September 6, 2025 • 61 mins
With Steve and John away overseas, Lucretia takes full control of the podcast this week, welcoming back a much more sober special guest, Prof. Vincent Munoz of Notre Dame University, this semester visiting at the University of Texas at Austin.
With Sen. Tim Kaine making an utter jackass of himself by implying that the Lockean philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the American Founders is "what the mullahs in Iran believe," and then our friends Larry Arnn of Hillsdale College and noted evangelical thought leader Doug Wilson getting into a tussle about exactly how Christian principles should be manifest in the American political order, it is obviously high time finally to get into the subject that baffles John Yoo (we know—not that hard to do): the "theological-political problem."
Don't be put off by that clunky-sounding phrase. It really is the key to everything, and few people are more versed and sound on the subject than Phil, who has dropped by the podcast a couple times before, and somehow is till willing to come back for more!
With Sen. Tim Kaine making an utter jackass of himself by implying that the Lockean philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the American Founders is "what the mullahs in Iran believe," and then our friends Larry Arnn of Hillsdale College and noted evangelical thought leader Doug Wilson getting into a tussle about exactly how Christian principles should be manifest in the American political order, it is obviously high time finally to get into the subject that baffles John Yoo (we know—not that hard to do): the "theological-political problem."
Don't be put off by that clunky-sounding phrase. It really is the key to everything, and few people are more versed and sound on the subject than Phil, who has dropped by the podcast a couple times before, and somehow is till willing to come back for more!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
John's in Switzerland and Steve's in Regievik, and I know,
well whiskey, come and take my pain, my hondys.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
My brain.
Speaker 3 (00:09):
Oh why think alone when you can drink it all
in with Ricochet's Three Whiskey Happy Hour. Join your bartenders,
Steve Hayward, John You and the international woman of Mystery,
Lucretia where.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
They lapped it up and live it Ain't you leave
me on the should have got to give me and
let that whiskey.
Speaker 4 (00:34):
Good morning everyone. This is going to be the craziest
podcast that you've ever heard from the Three Whiskey a
Happy Hour because not only are John and Steve awall,
nobody knows where they are.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
A rumor has it that they're trumping somewhere across the
glaciers in Iceland, and and I believe it's John who's
in some castle in Switzerland somewhere plotting world dominance for
the neo cons. I don't know what they're doing, but
they skipped out on the podcast and rather than listen
to me the whole time, I have the very special
(01:11):
guest with me. Who is going who's a favorite of listeners.
The last time he was on, I got a lot
of positive comments, and that is Vincent Philip Muno So
better known as Phil at least to me, Phil tell
us really quick, a little bit about yourself.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
Yeah, well, thank thanks for having me. Happy to spare
the listeners A week from John and John and Steve.
So I got my PhD from Claremont.
Speaker 4 (01:40):
Like I was the rest of us except for John, as.
Speaker 2 (01:44):
One of the last undergraduate students of Harry Jaffa. Doctor
Jaffa was forced to retire in nineteen eighty nine and
I arrived in nineteen eighty nine, so he wasn't teaching.
He was emeritus by that point. He would just drop
in on other people's classes. So I wrote my undergraduate
(02:05):
thesis with him, and then I decided to go back
to Claremont for the PhD and been writing on the
constitution and religious liberty ever since. And now I've ended
up at Notre Dame where I'm a professor.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
Here, and also, as I understand, a fellow at the
Civitas Center in Texas.
Speaker 2 (02:23):
Yes, i was visiting a scholar visiting a faculty member
at the School of Civic Leadership at the University of Texas,
and I'm still a fellow there. A great project with
great leadership. They're not perfect. I think they are trying
to hire John but and me, yeah and yeah, No,
it's a wonderful. It's a wonderful. It's probably the most
(02:44):
exciting thing happening in higher education. There are these new
schools of civic leadership, and the one at the University
of Texas will be the best of them, I think.
Speaker 1 (02:54):
Yeah. The Chronicle is trying very hard to make it
sound as if these are horrible plays is filled with
with animosity and rife with all sorts of backstabbing. There's
an article every other day, which I because I think
what they realize.
Speaker 4 (03:10):
They're scared to death of them.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
Because they're scared to death. I mean these they're portrayed
as you know, right wing conservative. They're right wing and
conservative because they teach things like the federalist papers, political.
Speaker 4 (03:23):
History, or even even normal.
Speaker 2 (03:25):
Economics, economics, philosophy, Western civilization. They're actually doing what universities
used to do. And it is true that many of
these are the creatures of red state legislators or public
university University of Florida, Ohio State University, University of Texas.
There's a new one, University of South Carolina. But it's
(03:49):
true that they've been created by red state legislatures in
red or purple states. But the education they offer is
it's an American education.
Speaker 1 (04:01):
Well, my state started one that both of the big schools,
and they've the one in ASU I think is it's
pretty much a libertarian economics focus because it also got
some Koch Brothers money. I guess ours did. To The
one at my university is so lame. It's run by
some feminist and it's no longer even there's no conservative
(04:23):
viewpoint to it at all, or even an American civilization
we American slash Western civilization viewpoint.
Speaker 4 (04:29):
So I don't have anything to do with them.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
But well, this is always the danger in academia because
even at Notre Dame, the College of Arts and Letters,
it's overwhelmingly left in the faculty. So there's always a
tendency to drift left. If you're not very countercultural, explicitly countercultural,
you're going to drift left and really really drift left.
(04:51):
But I'm very optimistic about these new schools, in part
because the leadership dean at the University of Texas justin
Dyer is just phenomenal. Yeah, there, it's a place where
conservatives are welcome, which is a change, but really it's
a place their mission focused, and their mission is restoring
the principles and teaching the principles of the United States constitutionalism,
(05:13):
and the and the debates, all the debates left and right,
all sides. So it's it's very exciting, I think, John,
and hopefully you are going to be headed to text
Steve Man Steve too, and maybe all in up there
as well. But we did something similar Notre Dame. We've
actually been doing it at Notre Dame for over a decade.
(05:34):
In fact, I was down at Texas to help them
set up their curriculum. So there are these pockets of
a traditional education around the country. So you listeners with
college age kids or high school age kids, you should
look for these new schools of civic leadership. As I said,
(05:55):
one of the most promising things, promising developments in higher education.
Speaker 1 (05:59):
I think so. And actually I believe it or not.
People do ask us all the time, where can I
send my kid? And you know, the usual answer was
always his Hillsdale, But so there you go. Texas Texas
is another option. Maybe we'll do a whole show on that.
One of these days. I do want to mention a
couple of things. I'm very excited about the renaming of
(06:23):
the Department of Defense to the Department of War. They
have already as a what was it two days ago
that Trump announced this? The website, the Department of Defense
website is now war dot gov.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
Yeah. I saw the New York Times headline, and I
immediately forwarded to John. And John's response was, I might
have to go back in the governor. Governor. Yeah, I
want a business card that says Department of War.
Speaker 4 (06:53):
I know, it's so great. What are those crazy things
this week? I do want to talk a moment.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
I don't even know what you think about all this
because I had a we had a rather I don't
even know if it's fair to say it was rancorous
debate with Ken Green a few times ago. But can
Green considers me a conspiracy rfk nut?
Speaker 4 (07:13):
But I'm I'm all.
Speaker 1 (07:15):
In, by the way on eating clean, shall we say?
