Charlie welcomes his pastor, Rob McCoy of Godspeak Calvary Church in Thousand Oaks, back to The Charlie Kirk Show. The two discuss HR 1, HR 5, and Critical Race Theory, relating it all back to a biblical and scriptural grounding to make heads or tails of the rapidly shifting cultural and political landscapes. Get your dose of faith and sanity as Pastor Rob and Charlie work through many of the most pressing questions, issues, and challenges confronting America today. Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Hey, everybody.
Today in the Charlie Kirk Show, super important episode.
Stop what you're doing and listen to every word of this.
You are going to love it.
As always, you can email us your questions, freedom at charliekirk.com.
Action-packed episode, everybody.
Thank you for supporting us.
Thank you for emailing us.
And also, get involved with TurningPointUSA at tpusa.com.
Can't forget that.
Buckle up, everybody.
Here we go.
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campuses.
I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.
I want to thank Charlie.
He's an incredible guy.
His spirit, his love of this country.
He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created.
Turning point USA.
We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.
That's why we are here.
Hey, everybody.
Welcome.
Here with my pastor, Rob McCoy.
We're going to switch it up a little bit.
He's going to be asking me questions, but who knows where it will go.
Rob, let's do it.
Thanks, Charlie.
I actually, I'm glad that we get to do this format because not many people have the privilege to live in your brain.
And stuff that just seems like it's normal to you, the rest of the world doesn't get.
And I'll give you a perfect example.
HR1, HR5.
I get questions on this all day long.
Is it going to pass the Senate?
What is the ramifications?
What are we up against?
HR1 dealing with, you know, voting.
Yeah, if our vote's going to count, this thing on the surface looks like an absolute mess.
HR5, are both of these going to pass the Senate?
We know that the Congress has voted.
Talk to folks because for you, as I was talking to you earlier, it just seems like it just rolls off the top of your head.
But I was just mesmerized, and you have the ability to make the complex simple.
Would you do that for our listeners?
Yeah, first of all, great to be on, Rob, and I love your new show.
Oh, thanks.
I learned a lot from Bill Federer last week.
He was great.
That was watching this.
Go back a couple episodes, watch it.
He said some stuff quickly that was just so wise.
Yeah.
And I actually am doing an entire podcast just based on like one sentence.
I said one sentence, I could take it.
I told you, you've got to listen to this.
You did.
It was that good.
It was awesome.
So, yeah, we were driving in the car yesterday, and I was saying, I was explaining parts of HR1, HR5, and I thought I was just being repetitious, but actually, I think that some people need to hear it, and we need to go through it.
So let me tell you the essence of each bill.
HR1 is universal mail-in voting, which would basically federally mandate federal funding that every single human being in the North American continent gets a ballot.
Now, it's a little bit of an over-exaggeration, but not totally.
Not totally.
Registered voter, not even.
It would be even citizens in certain states.
It'd be supplying, it would be supplying federal funding towards even potentially illegal aliens getting ballots.
A massive deluge of ballots.
They just show up at every door, basically.
Essentially, and it would be money you have to spend, duplicate ballots, you name it.
It would be nationalizing our elections, going against what the Constitution clearly says, that state legislatures have to be the ones that are involved, not just involved, but are the ones that designate how elections are actually done in their states.
They want to basically turn the entire country into California, basically.
And as a Californian, I don't want that.
That's right.
So let's go to HR5.
That's the Equality Act that has passed the House of Representatives.
And this is the greatest assault on the church that basically no one wants to talk about.
And the unborn.
The unborn, on traditional marriage, on religious consciousness, on free speech, you name it.
It's a mishmash of a bill.
The long and short of it is that HR5, which has passed the House and it's now pending in front of the Senate, basically will expand the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include gender identity.
Crazy.
Not, let me be very clear.
Not chromosomal structure, but gender identity.
It's a very big difference.
So it's how you feel, how you might self-identify.
So it's completely and totally subjective, not objective.
Right.
And completely fluid for most people.
Totally.
So one day you could be a woman.
Another day you could be an elk.
The next day you can be a man.
And then I use the wrong pronoun because you fluided out of one into another, and I'm in trouble.
Correct.
And so what starts with what sounds to be a very, very nascent or non-controversial great word, Charlie?
Nascent.
Love it.
Thank you.
Seriously, you say these words, I write them down, I go back and look them up.
I do know nascent.
That's a great word.
Thank you.
And if you don't know what it means, just kind of innocent, right?
Yeah.
