone that she didn't know about it was an old hammy down phone from Kayleigh's older

sister the mom installed some softwares on it so Kayleigh couldn't download new apps without the

mom's approval the mom also put time limits on the phone so it would shut off after a certain

amount of use per day but Kayleigh was able to get the apps because her older sister had downloaded

them and even though her mom wiped her phone Kayleigh was still able to download the app without

her mom meeting approval so in her mom's mind she's trying her best in in doing what she can to

prevent access to the phone we're all sitting here in 2026 we know a lot about these apps they've

been around for a long time but we have to think in the minds of these parents we're looking back

in 2012 where YouTube is telling parents and presentations let us be your digital babysitter

parents need times to cook dinner for their kids parents need time to do laundry clean up after

the day let us be your babysitter there was a big misconception around the safety of these apps

to begin with but I also think there were just a lot of unknowns a lot of people back in 2012 just

thought oh what a good way to connect with people Rachel how can you parse that out to say

this was the platform I mean if a teenager already has a bad relationship with her mom for example

or is struggling with high school algebra who's to say that it's the app that did this nobody comes

from a life without any sort of difficulty there is no perfect life there's no perfect family

what we had here was a teenage girl who's now a young adult who went through a childhood that

did have difficulty but the biggest impact in her life was social media even if her life was sort

of like a dry wilderness with dry branches that in and of itself doesn't start a big wildfire you

have to have some sort of spark and the spark was YouTube and social media and then social media

just continued to pour gasoline and it really set fire to her life and the thing that's scary

about social media and the impact on kids and kids brains that has been studied and now confirmed

time and time again is that social media in particular changes the pathways in the grain

and these super personalized algorithms completely altered the way a child develops

and it social media itself the use of it actually makes it harder for a kid to deal with normal life

experiences so almost every kid in life has had a negative social interaction with somebody

and sometimes it's more severe than others but social media actually makes it harder to deal with

those types of interactions and these companies knew it and their documents showed it

you can go back to early documents of YouTube that we were privileged to see only because

the judge ordered production part of a lawsuit so we got to see these confidential and

ultra confidential documents where they actually wrote our goal is not viewership

it's addiction that's what they were after they live in an attention economy where the more time

that people's eyeballs spend on their apps the more money they make and so they would set goals

how can we increase the time people spend on our apps and their engineers would go to work

on those goals we've got to get this much of a percentage bump this year oh let's put in list

scroll where all you have to do is take your finger and do a finger swipe and you can scroll

and then let's change the algorithm so that about every 10th scroll you get a video that kind of

jolt's shoe but our artificial intelligence says is one you might find enticing and that'll make

you stay on longer and then the ones that you stay on longer our algorithm will say oh look

they stayed on this one they must like this or this or this about it or they went to that one

because of this teaser frame that must perk their interest and their AI will generate every screen

that should come to you all of these are not incidentals these are purposely engineered by some

of the smartest people on the planet to trap and entice people to addiction on these apps

once I saw the behind the scenes of it all from the company's perspective and I saw the documents

that's when it really hit me what it means to target teens that is their prime audience because

if they can hook somebody at that age they turn that person into a lifelong user and that person

then gives them more and more and more revenue over time teens also are much more susceptible to

social validation and to following the crowd so if you get one teen on the platform their whole

friend group is going to want to get on the platform and that's where accessibility comes into play

as well a big part of the problem is as much as you can limit one kid's access to a device when they

go to school if somebody at school has a device and they're on these apps that's another way that

these companies are able to kind of target these teens by getting into the friend groups essentially

so this is a very unique age group that's been specifically targeted not just in forms of ads

and in forms of content but in terms of who are we pushing our algorithms towards who are we

trying to reach how are our notifications going to be structured so we can make sure we hit big

with teens some of the ways for example that likes are distributed on the platforms and notifications

that you're getting you get them in batches sometimes which then you look down at your phone and you

see that 10 people liked your post you want to immediately go click on your post you want to

immediately go look at your phone when I talk to other people that are Gen Z and I tell them yeah

I mean we're arguing about how social media is addictive their response is always well of course

it is I don't think it's really a foreign concept to people who are on these apps that they are

addictive so essentially the younger generations are very knowledgeable not only of how it all works

but of the fact that it is addictive and it was designed to be addictive now I hear that Rachel

and I have seen a reference to the 1996 Communications Decency Act section 230 a number of times