I don't need processed foods and this and that. And
I'm also becoming more and more suspicious about the whole
vaccine thing. Not because I think vaccines have always been
a terrible thing or anything like that. I mean, they
saved America from smallpox and polio, But do you know
(07:36):
how many vaccines a child gets now by the time
they're eighteen.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
You know, I have three kids, and I don't know
how many, but I do remember the you know, the
standard advice we got, and they just it's not only
how many, but at the same time, yeah, yeah, it
just overwhelmed. It's a small body. So we space We
think we did all the vaccines, but we spaced them
out differently.
Speaker 4 (08:02):
Well, my daughter.
Speaker 1 (08:03):
Is thirty six and when she was at her second
I believe it's around two months old, her second appointment
for vaccines, they wanted to give her a hepatitis B
vaccine and her father was a had a degree in microbiology,
didn't make him a medical expert. But he's, you know,
(08:23):
why would you do this? I know what they had.
The nurse couldn't answer. She said, well, it's really just experimental.
He says, you want to do an experiment on That
was thirty six years ago. Now they routinely give the
hepatitis B vaccine to infants immediately on the off chance
that their mother might have been excuse the expression a
(08:46):
crack hor and transfer hepatitis b it's crazy anyway. So RFK,
it's funny because you also see the conservative world divided
over RFK and even over his testimony. New York Post
had a New York Post opinion, the editorial board opinion
(09:08):
just calling him a total quack and blah blah blah
blah blah. And then another article, opinion article by someone
I forget, just saying how incredibly right he was because
he's not saying no vaccines or anything like that. He's
just saying we need to follow the science. But the senators,
did you say, you're probably too busy to have watched
even a moment of the testimony.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
I didn't. I didn't watch any of the testimony. My
general line on this is I'm distrustful of experts, all experts.
So the parts I like of RFK are his sort
of hey, let's pause, I'm not sure. And doctors, I mean,
I have lots of friends who are doctors. Doctors are
used to being the smartest people in the room. They
(09:51):
rarely tell you what they don't know. So I just
have a real healthy skepticism. So that skepticism I appreciate
and I think is needed. No, I don't know if
he's right either, but I think we need a lot
more skepticism. I mean I grew up eating the food pyramid, right,
(10:11):
stuffing myself with kicks and bread for you know, carbohydrates
which we were supposed to I mean you remember the
old food of course I do. Oh And now they're like,
that's exactly wrong or at least that's not right.
Speaker 1 (10:24):
Well some people are at least. Yeah. Then remember fats
were at the top, and you know, I make it
a point to eat as much butter as I can margin,
you know, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
I'm almost told me she was supposed to feed his.
Speaker 1 (10:37):
Margarin, right, you know, yeah, I used to. I've told
the story before. I used to bootleg cases of blue
bonnet margin to my grandparents up in the north shore
of Minnesota, Lake Superior, Minnesota because they insisted you had
to margin, but they lived in Minnesota so you.
Speaker 4 (10:53):
Couldn't buy it. Yeah. Crazy.
Speaker 1 (10:58):
I hope that they don't to actually force him out
because I do think he's doing all the right. People
are leaving because of him, and I think that's a
good sign. If you go into just you know, if
you go into a bureaucracy, that's you know, just just
sclerotic and people are so upset they leave. I think
(11:19):
that's a really good sign.
Speaker 2 (11:22):
Yeah, often it is. You know, the person I trust
in this realm more than anyone is Jay Batcheria, the
director of the Nationalist super Health. I mean, I've had vacation,
I run a program here at Notre Dame, and we've
had him come speak a few times, including just a
few days before he was nominated for the head of
the NIH. And you know, he's a top scientist, he
(11:44):
has all the credentials, but he's intellectually, epistemically humble. Yes,
I'm not afraid to say what he doesn't know, and
to my mind that gives him great credibility, both his
intelligence but his humility and courage.
Speaker 1 (12:03):
Though at the same time along with the humility, remember
he was he probably came close to losing his entire
career over the Great Barrington Declaration.
Speaker 2 (12:14):
And for people who don't know, he's a Stanford epidemiologist
PhD in economics. I mean, this guy is as credentialed
as anyone could be. And very early in COVID he said, hey,
wait a second, and he did some studies that showed,
you know, COVID is our there's no possibility of zero COVID.
I mean, it was out. Everyone was going to get
(12:34):
it sooner or later. And he was saying these things
in February March. Remember we all shut down around mid March.
He was saying these things very early. Then published a
great Barrantine declaration, and his colleagues at Stanford just went
after him. It was terrible. I mean, so I told
him he needs to write a book. There needs to
be a movie made about him. He's a real hero.
Speaker 1 (12:57):
I mean I yeah, and his friends got at less
did write a book.
Speaker 4 (13:01):
It's a very interesting one, and.
Speaker 2 (13:03):
Both those guys. Yeah, deserves a lot of credit. So,
I mean, he, you know, Jay Batcheria, I hope before
this term ends this administration and gets the Presidential Medal
of Freedom because he he really is a hero for
standing up for science but also freedom of speech.
Speaker 1 (13:17):
And give Trump some credit here too, for being willing
to say, you know, I considered the operation Warp Speed
one of my great accomplishments, but hey, let's look at
it given credit.
Speaker 2 (13:31):
Yeah, you know, one of my one of my good
friends here at Notre Dame sent me that statement and said,
have you ever seen a president be willing to make
himself so vulnerable in a way. Well, let's you know,
I did this. I think it worked. But let's let's
you know, they're presenting me with all sorts of evidence,
the President said, but they don't put it out in
(13:52):
the public. Let's put it out in the public.
Speaker 4 (13:54):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (13:55):
I mean my response to my my colleague who sent
me that was this is why people love him.
Speaker 1 (14:00):
Actually, yeah, yeah, because there are a lot of his
actual mega people who think that was his probably worst
thing he did. Many of them believe that he, you know,
he was taking advice from people he thought he could trust, experts,
experts like Fauci and Deborah Burghs whatever name.
Speaker 4 (14:19):
Is, you know.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
He he he thought he was doing the right thing.
Speaker 4 (14:23):
He's not a doctor, he has no medical training.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
And so he looks back on it and says, let's
let's let's see what really happened there.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
Good for let's see No. So, I mean, I think
when we're you know, the books are already starting to
come out on you know what we got wrong? And
Steve Mosito, very distinguished Princeton professor, very much man of
the left, has a new book out like we got
it all wrong? You know what, we the left got
(14:54):
it all wrong for, you know, very lefty Princeton professor
to say that. I mean, that's something else.
Speaker 1 (15:00):
So yeah, so tell me about your book. Excuse me,
your article I was thinking about. You showed me the book.
We'll come back to that. Tell me about so let
me first say, I'll show it because if Steve does,
this is uh an addition of national Affairs. It's I
don't know if it's going to show very well, but yeah,
(15:23):
it's a little blurry, but it includes an article by John,
an article by Steve and me, and an article by
Vincent Philip Munos, and we're gonna we're going to just yeah, no,
we're going to discuss that one article today because without
John here, it's really awful that whenever we have to
(15:43):
discuss these deep philosophical issues, it works better to school
John when he's actually not in the room, because then
he doesn't lawyer us. But we'll give him, we'll give
him equal time. Tell us a little bit about the
the thesis.
Speaker 4 (15:57):
Of your article.