What starts as something to be rather innocent or, oh, that's not that big of a deal.
We are now entertaining.
It's past the house.
It's no longer, this is not just a college lecture that's being taught at Berkeley.
This is not just some wacky guy on YouTube that says, oh, I'm going to come in and tell you what to believe about gender.
No, this is potentially becoming written federal law.
I think it might be unconstitutional.
I'll get to that in a second.
But let's just talk about the danger that it poses.
Basically, what one interpretation of the law could be, which I believe is as written, is if you hold a biblical view of marriage, one man, one woman, God created man, God created women, woman, that is right there in Genesis.
It's as clear as can be, then you are violating the Civil Rights Act, an extension of it.
That's what the Equality Act does.
Now, the argument that they're making, the transgender activists, the LGBT activists, they say that transgender people need the same protections that blacks needed back in the 1960s.
We all remember those times, Jim Crow, segregation, poll taxes, legitimate racial discrimination.
The problem is that they are drafting a solution in search of a problem.
There is no evidence of widespread discrimination against transgender people.
There is not massive issues happening where transgender people are not able to move up in society, get careers.
And also, we're talking about a very, very minimal portion of the American population.
So basically, what the Equality Act does, there's like six or seven major components.
If I could walk through just some of them, please.
The major problem here is that it broadens the definition of what needs to be a protected class in America.
So they are now saying a protected class basically is anyone who is gender fluid.
So for example, Rob, potentially, you as a minister, as running a church, you might have to go against your biblical beliefs to say, well, I have to now endorse or tolerate someone with a transgender lifestyle or someone.
So let's say you're running an adoption clinic.
Right.
And you say, we believe marriage is one man, one woman at our adoption clinic at Godspeak, right?
The Equality Act could potentially put government sanctions, government penalties saying, no, you believe in biblical marriage.
Therefore, your adoption clinic can't run.
We're going to tax you, sanction you, put you in court.
The penalty is not exactly specified, but the penalty nevertheless is threatened.
Another part of this, which is just the obvious part, it's not even a religious component of it, is it will basically say there's no thing whatsoever such as protection of women-only activities.
Tragic.
Which is against science.
It's against the idea of the protection of women.
It's against second-wave feminism.
It's against everything that we believe in as trying to be not just the proper role of what men and women should have in society.
And I know that's a politically incorrect term, but I really don't care.
But I don't think that men should be in women's sports.
Agreed.
Biological males should not be participating in sports with biological females.
And that's a pretty agreed upon truth.
You would think.
You would think.
So now basically we're saying women's sports don't matter.
Right.
That every woman's record on the pennant at your local high school might as well be taken down.
There's only men's sports.
Right.
And so women might not be married.
And biological men, if you don't do well in male sports, just go into the female.
You'll break all the records.
That's right.
And so we're already seeing this in Connecticut.
We're seeing this in other states where they've allowed biological men.
And these are people that we believe deserve compassion.
They deserve the love of Jesus Christ, but they're suffering from a mental condition called gender dysphoria.
I've said this before.
People say I'm transphobic.
I'm really not afraid of trans people.
I am afraid of what the mandates will do to destroy female sports.
And so I'm not saying this from a position of hatred.
Instead, it's actually a position of love and protection.
Yeah.
It's not popular, but it's right.
But it's also, yeah, it's factual and scientific and it's logical and reasonable.
And so, again, I've been through, I actually have been on the leading edge of this transgender discussion for three or four years.
We had the there are only two gender shirts.
So this is not something that's new to us.
Yeah.
Common sense nowadays is not common.
In the American psychology of medicine, for decades, we would call people that had gender identity problems gender dysphoria.
Right.
Now we platform it as transgenderism, as if a gender change is something that is perfectly normal.
We must understand it.
There actually might be somebody in you screaming to get out.
There's no political research or science behind this.
And it also goes directly against the laws of nature and science, which I thought was a really big thing of the left.
That's what they keep telling us.
But instead of saying, hold on a second, we have a very small portion of American society.
Let's try to accommodate voluntarily through institutions, through people being decent to one another, some form of adjustments.
We are now going to use the heavy brute force of the federal government to say, if you do not allow biological men into female sports, you could lose attack status.
You could then be under criminal sanctions.
And so what we're seeing here is the opposite of tolerance.
We're now seeing the intolerant assume the badge of tolerance and use the full force of the federal government to say, we're going to punish you if you don't go about doing this.
And I'm just, I'm asking, I ask a very simple question.