I wonder if you could explain how that is or isn't relevant here it's hugely relevant here section 230

was originally supposed to be for the New York Times or the Houston Chronicle or publications

that they wouldn't be held liable for harm from the content of the publication the goal was

you know freedom of speech and for these to protect publishers and that the sad thing is in the

internet age and in the age of these platforms that has really been taken and worked in a way

that really advantages these companies so these companies have fought tooth and nail and lobby to

make it where they can kind of hide behind section 230 and not be held accountable for any harmful

content on their platforms and this is content like self harm content suicide content eating disorder

content the company say you know what because of section 230 we get a free pass we're just

publishers even though they create an algorithm that elevates that type of content so we needed to

find a way to focus not on the content on the apps but to focus on the features themselves because

even if you have a kid that's staring at good content it's still not healthy for the developing

brain if a kid's looking at and scrolling videos of sunshine and rainbows and butterflies for three

hours and it keeps them from going out and playing in a park or being with their family or getting

real life social interaction so the focus of the lawsuit was on these features because the company

exploited these addictive features I hope that the law eventually will change so that companies can

be held accountable for bad content on their platform too but for now our focus has to be on

the features and there is a lot of science just about that too Mark if section 230 or those who

appeal to it are some who pass on the other side as it were in the story of the Good Samaritan

who else has passed on the other side regulators lawmakers are they culpable here too oh I think so

we live in a society where our elected officials are able to take money from any number of

different people for any number of different reasons and there's really little to no regulation

if you want to funnel money to politicians for their elections or their campaigns or they're

inaugural balls and so you give a billion dollars you can stand behind the president when he's

taking the oath of office you've got a lot of people who need to own up to the fact they're not

handling business the way they ought to and I put it at the feet of the politicians who refuse

to change section 230 I hold up politicians like Senator Josh Hawley from Missouri who has

fought for these changes Martian Blackburn from Tennessee who has fought for these changes

who recognize we need to change 230 but how do you get enough votes we live in such a

difficult political environment to get enough votes to do anything one side says yes the other

side says no almost as a knee jerk reaction and if both sides say yes you've still got to convince

the White House or whoever else you've got to deal with so I do think that the political situation

is one that needs to take some measure of accountability and responsibility but I really think that

the ones who's most aggressively responsible are these platforms that are purposely putting

in these addictive features I told Mark Zuckerberg and cross examination I said you know

we know in the world that there are vulnerable children children who don't have the educational

wherewithal don't have the socio economic wherewithal don't have the home life stability don't have

the emotional fortitude true true he agreed I said they're vulnerable children in the US true true in

the state of California true true in our neighborhoods true true we know that that's a given

I said so then it seems to me there are three things we can do and it's interesting you bring

the goods married enough because it is in my brain as I'm planning this cross examination now

three responses we could have mr Zuckerberg number one we can just walk on by not our problem

I don't need to look there I don't need to investigate I'll just keep going live in my life

that's one option isn't it yes option two we can help we can see these people know these people are

there and try and do our bit to try and help them overcome some of these difficulties and

challenges they face with their life couldn't we do that he said yes we could and the good

Samaritan story stops there but the story of meta does not and so I said there's a third option

we can pray upon those vulnerable children we can decide we can use them and make money

off of them we can target them make their situation worse and enrich our own coffers

in the meantime and then of course my big question is why does meta choose option three

in the story of the good Samaritan the gospel of Luke ends this parable saying that the expert in

the law replied the one who has mercy on him is the one who is the neighbor and in that single

sentence I see this tug and pull of mercy and justice as we close what does justice and mercy

look like for two particular groups first for the parent who discovers that his or her son

is swept up into social media addiction and then maybe for the harder party what does justice

and mercy look like for tech companies because we want to blame them as though they're these inanimate

objects but they are populated and powered by humans who are also made in the image of God.

My guess six eight puts those two terms into one verse what does the Lord require of you to do

justice love mercy and walk humbly with your God those three aren't opposite ends of an extreme

they all fit together quite well for the believer justice and mercy go hand in hand we live in a world

where the greatest mercy we can be for the the families and the greatest mercy we can ultimately

beat for the companies is to enforce some measure of justice and accountability so that everybody's

aware of what's going on so that people are not allowed to take advantage of others and that

extends mercy where it should be including correction where correction needs to be the parent who

never corrects a child is not merciful to that child they're actually the opposite so I think

that justice and mercy go hand in hand and the humility that's added by the myconverse is just

our posture always needs to be that we are under the ages the authority the control and the glory

of the Lord. Justice requires a real actual scale if there's an imbalance God commands us

to help the marginalized to help the poor to help the downtrodden to help the people who have been

hurt and part of justice and mercy in that that balance is writing a wrong so when it comes to these

companies and the harm that they've caused justice is not just a concept for the courtroom it's

a reflection of God's character and injustice is something where the goal is to restore

what was imbalanced and the wrong that took place. Mark Rachel Sarah thank you so much for this

conversation and listeners we always appreciate the opportunity to wrestle through complex issues

with you here on the bulletin thank you for taking us along as you walk the dog or fold the laundry

or commute to work we will see you next time. The bulletin is a production of Christianity today

it's produced by Clarissa Mall the associate producer is Alexa Burke this episode was mixed by

Kevin Morris theme music by Dan Phelps Eric Petrick is the executive producer of the bulletin

and Matt Stevens is our senior producer if you enjoyed this episode please leave us a rating

and review to help more people know about the show thanks for listening

there's a question that you've cared for a while now about faith about science about whether

they can both be true at the same time wonder allergies a podcast that takes that question seriously

not to settle it but to explore it and not just as ideas but as stories true stories from real people

wonderology is a show about science faith and the search for awe you can find wonderology wherever

it is that you get your podcasts or at wonderologyshow.com let's get curious