Speaker 2 (15:59):
Yeah, well, thanks for asking about it. It's called the
American Revolutions of seventeen seventy six revolutions plural and in
the article I try to explain sort of three core
elements of the Founding political philosophy, all of which are
encapsulated in seventeen seventy six. The first revolution is that
(16:22):
legitimate government is via consent. Legitimate government is via consent
because all men are created equal, all people are equal
by nature, No one has a right to rule. No person,
no class has a right to rule by nature. So
that's the first revolution, and we can come back to
that because that gets right to the part of the
theological political problem which I know you've been talking in
(16:44):
recent episodes. So the first revolution is legitimate government is
instituted via consent. Second revolution is the purposes of government
are to protect natural rights, not to save citizens souls,
protect their rights. The third revolution, connected to the first two,
(17:05):
especially the second, is that why do we limit government
to protecting rights, protecting natural rights and not saving souls?
And we limit government to those more limited ends to
leave room for church authority out of deference to and
respect for church authority. Perhaps this is the most novel
(17:29):
aspect of the article. I say, I try to connect
and I think this is the Founder's understanding. We limit
the authority of the state because the state doesn't have
authority over our souls. Who has authority over our souls? Well,
ourselves will to God and our churches. And so we
(17:49):
limit state authority out of deference in respect of religious authority. Okay,
that's the Third Revolution. So those are the government by consent,
limited government protecting natural rights. We protect natural rights and
due regard in deference to church authority, our obligations to
(18:10):
our creator. Okay, So the revolutions of seventeen seventy six.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
Right, So I would only argue that in your second
to revolutions, you don't go far enough. And this is
this is why I will say so. First of all,
the reason that that you don't have a government responsible
(18:36):
for saving souls is because I agree with you, not
so much out of deference to church authorities, but the
absolute belief that Jefferson says, I should have pulled it
up before this. You know that it makes one half
of the world fools and the other tyrants. Right, is
that that the phrase something like that if you try
(18:58):
to force beliefs on people, you can't do it because
Almighty God hath created the mind free. So from the
point of view of human nature, Madison calls the right
to conscience a natural right, and Jefferson certainly thought of it,
included it in the idea of the rights of the
(19:18):
natural rights. Among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness. The reason that it's a revolution, and that
I agree with you about this, is it's the first
time it ever happened. It's I mean, all throughout ancient history,
the political authorities were the religious authorities and vice versa.
They were one and the same, and your piety was
(19:39):
the same as your patriotism. If you obeyed the laws,
you obeyed the gods. Christianity comes along and it's a
universal god, monotheistic religion, and you could have a loyalty
to God that might be different from your loyalty to
your political authority, to the political SoC and even see
(20:02):
some evidence of why that's problematic in the Gospel and
in some of the letters the epistles. But over the
years those things became joined. You had the Holy Roman Empire,
you had the King of England becoming the head of
the Church of England, where all of a sudden, now
(20:24):
you have religious wars. You have religious wars which define Europe,
and even in many cases of wider conflicts for a
thousand years at least, if not more. And you know,
America was founded by people wanting to practice their own
religion here in America that they were prevented from practicing
(20:47):
over in Europe. So religion and politics is probably the
single most important conflict in human history.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
I would say, yeah, I mean, you're getting right at
the heart of what we talk about limited government. Sometimes
conservatives confused limited government with small government. I mean, we
conservatives used to like small government, you know, lower taxes.
Speaker 1 (21:13):
And I still do because the more government does, the
less liberty you have.
Speaker 4 (21:17):
But yes, I get your point.
Speaker 2 (21:18):
But limited government is there's certain things that the state
governing powers people who have the guns can't legitimately do.
An example I like to use is I'm in Indiana,
the state of Indiana, or the state of California, or wherever.
We license doctors, we license lawyers, we licensed cosmetologists, we
(21:43):
license everything. To get married, you have to get a license,
But preachers don't have to get a license the state
from the state from the state. The state of Indiana
doesn't issue preaching licenses. And why not. You can imagine
Governor Dowse some saying there's an epidemic of hate preaching,
(22:08):
and so we need the licensed preachers. And the correct
response was would be, you don't have authority to do that.
You don't you the governor of California. You don't have
authority to determine who is and who is not a
legitimate preacher. Sure, that's what we mean by limited government.
There's certain things that the state can't do. You were
(22:29):
pointing to the foundation of that limit as a sort
of government and competence, or you know, government can't So
what Jefferson says, you know government, government can't make you
believe in the true religion. And I think that's true
to some extent. I mean, that's Locke's argument. Jefferson gets
it from Locke. It's the classic argument of the letter
concerning toleration. I mean that's true to some extent. I
(22:53):
think it actually overstates the case. Really, yeah, you know.
Speaker 1 (22:57):
You mean, because you look at it, say, an is
a Muslim country where they're actually pretty successful at it.
Speaker 2 (23:04):
Well, yes, you could do that or sat Augustine actually
writes about this and he says, experience taught me with
the Donatis. So these, uh, this is this heretical group.
He says, these people were confused in their in their
(23:26):
in their laziness, confused on an account of their laziness,
the accustom. They had certain beliefs which were wrong, religious
beliefs that were wrong, at least in Augustine's point of view.
And he said force can shake them out of their slumber.
So so it is true that compulsion alone can't can't
(23:49):
make you believe something.
Speaker 4 (23:51):
But where does that compulsion come from? For Augustine, Well.
Speaker 2 (23:54):
It's from the state, from those who have, you know,
those who have the guns. Force can make you consider arguments,
it can shake you up, it can end customs. You know.
Belief is a complicated thing, sure, suation of upbringing, and
(24:15):
force can affect those background conditions, if I can put
it in a sort of social scientific way. So it's
not that force is completely impotent. So I think Jefferson
and Locke maybe go to I mean, it's not what
they say isn't true. It's just not the whole story.
Speaker 4 (24:31):
I get that.
Speaker 1 (24:32):
I also think that it's in the rest and it's
by the way, it's half of the world hypocrites and
the other fools, not times hypocrites. And and of course
that is also an instrumental argument, because remember it goes
further and says that God asks us for our our faith,
(24:54):
our belief as a personal choice.
Speaker 4 (24:58):
And so you are, in.
Speaker 1 (24:59):
Fact legitimizing genuine religious belief.
Speaker 4 (25:04):
That's not the right word. You are by keeping.
Speaker 1 (25:07):
Government out of the business of saving souls. As you
put it, if my soul is saved, it's genuine. If
my soul is saved on account of laws and regulations
that will punish me for lack of faith, then it's
not all that genuine. And so he says, the true
religion prefers this freedom of conscience, freedom of.
Speaker 4 (25:29):
Will to choose it.
Speaker 1 (25:31):
And I think again, to a great extent, that's an
instrumental argument, because they want the separation of religious authority
from political authority, because that gives human beings the greatest freedom.
I think it's not that I want to leave this subtopic,
(25:53):
but it takes me to Steve asked us to consider
discussing this article that our good friend Glenn Elmers wrote.
And I believe the name of the article is something
like the Founders wanted Religion, but not I forget exactly.
Speaker 2 (26:09):
What it is mister Wilson's article.
Speaker 4 (26:11):
Yeah, I don't even know who that person is.
Speaker 2 (26:13):
Sorry, I say one thing on the last point, just yeah, sure,
of course there's a prudential argument and then a more
principled argument about religious freedom and separation of church and state.