Where are the second wave feminists?
Where is Gloria Steinman?
Where are the people that were marching on the streets and burning their bras and all this kind of female?
Some of them are talking.
Some are and they're being canceled.
But Rob, it is not a mass movement.
No.
So here's something.
I just have some very simple questions for Nancy Pelosi.
And this is like a really simple question.
She says, in 2018, we got more women elected to Congress than any other time in American history.
Nancy Pelosi, what is a woman?
Good question.
For her.
And if her answer is a woman is someone who says they're a woman, then okay, it's completely subjective.
My answer is a woman is someone who has XX chromosomes.
That's simple.
Yeah, science.
That is science.
Yeah.
Now, some people say, well, what about someone that might be born with an additional chromosome, right?
It's intersex, right?
So that would be the exception.
Well, therefore, using Aristotelian logic, there's an exception, there's a rule.
What's the rule?
You don't make rules for exceptions.
For exceptions, right?
You accommodate, because of our biblical view of compassion, any sort of arrangement to say, okay, instead of saying that the man who thinks he's a woman should go in the woman's locker room, why doesn't that person maybe just change in the restroom?
A separate restroom.
A transgender restroom.
Right.
You don't have to, right?
The point is that all of a sudden you're going to force that person into a very uncomfortable environment for other women, right?
The point, most high schools don't have a transgender person, by the way.
This is an unpopular opinion, too.
And it's just true.
Instead, we have to have this massive upheaval of institutions that generally worked in search of a problem.
This is typical of the left, but it gets even worse than this, right?
It gets even worse because now we're talking about going after deeply held religious beliefs.
And Robert Francis O'Rourke, who ran for president unsuccessfully, calls himself Beto from Texas, the fake Hispanic Irishman who came and he was asked a question.
And those of us that watch news closely, we said there's something not right about this when he said, he was asked a question, would you force ministers to marry same-sex couples?
And he said, I would.
That's where this is headed.
Yeah.
And it doesn't say it explicitly in HR5, but it lays the philosophical and legal groundwork and potentially even the enforcement, where all of a sudden a pastor is going to be saying, you're going to have to marry a same-sex couple, directly against our beliefs in the Bible.
And then it goes after pro-life clinics potentially as well.
That is of great concern as well.
You want to share with us how you see that?
And so I'm not sure the specific language.
However, based on summaries that I really trust on the bill, that they are including the idea that if you are a healthcare provider, you must also perform abortions.
You can't not perform abortions.
Because apparently that's providing health care.
Yeah, so they can, abortion is not health care.
Abortion is the opposite of healthcare.
It is the termination of a life.
Of a life.
And again, here's just as someone's watching this, it's a very simple question for a liberal or a pro-abortion activist: when does life begin?
Yeah.
And so I was listening to a discussion the other day of a pro-choice guy and Dennis Prager, nice guy, Ayn Rand atheist.
I agreed with him on some things, disagreed him on others.
He says, well, I don't, I believe it's a fetus.
It's, hold on a second.
Which is Latin for baby.
Yeah, exactly.
And so, but the question is, what species is it on the animal kingdom ladder?
Is it a Homo sapien or not?
And so his argument probably, well, it's not a completely developed one.
Oh, but it's still a Homo sapien.
It's still a human being.
And so unless the argument of the secular pro-abortionists is that somehow a fetus goes through some sort of metamorphosis of a species change, then they can't possibly get over the hump or the hurdle.
And I know you guys do some phenomenal work with Seth Grub and otherwise to articulate it.
That's a human life.
Well, what you're alluding to is the acronym, the sled acronym.
The four arguments saying that it's not a human being is size.
Yes.
So a larger person is less valuable than a smaller person.
That's correct.
Level of development.
So an adolescent is less valuable than a fully grown adult.
Environment.
Well, so I'm less valuable here in Phoenix than I am in California.
Their strongest argument is degree of dependency because it's dependent on the mother to live.
However, does that mean someone who's dependent on oxygen or insulin is less valuable than someone who isn't?
And so all those arguments are dispelled.
It's a human being.
That's what it is.
They're wrong on the scientific, the rational, the logical, and the moral.
They're wrong on all four.
All four.
And so if we were to go to a developmentally disabled clinic here in Phoenix and God forbid someone would take a firearm and kill one of those people, that would be murder.
That person is dependent on survival on an oxygen machine or somebody else's assistance.
It's still murder.
And so I love the sled acronym.
But anyway, going back to the point is that HR5 would mandate the facilitation of abortion services regardless of religious beliefs.
So if you're going to be in the healthcare industry and you have a conviction, believing morally and scientifically, that is a termination of our human life.
It doesn't matter.
You can't practice if you don't participate.
That's right.
And this whole thing kind of is packaged nicely in a complete perversion of the word equality.
Yeah.
And so equality.
It's usually how government works.
It's also how the left works, right?
Exactly.
And so, equality, we first find equality all the way back in ancient Greek, which I think the word is eleutheria or either isonomia.
It's one of the two.
I think it's eleutheria.
It always meant equality under the law.
Always.
It was not equality of outcome.
And so they're now perverting, well, equality under the law means that someone who might think they're something else, and this is this perversion of justice, right?
Where you and I believe that justice should be blind, should be applied equally.
It's found in the Torah, right?
They think that justice should be partial and subjective based on race, class, and gender.
Civil law comes out of moral law.
And if there isn't a moral absolute, civil law is open to be weaponized for the subjection of other human beings.
Totally.
Yeah.
And one of the biggest problems is that the academy and how we educate our children teaches that there's no such thing as absolute truth.
And it is an extension of postmodernism.
It's an extension of secular nihilism.
And so if you remove any form of absolutes, then we all just have a bunch of strongly worded opinions.
So we've got two bills here by your description that are of great concern in this country.
You should be with everyone.
Most people are unaware or ignorant of it or just haven't had time to examine it like you have.
Now you've made us aware.
What is please, God, is there a snowball's chance in hell of these things happening?
Are these going to pass with our elected officials?
Where do these stand right now in the halls of government with those who govern by our consent?
First of all, that they'd even be entertained, let alone passed.
Help us, Charlie.
What do we got going on here?
I did an entire podcast on this, and I'm not one to give praise to Democrats, but I will hear because they deserve it.
So there is a parliamentary precedent in the United States Senate.
The Senate's a very goofy place.
It is a lot of rules, a lot of procedure I don't even understand, but I understand enough to be able to explain this component of it, which there's something called the filibuster.
You've probably heard this before.
Strom Thurman most famously used it and talked for 23 hours straight to try to kill the Civil Rights Act.
But the filibuster basically requires 60 votes to then get a vote on a bill.
So basically, you have to vote to see if we want to go vote on a bill.
It's a two-step, sometimes a three-step, sometimes a four-step process, right?
You have to get cloture, end of debate, all these sorts of things.
Okay.
And so the filibuster most famously got put into question under Barack Obama with then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Black guy Harry.
Yes, who famously got a black guy because he fell on a treadmill.
Apparently.
Allegedly.
Harry Reid comes up in 2013 and says, Hey, I'm sick of this.
We have all these judges we want to put on the circuit court.
I'm going to break the filibuster, which basically says I'm only going to require a majority vote.
Now, the filibuster is not constitutional.
It's not.
It's precedent.
Thomas Jefferson said, I want the Senate to be a majoritarian body.
Other founding fathers disagreed.
The point is that it is a measure that was put in to try to get bipartisan consensus.
Basically, we should not change the way we do things quickly without both parties agreeing.
Now, the filibuster has been played with many different times.
Obamacare was passed the 59 votes because they said it was deficit neutral.
There's all sorts of different ways to play with it.
But the biggest one was in 2013 when Harry Reid said, okay, we're now going to do appointments by majority up or down vote.
And this was Mitch McConnell gave that famous speech and said, you're going to regret this.
We're going to put it against you.
All this, there's going to be a time when you're going to be the minority, all of that.
Okay.
So then, fast forward to Justice Antonin and Scalia dying in February of 2016, vacancy on the Supreme Court.
Mitch McConnell keeps it open.
Donald Trump wins the presidency.
They want to fill the seat.
They nominate Neil Gorsuch and Mitch McConnell says, well, you guys told me we can do appointments by just an up or down vote.
Neil Gorsuch was confirmed, I think, with 53 or 54 votes.
Same with Brett Kavanaugh with 51 or 52, and then Amy Coney Barrett for 51, 52.
Most of Trump's cabinet was approved by just an up or down vote.
So appointments are now done based on precedent, based by an up or down 51 vote, all you need, or even 50 if you have the tiebreaker, the vice president.
The tax cut bill passed in 2017, because it was a revenue bill.
McConnell said we're going to allow an up or down vote of 51.
However, big structural changes, such as HR1, HR5, adding another seat to the Supreme Court, adding new states, you still have to get over the filibuster.