The prudential argument, as you were getting at, is, you know,
when we have the union of church and state. Religious peoples,
my post liberal friends they say, well, if we had
a closer connection between church and state, well, then church authorities,
(26:37):
you know who we respect, or the churches we belong to,
they'll govern the political authorities, and then the political authority
can be used to, you know, to if not save souls,
at least help form souls in the proper direction. But
in fact, history teaches us the opposite is true. It's
not for church authorities direct political authorities. It's that political
(26:58):
authorities direct the church authorities. Yes, absolutely. At the time
of the founding, the class of people who are most
against the American Revolution the Anglican bishops. And why were
the Anglican bishops the established clergy. Why were they against
the revolution? Well because who was their patron? The power
(27:22):
came from the crib who owned all the church property,
who their appointment? They were government officials and Madison's argument.
Jefferson's argument. Part of the argument is just prudential. Look,
when you have a union of church and state. You
can see this Catholic church in Germany right now, which
gets its tax dollars, gets tax dollars from the state.
When you have a union in church and state, the
(27:43):
state always ended up controlling the church.
Speaker 1 (27:46):
Let me just add one small point to that. Having
lived in Germany and enjoying all of those actually not
enjoying them because they didn't really apply to us. There
are more religious holidays in Germany that are federal national
government sanctioned holidays. I can't even imagine how to get
(28:07):
anything done, to be honest with you. I think there's
two a week or something like that.
Speaker 4 (28:10):
It seemed like. But the point was, with.
Speaker 1 (28:13):
All of that government sanctioning of religion and support for religion,
the churches were empty. There is in fact no discernible
religious community in Germany anymore. You know, my daughter was
confirmed in a twelve hundred cathedral from that it was
(28:36):
built in the twelve hundreds, and it was the most
people because it was a bunch of military families there
that that church had seen in like ten years in
a mass.
Speaker 4 (28:47):
You know, it's just which is.
Speaker 1 (28:49):
You know, that kind of proves the point that if
the state gets involved in religion, it no longer leaves
it up to the individual to decide. And I think
it underminds and cheapens the religious experience. But I don't
think that was necessarily the founder's central goal. I do
believe it was. They believed it was necessary to separate
(29:14):
the idea of church and state. And the way they
did that is in some ways it's brilliant. And I
think it's all tied up in the phrase. We laughed
about it last week because Claremont has hats that say
this nature and Nature's God. So for the first time
you've had a country founded on the idea that both
(29:39):
revelation and reason supported the notion of human equality and
the need for government based upon consent. And my way
of introducing that to students, and you saw that I
wrote about it is I really do think that this
is sort of revolutionary in and of itself. When Jesus
(30:01):
goes to the well and the he's by himself, as
does disciples have gone to get food or something, and
the Samaritan woman comes up and he talks to her.
We don't have a sense of what that means. We
talk to anybody, but for a rabbi to talk to
a woman, first of all, an accompanied woman, second of
(30:24):
all a Samaritan, not a Jewish woman. And third of all,
it's you know, they make it so she's probably a prostitute,
and he talks her like she's a human being. That
to us, it's it's hard to fathom how revolutionary, how
(30:45):
that single passage in the Bible was, but it's it's
clear she and remember what happens. Then he says, you know,
I know you're a sinner. You're living with a man
who's not your husband. And he forgives her, and then
she goes back to her Samaritan community and talks about
and so for the first time, what you see is
(31:06):
not only that salvation is not just for the Jews
or just for men, or you know, or it's the
opening the recognition by Jesus that all human beings are equal,
and that notion of equality takes a long time, but
(31:27):
in my opinion, is embalmed in the Declaration of Independence,
but not based upon religious authority alone, based upon the
idea you said at the beginning that human beings, by
nature are not.
Speaker 4 (31:41):
Fitted with rulers and ruled. You.
Speaker 1 (31:44):
You can't tell by nature who is a ruler and
who was born to be ruled, and therefore.
Speaker 4 (31:50):
We are are our own natural rulers.
Speaker 1 (31:53):
That's to me, the biggest revolution of all of them
is that religion and reason teaches us that human beings
are fundamentally equal and the most important respect.
Speaker 2 (32:08):
Yeah, there's three interrelated ideas which you are articulated all
of them. I mean, the first really comes from the
Jewish scriptures. There's one God, a monotheism. You mentioned this earlier.
I mean that there's so in the ancient world and
the non Jewish world. I mean, you can see this
in the Old Testament too. You know, when when you're
(32:30):
when your country went to war, your gods were waging
war against their gods. That is, it wasn't a world
of monotheism. What Judaism brings to the world is there's
the one God and he is the true God. That is,
those other gods are not really gods, they're false gods.
So okay, that's the first. The second is there's one
(32:52):
God and he's the god of everyone. We are all
sons and daughters of the One True God. I mean
that idea we don't appreciate. The left especially does not
appreciate how revolutionary that idea is. I mean, this is
why we have what we call human rights slots. That's
(33:16):
why we don't just we take prisoners of war. We
don't shoot them. You know, why do so? We're at war,
they're in uniforms, the opponent is in uniforms. We capture them.
Why don't we just shoot them? Right? We house them,
we feed them right right well, because look, they may
(33:39):
be our enemies in battle, and it's legitimate to kill
them on the battlefield, but once we've detained them, taken
away their guns, once they can't harm us, they are
still children of God.
Speaker 1 (33:51):
It's why my favorite Christmas song, I won't call it Carol,
is Snoopy's Christmas. To me, it's the perfect emblematic idea
that our humanity uh and and the what Christmas means
to humanity is even more important than uh, than than
(34:13):
than enemies clashing exactly.
Speaker 2 (34:16):
I mean that that our enemies are still children, sons
and daughters of God. That that is a as a
revolutionary concept that Christianity brings, brings to the.
Speaker 4 (34:30):
World and that Lincoln reminded us of and we use.
Speaker 2 (34:34):
The language of human dignity today.
Speaker 1 (34:36):
Yeah, yeah, we're gonna get comments about that, but we're
gonna leave that.
Speaker 4 (34:43):
I get what you're all going to say.
Speaker 1 (34:45):
Human rights today doesn't necessarily mean exactly what what Phil
has in mind here, but I understand what he means
by that. It's the recognition of the natural rights of
other human being.
Speaker 2 (35:00):
And we all have them, not just Americans, but they're
natural rights, we all humans. And then the third idea,
which is to connect to the equality idea, is so
there's one God, it's a god of all of us.
But that God doesn't appoint political rulers for our political communities.
I mean, we participate, you could say, in the divine
governance of the world. I mean, I don't want to
(35:22):
be flip about it, but God says, look, your social beings,
by nature, you need to live together, figure out how
to live well using your mind. Right, I don't have
to appoint rulers for you. You're equal. Right, form a community.
(35:44):
Do it on the ground of equality.
Speaker 4 (35:46):
You're You're in the gospels.
Speaker 2 (35:48):
Give to Caesar, what is Caesar's So Caesar has a
legitimate authority give to God. What is God's Caesar's authority
is not appointed directly by God. This particular ruler is
not a pointed by God.
Speaker 1 (36:01):
But it took seventeen one hundred years for call it
political states and political philosophers to.
Speaker 4 (36:08):
Figure that out.
Speaker 1 (36:09):
Because remember what ruled Europe for centuries was the notion
of the divine right of kings. It was the controlling
philosophy of government, call it that theory of government before.
Speaker 2 (36:24):
Consent, a heresy that is convenient for those who want
to have power or hold power to say, my power
comes from God.