So what does that mean?
Well, to break the filibuster, you need to get 50 people to agree to then break the filibuster.
I know this might say, what does that mean?
Here's the long short of it.
This is good.
You need every Democrat to agree.
Right.
Joe Manchin and Kirsten Cinema.
God bless them both.
Seriously.
Non-sarcastic.
Not sarcastic.
Have said, we will not vote to eliminate the filibuster.
So essentially.
I'm going to send them both a Christmas card.
You know, and I've praised them on air, and I said they have more courage than most Republicans do.
And it's true.
I disagree with them on abortion.
I disagree with them on borders.
Now, why are they doing this?
Why are the Democrats all two Democrats getting in the way of massive societal fundamental transformation?
Well, they're not dumb.
They just made themselves the most powerful people in Washington, D.C. Exactly.
Every piece of legislation has to go past the desk of cinema and Manchin.
They just took the power away from Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Ward, and they made themselves the kings of the Senate.
Anything important has to go through them, has to get their stamp of approval.
HR1 and HR5 are top-tier priorities of the Democrats.
Manchin has said, I am not going to vote to lift the filibuster.
The only reason that it might is if they can get some form of an opinion from Senate parliamentarians saying, oh, HR1 doesn't require a filibuster lift.
I don't think that's going to happen.
Every legal scholar says it should be safe.
So with all that being equal, it is unlikely that HR1 and HR5 pass the United States Senate, but it's not impossible.
Powers it be, people that are kind of in the puppet master class in our country can start working the phones and say, Manchin and cinema, for one thing, you're going to vote to lift the filibuster.
So with all of those facts being known, public pressure on these people, but not public pressure.
I think public praise is where we need to go.
Exactly.
I think that we need to put on positive encouragement to cinema and manchin saying, thank you.
Please don't lift the filibuster.
That's the sort of praise I think they need.
More of carrot, less stick.
It's easier to move someone than it is to remove someone.
Yes.
And I agree.
And move them with praise.
And most senators hear nothing but negative because most of what they do is terrible.
And so, but the fact that HR1 and HR5, the fact we even have to, and if you say, what is HR?
I mean, it's House resolution, okay?
The fact that we even have to seriously consider this, Rob, shows that we have a majority of House members that want to destroy the church as we know it in America and fundamentally change the way we do elections.
If you look at the religious liberty clauses in the Canadian government, their Constitution, they're almost equal, if not similar, to our own First Amendment.
And you currently, I think he still is, you have a pastor who's in jail for preaching the gospel.
And yet you say it'll never happen in America.
Well, it's in Canada now, and they have the exact same First Amendment, basically, religious liberty, freedom of speech.
And he's in prison for doing nothing more than preaching the gospel during a pandemic with a virus that has over a 99% survival rate.
Do you know why he's in jail?
Share with everybody.
Because the people aren't mad enough.
Exactly.
And I haven't heard a lot of pushback from churches, especially Canadian churches.
No, most churches don't care.
Yeah.
So, and we're going to change it.
There's some good.
There's a great pastor out there.
There's some great pastors out there.
I had a great meeting about this last night, naming the good guys.
And I've called out, you know, the cowards, you know, the Andy Stanleys, the Rick Warrens.
And I'd love to talk to them.
You know, I'd love to have a conversation with them.
Anytime.
But, you know, they're a big reason why America's in the place it is.
And I tweeted out, and I said, when is Rick Warren and Andy Stanley going to talk about how the American church very well might become criminalized under the Equality Act?
And, you know, Rick Warren, who's a California pastor, says God doesn't care how you vote.
According to Rick Warren, there's no difference between the parties, no difference between the genders.
Love is going to heal everything.
And I mention him by name on purpose because he's one of America's largest pastors.
He sold one of the most, I think the third best-selling Christian book of all time outside of C.S. Lewis and maybe Max Lucato.
He wrote Purpose-Driven Life.
Right.
Millions of copies.
And he's a very gifted orator.
He is.
But he is carrying water for some very, very dark forces.
You know, my life was blessed by his.
Me too.
And I got a chance to meet him.
He spoke into my life.
I was grateful for it.
Here I am 56 years old.
I was a seminary student back then.
And I'm looking and I'm thinking, what has happened to this great man?
Because the gospel brings freedom.
And they talk in their church because I read the letter in response to asking them to open.
I was just emailing him.
Yeah.
And I read that response and the response was shocking to me that, well, we're open for our homeless ministries and we're open for our counseling ministries, but we don't want to endanger the public.
And I said, endanger the public?
What about the abused being quarantined with the abusers?
You heard what I said.
You were great.
And I laid that out and I think you're complicit.
And you say you're not political, but you are because you're fishing downstream to collect the human waste you helped create by not standing in opposition to the tyranny that created the state that has the number one homeless rate in America and the number one poverty rate in America.
Yeah, I think that, look, Rick Warren's failing his test.
Yeah.
And I hope he changes quite a lot.
Please, Rick.
Pastor Rick, please.
He's being tested.
And I don't like going after people's intentions.
I really don't because they usually are a lot more complicated than just one or two.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Whatever his intention is, the action and the result are devastating and devastating.
And also other pastors look up to him.
And so other pastors say, well, Rick Warren says it doesn't matter how you vote.
There's no difference between whether or not there's no difference.
You know what that's saying?
Rick Warren basically said there's no difference between Planned Parenthood and a pregnancy crisis crisis.
Rick Warren has said planned parenthood and a pregnancy crisis center are moral equivalents.
That's Rick Warren's position.
That's not the Lord's position.
No, it's not.
And it's not the biblical decision.
And again, I want to offer grace to him.
Maybe he's confused.
Maybe there's a lot of different forces.
Again, intentions are tough.
Now, we got on Rick Warren specifically around HR5.
So now here's a chance for all the pastors watching, for the people watching on this, you should really email your pastor and say, hey, why haven't you given a public sermon about HR5?
You know, Rob, it was amazing.
I sat down with some people recently, Christians, great people.
They're like, what's HR5?
I said, has your pastor not?
They said, no, our pastor doesn't get involved in politics.
He says politics is unbiblical.
I said, really?
Unbiblical.
So Esther, Mordecai, Nehemiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Joseph, when they got involved in secular government, God's purpose, that was unbiblical.
Besides that, besides the fact that they've decided to take an expo marker, a scissors, and white out to the Bible, how on earth does he even think you're going to function as soon as the Equality Act is passed?
You saw the clip with Senator Paul contending with Dr. Levin.
The man who thinks he's a woman.
Yeah, the man who thinks he's a woman.
And he's laying out, saying, This is, you're mutilating children.
That's correct.
Their sexual organs.
What they do in the Islamic world, you're doing to them.
Will you renounce that?
And twice he refused.
He, she refused to answer the question.
Yes.
And did the whole thing, I look forward to working with you and the whatever.
You're dealing with mutilating adolescents in scam, pseudo, whatever science.
It's tragic.
Where's the church?
Yeah, the church is missing.
And for a couple, I mean, there's fear, there's uncertainty.
And I could tell you this: for everyone watching out there, I've gone to the college campuses wearing a shirt that says there are only two genders.
I've defended this position for years.
The science is on your side.
Yeah.
It's not that hard or that bad when you get death threats.
You'll get over it.
And not only is science on your side, so is the Bible.
But here's the important point.
Unity.
Yeah, that's exactly right.
There's not one scientific fact that is incongruent with the Bible.
Exactly.
Not one.
Spherical earth, germ theory, the idea of infectious diseases, quarantining the sick.
It's all there.
It's all there.
There is not one thing the Bible commands you to do that is not good for you, that does not make you live a long and prosperous life, that is inconsistent with the teachings of the Bible.
I mean, it's going to be the teachings of the discoveries of science.
In fact, science has only confirmed what the Bible has only told us.
That's a side note.
Sorry.
Oh, that's okay.
People need to hear that, Charlie.
You can't say it enough.
I would also add, and I think this is good for our pastors to hear.
If we don't, look, let's put our eschatological differences aside, pre-tria, premillennial, post-tria, post-millennial, reformed, Arminian.
Let's put it aside for this.
If we don't start defending liberty, we're going to argue those theological terms from prison.
Pastors, Jesus came to set the captives free.
He's come that you might have life and life more abundant.
Exodus is setting captives free.
You'll know the truth and the truth will set you free.
Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there's liberty.
Why are we putting this yoke of bondage on our children, especially in Charlie?
Nobody, in my estimation, has covered critical race theory better than you.
Now, Vodi Bachman, a number of others, they've done great jobs.
Voteies, phenomenal.
Phenomenal.
With that being said, we have churches and Christian schools embracing critical race theory.
And in California, while we have a church that's facing $2 million in fines and a threat to imprison the pastors, and there's 15,000 calls going unanswered to their crisis hotline in Santa Clara County, and we have the largest number of opioid overdose deaths in the history of the country, and churches are the target.