Speaker 1 (36:34):
A very powerful heresy, very powerful heresy, very powerful heresy.
And as Jefferson says, you know, we finally come to
the point where we're no longer being ruled by monks
and superstition ignorant, right.
Speaker 2 (36:50):
I mean, it's a dig at the Gallic Church, but
it is No church is perfect. So yes, you could
say that you cannot go all the way back to Erstutle,
that you can go to other earlier thinkers who understand
that there's a problem with the divine right of kings.
But in terms of actual real politics, real governance, it's
(37:11):
the great contribution of the American Founders to not only
us as Americans, but to Western civilization to the world
is the creation of a system of government that respects
human equality, yes, and religious authority and religious liberty. And
I think this is the point you're driving at that
(37:31):
the Founders in this sense solved the theological political problem.
They advised an arrangement that they devised an understanding and
then a political political institutions that both respect religious authority
and legitimate and legitimate political authorities. And they showed how
religious authority and political authority could coincide. That by limiting
(37:57):
political authority and saying that those who religious authorities don't
get to govern on account of the religious character. Right
in a nutshell, that's how you solve the theological political problem.
I've really simplified here, let's be honest, So John will
hopefully understand this. But that's the genius of the American Founding.
Speaker 1 (38:19):
One more addition to that, and that is it's very important.
I thought of it when you were talking about human rights.
It's also necessary, as the first paragraph of the Declaration
tells us that that one people have to come together
in recognition of those natural rights, with the goal of
(38:41):
securing those natural rights. And it is so that's why
I sort of hesitate a little at the notion of
calling them human rights, because human rights implies to me
today the notion of a un or global global government.
It can't be done by global governments. It cannot be
done in a way that does not allow for the
(39:02):
sovereignty of the people to exercise their consent on a
continuous basis in some way. And that consent is a
mutual consent with each other, it is that's the important part.
It's consent with your fellow human beings inside of what
you create as a political community. And then you choose
a government to secure your natural rights. And never forget
(39:26):
the Aristotilian ends of safety and happiness. The government is
there to secure your natural rights, to conduce to your
safety and happiness, which of course are the alpha and
omega of Aristotle's political ends political tilos. So I want
to move that discussion then to a discussion of how
(39:48):
that informs our constitution, because I do think that that
question may be the most important question not only between
the left and the right today, but also between elements
of the right itself. Even my good friend John claims
that our Constitution is not based upon these natural rights ideas.
Speaker 4 (40:09):
He calls it the.
Speaker 1 (40:10):
Natural law, and he says the natural law in seventeen
seventy six is not the same as it was when
the fourteenth Amendment was passed. And you know, I think
sometimes he just does that to tweak me, but he
does say it. Does our constitution have a basis that
is greater than simply the agreement the consent that you know,
(40:36):
the method of consent that the constitutional Convention decided, you know,
or send it to the people, not to the states,
send it to the people in ratifying conventions after elections
in their state. Does it have a greater force? Are
there more principles?
Speaker 4 (40:54):
Are there?
Speaker 1 (40:56):
Is there a natural law basis to the Constitution that
is how would you say operative? I hate to use
that term, but I think you know what I mean. Ken,
Our politicians are elected officials, and our judges turned to
that natural law basis of the Constitution to inform them
on how to interpret the provisions of the Constitution in
(41:19):
a meaningful practical way. I think that's the biggest question, right.
Speaker 2 (41:24):
So there are two issues here, and I think it's
really important to at least analytically keep them separate. The
first issue is what are the purpose? Why do we
have the constitution? We do? Are the what are its purposes?
What are its ends? Why did the founders design it
as they did? And here positivists and sometimes John who
(41:47):
likes to flirt with positivism, says he thinks he is
a positive. He's not really, but he thinks he is.
He says, Look, it's simply a matter of will. That's
the constitution they gave us, and the people ratify, and
so it's really the people's will. We have the constitution
we have simply because that's the constitution we gave ourselves.
(42:08):
I don't think that's right. It's true the necessary condition
of authority is that it was ratified by the people.
But that's not sufficient because the people could make a
very bad constitution. The purpose of our constitution? Let me
take one constitutional provision, the taking's clause. Government can't take
(42:30):
your property except for public use and just compensation. Why
is that provision in the constitution. We's in the constitution
because the founder said the purpose of the constitution is
to protect our natural rights, including our right to property.
The problem of demand, and I especially yeah, you know,
the fundamental problem of popular government or democracy is the
(42:52):
many taking the property of thew And that's wrong. It's
wrong even if it's done lawfully. You can't just the many.
Can't just plunder the few. The fu shouldn't plunder the many.
But why do we have a right to property, a
natural right to property? Well, because if I pick the apple,
(43:13):
it's mine. No one owns the apple tree I'm out there.
If I'm out in the ocean and I cast a
line and catch a fish, it's mine. Why do I
own my property? Why do I own my labor? But
why do I get the apple? Who made that rule?
That I own my own labor? That's by nature. That's
(43:36):
what it means to be a person to own your
own labor. Slaves are people who don't own their own labor.
Slavery is wrong. Now those moral pronouncements I just made
that the apple, if I pick it is mine. That
slavery is wrong. If I enslave someone, the slave picks
(43:57):
the apple, I take it. Those those moral pronouncements are
not because of some positive law we made. Those are
that is the natural law.
Speaker 1 (44:07):
Okay, So here's I'll be John for a second. Yeah,
he just says that that's a cost benefit. The reason
that we protect property is because it leads to economic prosperity,
which it does.
Speaker 2 (44:22):
It's true it does, but that's not the reason we
protected The reason why we we think slavery is wrong
is not because it's inefficient. It's because, no, the slaves
own their labor too. I mean, Abraham Lincoln says, you work,
I eat is the root logic of despotism.
Speaker 4 (44:45):
Yep. No different from kings or tyrants in the past.
Speaker 1 (44:49):
Yes, so I want to read to you really quickly.
This was a story. But you said you didn't have
time to pay too much attention to the headlines. Senator
Kine from Virginia when he was questioning a nominee to
actually the nominee was to I don't even Assistant Secretary
(45:12):
of State and the Riley Barnes in his opening his
I guess opening statement, Riley Barnes says, we are a
nation founded on a powerful principle, and that powerful principle
is that all men are created equal because our rights
come from God, our creator, not from our laws, not
(45:32):
from our government. He warned that when rights are untothered
from that principle, they can be easily manipulated by authoritarians
and bad actors. OK.
Speaker 4 (45:44):
You and I would agree with that.
Speaker 1 (45:47):
I think it's true simply speaking, and that's a secondary issue,
that it's problematic if you don't abide by that principle.
Speaker 4 (45:55):
But Cain said that the.
Speaker 1 (45:58):
Notion was extremely tru bling, that it should make Americans very,
very nervous, because the notion that rights don't come from
laws and don't come from the government, but come from
the creator. That's what the Iranian government believes.
Speaker 2 (46:20):
I mean, has he not read the Declaration of Independence
by our creator? Our rights are endowed by our creator.
I mean, it's but it's an embarrassment that the United
States senator would say that. I mean he's directly contradicting
the Declaration of Independence.
Speaker 1 (46:39):
Of course, But is it not emblematic or symptomatic of
the the rot in our government and amongst the left
and left and so forth that he could say that
and not be laughed off the stage?
Speaker 2 (46:53):
Well, because he actually believe. It's not just ignorance, it's
what he actually believes. I mean, it's the modern left.
I mean, this is intellectually you go back to Herbert
Crowley and Woodrow Wilson. They actually believe no rights are
a product of historical development. They're a product of the state.
You only have property rights. To go back to our
own example, you only get the apple because we made
(47:15):
laws to say that you get the apple. That your
property rights are a product of the state. They're granted
by the state, and then they're readjusted over time, right
by whatever the state decides as best for human development. Sure,
that is the modern conception, the modern progressive conception of government.
(47:36):
So Senator Kane, you know, we say it's laughable because
it's against the Declaration of Independence, which he obviously is
unaware of, but he's actually speaking of truth. He actually
thinks rights come from the state.
Speaker 1 (47:51):
There's I think a secondary issue there too, and that
is this is my bias against the left. For all
of their talk about all quality and equity, what it
really means is if it's God who gives us our rights,
or call it even nature, nature being some unchanging principle,
(48:12):
then of course you're limited as a politician, and you're
just not just a servant of God but a servant
of the people. That's the whole idea of American political
power that is consistent with the Constitution that our representatives
are senators, our president, even though our judges are our
servants who have been given the sacred responsibility of governing
(48:35):
the American people. But of course Kine doesn't think of
himself that way, not even I mean, not even close.
He thinks that, you know, if power comes from God,
it means I don't have power.
Speaker 2 (48:48):
Yeah, And if rights come from the government, he is
the bestower rights.
Speaker 1 (48:52):
Yes, yes, and so there's an incredible arrogance about this,
but it's very because of course, then the other thing
that that the left likes to do, in my opinion,
that once you no longer believe that rights come from
God or from nature, from from a rational understanding of
(49:14):
human nature, then you can make rights and be anything
you want them to be. Like you talked about back
back somehow, uh, turning us back to a place where
the many can take away the property of.
Speaker 4 (49:26):
The rich or vice versa.
Speaker 1 (49:28):
Or turning us to a place where you can say,
there's a right to health care, a right to uh,
you know, a right to a fair and appropriate public education,
a right here's.
Speaker 2 (49:41):
Your gender, right to do whatever you want. I mean
that there's no nature, yes, right, there's nothing stable. There's
nothing fixed, there's nothing that limits the power of the government.
To get back to our earlier point or first point
was one of the revolutions was we limit the power
of the state. But if there are no natural rights,
it emancipates the state. And that's really what Tim Kain thinks.
Speaker 1 (50:07):
Yes, yes, and you know the idea that he didn't
lose his seat, that he wasn't the whole Senate didn't
censor him for saying those remarks. Again, I think it's
a rot at the center of our government these days,
and I think, pardon me, that, excuse me, I'm so sorry.
That's one of the things to go back to the
(50:28):
very beginning of our discussion that Civitas and some of
these other civic education are trying to reintroduce.
Speaker 2 (50:37):
I am.
Speaker 1 (50:39):
Optimistic, not just because there are places like Civitas, but
also because I believe that Trump's success. I don't think
Trump is perfect. Don't anybody accuse me of that. But
Trump's success is that there's a lot more common sense
out there in America that understands what Tim Kaine does
not understand.
Speaker 2 (51:00):
I think every day, everyday Americans are still a very sensible.
Speaker 4 (51:03):
Bunch, and they may not understand it the way we do.
Speaker 2 (51:07):
But we should get back to our point, because there's
the first point you asked about natural rights and constitutional government.
Our first point was that there is a moral foundation
in nature, Nature and Nature's God and human rights and
natural rights that our constitution is meant to protect. So
there's natural rights. The fact that I get to own
(51:27):
my own labor, that's a natural right. The natural right
of property, or natural right to acquire property, that's part
of the natural law. The natural law is just to
say what's reasonable. It's not reasonable that if I pick
the apple you can take it from me. Right, you
can't take my property. We all understand that right, and
that's that's the natural law. We create a constitution to
(51:49):
protect our natural rights. So the natural law, the natural
rights are inform the constitution. Now John thinks he makes
a quick jump. He says, if you belie believe that,
then a judge can always invoke the natural law to
adjudicate a case. And he says, well, but different people
disagree about what the natural law is. Therefore you're just
(52:11):
emancipating judges to be policymakers, to be philosopher kings. That's
too quick of a jump. Okay, So the constitution is
informed by natural law. Again, natural rights are just part
of the natural law. Right. The natural law is simply
the law of natural justice.
Speaker 4 (52:33):
We create there on the hearts of men according to luck.
Speaker 2 (52:40):
And the gospels, and the and the and the we
create a constitution to secure justice. The legislative power is
the body. The body that makes the law is to
make laws, to make good, positive laws for the community
that determine or effectuate the natural law. So we have
(53:05):
all sorts of laws to regulate property, to protect property right.
We divide up the land into parcels. That's all done
by the legislature so people can own it. So law makers,
when they're passing laws, how do we know if a
law is good or bad? What's the standard? I mean,
they're legal because they're laws as long as they're passed
(53:26):
according to the due procedures. But we can say some
laws are good, some laws are bad. Slavery was legal
in the Southern States, but it was a bad law.
Why can we say it's a bad law, Well, because
it's against the natural law. So the political body, the
institution that's most responsible for articulating and then instantiating the
(53:48):
natural law for our political community is the legislature through
passing positive laws. So the civil law, when it's good,
reflects the natural law. This is exactly what Martin Luther
King says, by the way, in his letter from the
Birmingham Jail, he says, look segregation right, the dividing people
by race by law, saying you know, no blacks can
(54:12):
be at the public in the public schools, or the
public swimming pool, or if you own a business, you
must segregate on the race. Those are laws. They're just
deficient laws. They're unjust laws. They're immoral laws because the
positive law is not consistent with the natural law, and
therefore those laws should be overturned. They should be sorry,
(54:34):
those laws should be rescinded. As King's argument, Okay, now
here's the question. If you're a judge and you have
to say the law of segregation or the law of slavery,
what's your authority. The law is the positive laws against
the natural law. But the institution that's responsible for instantiating
the natural law is the legislature. So here's where I
(54:57):
actually agree with John. It's not the role of judges
to overturn the positive law into the in light of
the natural law. The role of the judge in our
system is to articulate in a case by case basis,
what the positive law is. That's the role of the judge,
(55:20):
simplifying a little bit, but it's to interpret the constitution.
The Constitution is a positive law, so the role of
the judge is not to go over the positive law
the Constitution to the natural law to strike down. That's
just not the role of the judge. So you can
have both a judiciary that understands its role is limited
(55:44):
to articulating the meaning of the Constitution and say the
Constitution is a product of the natural law. Those are
not incompatible positions. Okay, now one.
Speaker 1 (55:57):
Can't bring that up at the end of the podcast.
Speaker 4 (56:00):
I'm sorry, Phil, that's unfair.
Speaker 1 (56:03):
Go ahead.
Speaker 2 (56:05):
One refinement. Part of the positive law, part of the
Constitution are natural law principles, so the freedom of speech
or the free exercise of religion. So you're judge and
you say, well, the First Amendment says Congress can't pass
a law a bridging the freedom of speech, Well, what
is the freedom of speech? That text, that constitutional text
(56:28):
reflects a natural law principle. The natural law principle is
people have a right to say things that are reasonable,
and they should not be punished for saying things that
are reasonable. But libel, saying false things, Maliciously saying false
things about something someone is not reasonable. You can't destroy
(56:52):
someone's reputation that's actually a real harm to them. So
libel is not part of the freedom of speech. So
a judge in interpreting the positive law the freedom of
speech the First Amendment. When a judge is interpreting the
First Amendment, to interpret it well, according to the text,
you're going to have to understand the natural law principles
(57:14):
that inform the text. That's why a judge can say
libel is not part of freedom of speech. Publishing pornographic
images is not part of the freedom of the press.