Pastors, liberty is God's idea, not man's idea.
We got to stand.
I agree.
And, Charlie, you have equipped so many pastors to understand this.
Thank you.
I consider it an honor to be a part of what you're doing.
You bless me more than you know.
Well, thank you.
And likewise, it goes right back towards you for giving me confidence to actually speak in the Christian world because I, you know, we talked about this many times.
I just didn't think pastors or churches were very engaged or involved in this.
But to the critical race theory aspect of this and what the driving component behind this that I think people have to realize is that it is very tempting to want to find a new thing that makes you feel good but does not do good.
Right.
And critical race theory is sound bites packaged in evil, immoral philosophy.
Marxism.
Marxism, postmodernism, secular nihilism.
The list goes on.
And so the critical theory in general, who came from Michelle Foucault, not Michelle Foucault, Herbert Marcuza, Michelle Foucault talked about it.
So did Jacques Derrida.
It's all French to me, and it should be to you.
Point is that it's all a bunch of rubbish, and it really is some of the most dangerous, insidious, divisive ideas nicely packaged into something that is so pernicious to our culture, and that word means dangerous, to what we are, what we're actually trying to advance, what we're trying to defend.
And so, look, it's a testing moment for the American church.
And so, Rob, you've been on the cutting edge of this.
You understand all of this really well.
But for churches that have not yet, first of all, they're not open yet.
Oh, my goodness.
But that's a different topic for a different time.
And they're not commenting on this, but even kind of parents that might be watching this and Christian, I understand it could be confusing.
And James Lindsay, atheist, liberal, I've plugged his book, Cynical Theories.
You've talked to him.
He's great.
He has a great line where he says, this stuff sounds so outrageous and so new, you think you're dumb because it doesn't make sense.
When in reality, what they're saying is dumb.
They're like, oh, well, don't you know that everything is racist and all white people are racist?
And I have a doctorate from Stanford.
When in reality, that person has given, he or she has run out of things to actually study and research that are meaningful, that they go create these ridiculous theories that give them a platform and give them relevancy.
And so, look, I know that you've gone through a little dispute locally.
I want to encourage you.
What you've done there is the right thing.
Critical race theory is an immoral, evil viewpoint, philosophy that must be stopped at all costs.
You know, I want to commend that school that we addressed the concern over one of the speakers because they said, let's not have the speaker come.
That takes a lot of courage for that school to do that.
Why that speaker was coming in the first place is beyond me.
Everybody's got to learn, right?
You always hear me say this.
People aren't the enemy.
They're the opportunity.
Ideas are the enemy.
Specific ideas are the enemy that want to enslave human beings and pit us against one another.
And David Engelhardt's message out of Galatians.
That's really good.
I just ripped him off on Sunday.
Lock, stock, and barrel.
Good preachers borrow, great preachers steal.
That's a joke.
Relax, everybody.
But Galatians, this idea that we're given the gospel, why are we putting this yoke on our children?
That they're to walk around because of their immutable trait, that they somehow have to make restitution for sins that happened in the 1800s.
That just doesn't make any sense.
No, it doesn't make sense, but it makes sense if you're trying to destroy decent and civil society.
Right.
And you want the church to buy in.
Last thing, because I know we both got to go.
Can you just say you've been excited because when we listened to Bill Federer?
Yeah, he was great.
He brought up the black American communist.
Yeah, I have his name here, Manning Johnson.
Manning Johnson.
And both you and I are like digging to find this book and read it.
This is really good.
It's like this isn't new.
And he covered it all.
Yeah, it isn't.
And but it's also, it's predictable, right?
Yeah, it is.
So, you know, the enemy always wants to try and call out, call out you in a way that wants to make you dwell in your sin or your flaws, and Jesus liberates you from that.
And that's why I really believe that postmodernism and critical race theory is rooted in a pattern of that is parallel to how the enemy acts and all throughout the Bible, all throughout the scriptures, through temptation, through false promises, through earthly enrichment, all of it.
And the same could be said through American history of this same sort of race, class, and gender struggle that manifests itself through different ways.
And I say this all the time: that if your biggest concern is existential, about systemic racism, and you can't really describe it, you have a really good life.
If your biggest concern is something that's a great line, if your biggest concern is climate change, the people in the slums of India would yearn for a day to worry about something that is not sanitation, survival, and nourishment.
They would love it.
You know what it means when you think the biggest concern is climate change?