So it well, it's true that the role of the
judge is only to interpret the positive law. To interpret
the positive law requires knowledge of natural law principles, because
(57:37):
our positive law is informed by the natural law.
Speaker 1 (57:41):
Yes, and I would love to carry on with this
conversation quite a bit more because it deserves more discussion,
but unfortunately, not only do you have to be someplace
I'm to understand, but we are out of time. So
I thank you very much for joining us joining me
today on the three Whiskey Happy Hour. By the way, folks,
(58:03):
I have to tell you that we didn't talk about
whiskey because it's actually we started at six fifteen am
Pacific time. It's a little early for me because itself.
I do have my eighteen twelve commemorative death Wish coffee cups,
so I guess that'll have to do for this week.
(58:24):
I'm gonna throw a few really quick Babylon bees because
we didn't get to some of the things we were
going to discuss, because you know, that's how it always goes.
Speaker 4 (58:32):
But let me.
Speaker 1 (58:33):
Start with report Chicago shootings are down. As the official
guy who keeps track of all the shootings got shot.
English Bobby's raced past five stabbings to tackle offensive social
media poster man.
Speaker 4 (58:52):
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (58:54):
It's really the corruption of the West right there.
Speaker 1 (58:57):
Yeah, I mean they're pushing back. There's obviously it's similar
I think in Great Britain, parts of you know, Scotland
and Ireland, where the middle class, the lower middle class,
the heartland people, if they have them there, they're a
lot smarter. They have a lot more common sense than
(59:17):
their leaders. Do that. You know that gives me a
lot of hope. It's why I tend to flock with
them rather than my elites. Sorry, I know that's not
very nice. Newsome announces he is anti crime until the
next election. Kamala Harris last scene fleeing dozens of international
(59:40):
assassins after Trump counsels her secret Service protection. Just covering
all those headlines we didn't get to Russia, Ukraine reached
new type of truth where they just keep bombing each
other and finally study finds women in denteds to make
(01:00:02):
other women look stupid. You won't appreciate that, but I do,
all right, Phil, Hey, you want to take us out?
Speaker 2 (01:00:12):
Well, I suppose I'm supposed to say, always drink your
whiskey meat, but I actually preferred on the rocks.
Speaker 1 (01:00:19):
Oh heresy, Thank you, Phil. I hope to see you
on here again soon because John's gonna want a piece
of you. Have a great week, everyone.
Speaker 2 (01:00:58):
Ricochet join the conversation.
John's in Switzerland and Steve's in Regievik, and I know,
well whiskey, come and take my pain, my hondys.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
My brain.
Speaker 3 (00:09):
Oh why think alone when you can drink it all
in with Ricochet's Three Whiskey Happy Hour. Join your bartenders,
Steve Hayward, John You and the international woman of Mystery,
Lucretia where.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
They lapped it up and live it Ain't you leave
me on the should have got to give me and
let that whiskey.
Speaker 4 (00:34):
Good morning everyone. This is going to be the craziest
podcast that you've ever heard from the Three Whiskey a
Happy Hour because not only are John and Steve awall,
nobody knows where they are.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
A rumor has it that they're trumping somewhere across the
glaciers in Iceland, and and I believe it's John who's
in some castle in Switzerland somewhere plotting world dominance for
the neo cons. I don't know what they're doing, but
they skipped out on the podcast and rather than listen
to me the whole time, I have the very special
(01:11):
guest with me. Who is going who's a favorite of listeners.
The last time he was on, I got a lot
of positive comments, and that is Vincent Philip Muno So
better known as Phil at least to me, Phil tell
us really quick, a little bit about yourself.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
Yeah, well, thank thanks for having me. Happy to spare
the listeners A week from John and John and Steve.
So I got my PhD from Claremont.
Speaker 4 (01:40):
Like I was the rest of us except for John, as.
Speaker 2 (01:44):
One of the last undergraduate students of Harry Jaffa. Doctor
Jaffa was forced to retire in nineteen eighty nine and
I arrived in nineteen eighty nine, so he wasn't teaching.
He was emeritus by that point. He would just drop
in on other people's classes. So I wrote my undergraduate
(02:05):
thesis with him, and then I decided to go back
to Claremont for the PhD and been writing on the
constitution and religious liberty ever since. And now I've ended
up at Notre Dame where I'm a professor.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
Here, and also, as I understand, a fellow at the
Civitas Center in Texas.
Speaker 2 (02:23):
Yes, i was visiting a scholar visiting a faculty member
at the School of Civic Leadership at the University of Texas,
and I'm still a fellow there. A great project with
great leadership. They're not perfect. I think they are trying
to hire John but and me, yeah and yeah, No,
it's a wonderful. It's a wonderful. It's probably the most
(02:44):
exciting thing happening in higher education. There are these new
schools of civic leadership, and the one at the University
of Texas will be the best of them, I think.
Speaker 1 (02:54):
Yeah. The Chronicle is trying very hard to make it
sound as if these are horrible plays is filled with
with animosity and rife with all sorts of backstabbing. There's
an article every other day, which I because I think
what they realize.
Speaker 4 (03:10):
They're scared to death of them.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
Because they're scared to death. I mean these they're portrayed
as you know, right wing conservative. They're right wing and
conservative because they teach things like the federalist papers, political.
Speaker 4 (03:23):
History, or even even normal.
Speaker 2 (03:25):
Economics, economics, philosophy, Western civilization. They're actually doing what universities
used to do. And it is true that many of
these are the creatures of red state legislators or public
university University of Florida, Ohio State University, University of Texas.
There's a new one, University of South Carolina. But it's
(03:49):
true that they've been created by red state legislatures in
red or purple states. But the education they offer is
it's an American education.
Speaker 1 (04:01):
Well, my state started one that both of the big schools,
and they've the one in ASU I think is it's
pretty much a libertarian economics focus because it also got
some Koch Brothers money. I guess ours did. To The
one at my university is so lame. It's run by
some feminist and it's no longer even there's no conservative
(04:23):
viewpoint to it at all, or even an American civilization
we American slash Western civilization viewpoint.
Speaker 4 (04:29):
So I don't have anything to do with them.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
But well, this is always the danger in academia because
even at Notre Dame, the College of Arts and Letters,
it's overwhelmingly left in the faculty. So there's always a
tendency to drift left. If you're not very countercultural, explicitly countercultural,
you're going to drift left and really really drift left.
(04:51):
But I'm very optimistic about these new schools, in part
because the leadership dean at the University of Texas justin
Dyer is just phenomenal. Yeah, there, it's a place where
conservatives are welcome, which is a change, but really it's
a place their mission focused, and their mission is restoring
the principles and teaching the principles of the United States constitutionalism,
(05:13):
and the and the debates, all the debates left and right,
all sides. So it's it's very exciting, I think, John,
and hopefully you are going to be headed to text
Steve Man Steve too, and maybe all in up there
as well. But we did something similar Notre Dame. We've
actually been doing it at Notre Dame for over a decade.