You're probably eating three meals a day.
You probably don't have a severe threat of being shot on the streets every day.
Or sailing on the yacht to America.
Whatever it means.
To come and tell them about the existential crisis.
This repetition of the looming existential threat, systemic racism, public health crisis.
The climate change, you know, meteor is going to fall out of the sky if we don't get rid of all fossil fuels.
It actually just takes a step back: like, wow, you're living a really good life.
You have it so much better than you could imagine.
And it's just kind of a rule of thumb where you've designed your whole life around being mad about something outside of you.
Only people that are well-fed can believe such things.
To your point about Manning Johnson, I could dive into it deeper, but it's not dissimilar to that's the sort of tactic that they try to employ against us.
Yeah.
Well, Charlie, going from here, from your vantage point, sitting across from a pastor of a church, what would you want the church to do on behalf of all these issues?
If you could speak to them, what would you want to say?
Communicate, educate, grow your influence, be unafraid about any sort of potential backlash or consequence, but be very rational, reasonable, and logical.
My one critique of a political act of church is a misinformed political act of church.
So for every church I compliment, I also quietly try to say, okay, no, Donald Trump's not going to be president on March 6th.
And that's something that happens.
And, you know, lovingly, there are people in our orbit that have kind of got into that because being politically active is awesome, but do it rationally, logically, and reasonably.
And you say, what does that mean?
It's my, we don't do a perfect job of it, but we do a pretty good job on our program.
If we're talking about it, then it's within probably a framework of what's been vetted.
Does that make sense, Rob?
I think that's an important thing.
It's critical.
Vet it.
If you're wrong, admit it.
And ask for wisdom.
And ask for wisdom.
For example, I used a read a C.S. Lewis quote given to me by a source.
I didn't vet it.
I assume the guy was honest and accurate.
Came to find out by Vishal Magdawaldi, who's on the C.S. Lewis Foundation.
It wasn't a C.S. Lewis quote.
I corrected it.
Showed the clip of Dr. Loritz saying it was from Oaks Christian.
It wasn't.
Still studying that.
I haven't brought that out, but I'm still studying the doctorate side of it.
So I corrected it.
If you're wrong, correct it.
Totally.
And do the best to vet your sources.
Good call, Charlie, on that one.
Yeah.
But no, the church right now needs to.
Look, it's a very simple equation that I have.
That which built will save.
The church built the country.
It'll save it or it's be its demise.
That's simple.
There is no other community.
There is no other parcel of political power left.
Every other institution has been completely secularized and weaponized by the left.
The corporations, the civil service, academia, media communication, Hollywood, all of it.
The only thing that is left is churches like Godspeak and churches like Jack Kibbs and churches like Cody Kools and Ken Graves and Frank Ramsor.
That's it.
And so the question is, will Jürgen Matisias?
You can go on and on.
Mike McClure, yeah.
You know, the Barnetts and his family.
Amen.
Bless them all.
List is great.
The point is, will the Ecclesia, the public square, unify around Isonomia and Eleutheria, freedom and equality, and say, you know what?
No, we are going to contest for every square inch.
And I think that the church is going to be really surprised at how effective they are.
I think that Christians are going to be surprised at how much more clarity you'll have at viewing the news cycle and your life.
And the final thing I'll say on this, Rob, is that I think the church is also going to be surprised that any fear they have of backlash is mostly the enemy whispering in their ear.
And the realities are actually going to make new friends, have more of a positive influence.
And they'll look back and like, I was afraid of what?
A couple bad Facebook comments being called the R-word.
And I'm not diminishing social pressure or potential career cost or all of that, but I think it pales in comparison with the moral obligation and prerogative to get engaged and involved in the public square.
That's a good one to end on.
I want to emphasize that this quite possibly could be the church's finest hour.
When you say that all of these other institutions have been compromised and what's left is the church, the church has always been the protector and the source of liberty.
And I will finish finish with this.
There's no guarantee the church will pass the test.
No.
There's plenty of instances in other countries where the church is complicit.
Love hopes all things, I believe.
No, I only say that to add a little urgency.
I understand.
If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and turn from their wicked ways of apathy and inactivity, then I will hear from heaven and heal their land.
So, Charlie Kirk, thank you.
God bless you guys.
Thanks so much for listening, everybody.
Email us your questions, freedom at charliekirk.com.
If you want to get involved at Turning PointUSA, go to tpusa.com.
Thanks so much for listening.
God bless.
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk. com.