(05:34):
In fact, I was down at Texas to help them
set up their curriculum. So there are these pockets of
a traditional education around the country. So you listeners with
college age kids or high school age kids, you should
look for these new schools of civic leadership. As I said,
(05:55):
one of the most promising things, promising developments in higher education.
Speaker 1 (05:59):
I think so. And actually I believe it or not.
People do ask us all the time, where can I
send my kid? And you know, the usual answer was
always his Hillsdale, But so there you go. Texas Texas
is another option. Maybe we'll do a whole show on that.
One of these days. I do want to mention a
couple of things. I'm very excited about the renaming of
(06:23):
the Department of Defense to the Department of War. They
have already as a what was it two days ago
that Trump announced this? The website, the Department of Defense
website is now war dot gov.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
Yeah. I saw the New York Times headline, and I
immediately forwarded to John. And John's response was, I might
have to go back in the governor. Governor. Yeah, I
want a business card that says Department of War.
Speaker 4 (06:53):
I know, it's so great. What are those crazy things
this week? I do want to talk a moment.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
I don't even know what you think about all this
because I had a we had a rather I don't
even know if it's fair to say it was rancorous
debate with Ken Green a few times ago. But can
Green considers me a conspiracy rfk nut?
Speaker 4 (07:13):
But I'm I'm all.
Speaker 1 (07:15):
In, by the way on eating clean, shall we say?
I don't need processed foods and this and that. And
I'm also becoming more and more suspicious about the whole
vaccine thing. Not because I think vaccines have always been
a terrible thing or anything like that. I mean, they
saved America from smallpox and polio, But do you know
(07:36):
how many vaccines a child gets now by the time
they're eighteen.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
You know, I have three kids, and I don't know
how many, but I do remember the you know, the
standard advice we got, and they just it's not only
how many, but at the same time, yeah, yeah, it
just overwhelmed. It's a small body. So we space We
think we did all the vaccines, but we spaced them
out differently.
Speaker 4 (08:02):
Well, my daughter.
Speaker 1 (08:03):
Is thirty six and when she was at her second
I believe it's around two months old, her second appointment
for vaccines, they wanted to give her a hepatitis B
vaccine and her father was a had a degree in microbiology,
didn't make him a medical expert. But he's, you know,
(08:23):
why would you do this? I know what they had.
The nurse couldn't answer. She said, well, it's really just experimental.
He says, you want to do an experiment on That
was thirty six years ago. Now they routinely give the
hepatitis B vaccine to infants immediately on the off chance
that their mother might have been excuse the expression a
(08:46):
crack hor and transfer hepatitis b it's crazy anyway. So RFK,
it's funny because you also see the conservative world divided
over RFK and even over his testimony. New York Post
had a New York Post opinion, the editorial board opinion
(09:08):
just calling him a total quack and blah blah blah
blah blah. And then another article, opinion article by someone
I forget, just saying how incredibly right he was because
he's not saying no vaccines or anything like that. He's
just saying we need to follow the science. But the senators,
did you say, you're probably too busy to have watched
even a moment of the testimony.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
I didn't. I didn't watch any of the testimony. My
general line on this is I'm distrustful of experts, all experts.
So the parts I like of RFK are his sort
of hey, let's pause, I'm not sure. And doctors, I mean,
I have lots of friends who are doctors. Doctors are
used to being the smartest people in the room. They
(09:51):
rarely tell you what they don't know. So I just
have a real healthy skepticism. So that skepticism I appreciate
and I think is needed. No, I don't know if
he's right either, but I think we need a lot
more skepticism. I mean I grew up eating the food pyramid, right,
(10:11):
stuffing myself with kicks and bread for you know, carbohydrates
which we were supposed to I mean you remember the
old food of course I do. Oh And now they're like,
that's exactly wrong or at least that's not right.
Speaker 1 (10:24):
Well some people are at least. Yeah. Then remember fats
were at the top, and you know, I make it
a point to eat as much butter as I can margin,
you know, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
I'm almost told me she was supposed to feed his.
Speaker 1 (10:37):
Margarin, right, you know, yeah, I used to. I've told
the story before. I used to bootleg cases of blue
bonnet margin to my grandparents up in the north shore
of Minnesota, Lake Superior, Minnesota because they insisted you had
to margin, but they lived in Minnesota so you.
Speaker 4 (10:53):
Couldn't buy it. Yeah. Crazy.
Speaker 1 (10:58):
I hope that they don't to actually force him out
because I do think he's doing all the right. People
are leaving because of him, and I think that's a
good sign. If you go into just you know, if
you go into a bureaucracy, that's you know, just just
sclerotic and people are so upset they leave. I think
(11:19):
that's a really good sign.
Speaker 2 (11:22):
Yeah, often it is. You know, the person I trust
in this realm more than anyone is Jay Batcheria, the
director of the Nationalist super Health. I mean, I've had vacation,
I run a program here at Notre Dame, and we've
had him come speak a few times, including just a
few days before he was nominated for the head of
the NIH. And you know, he's a top scientist, he
(11:44):
has all the credentials, but he's intellectually, epistemically humble. Yes,
I'm not afraid to say what he doesn't know, and
to my mind that gives him great credibility, both his
intelligence but his humility and courage.
Speaker 1 (12:03):
Though at the same time along with the humility, remember
he was he probably came close to losing his entire
career over the Great Barrington Declaration.
Speaker 2 (12:14):
And for people who don't know, he's a Stanford epidemiologist
PhD in economics. I mean, this guy is as credentialed
as anyone could be. And very early in COVID he said, hey,
wait a second, and he did some studies that showed,
you know, COVID is our there's no possibility of zero COVID.
I mean, it was out. Everyone was going to get
(12:34):
it sooner or later. And he was saying these things
in February March. Remember we all shut down around mid March.
He was saying these things very early. Then published a
great Barrantine declaration, and his colleagues at Stanford just went
after him. It was terrible. I mean, so I told
him he needs to write a book. There needs to
be a movie made about him. He's a real hero.
Speaker 1 (12:57):
I mean I yeah, and his friends got at less
did write a book.
Speaker 4 (13:01):
It's a very interesting one, and.
Speaker 2 (13:03):
Both those guys. Yeah, deserves a lot of credit. So,
I mean, he, you know, Jay Batcheria, I hope before
this term ends this administration and gets the Presidential Medal
of Freedom because he he really is a hero for
standing up for science but also freedom of speech.
Speaker 1 (13:17):
And give Trump some credit here too, for being willing
to say, you know, I considered the operation Warp Speed
one of my great accomplishments, but hey, let's look at
it given credit.
Speaker 2 (13:31):
Yeah, you know, one of my one of my good
friends here at Notre Dame sent me that statement and said,
have you ever seen a president be willing to make
himself so vulnerable in a way. Well, let's you know,
I did this. I think it worked. But let's let's
you know, they're presenting me with all sorts of evidence,
the President said, but they don't put it out in
(13:52):
the public. Let's put it out in the public.
Speaker 4 (13:54):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (13:55):
I mean my response to my my colleague who sent
me that was this is why people love him.
Speaker 1 (14:00):
Actually, yeah, yeah, because there are a lot of his
actual mega people who think that was his probably worst
thing he did. Many of them believe that he, you know,
he was taking advice from people he thought he could trust, experts,
experts like Fauci and Deborah Burghs whatever name.
Speaker 4 (14:19):
Is, you know.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
He he he thought he was doing the right thing.
Speaker 4 (14:23):
He's not a doctor, he has no medical training.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
And so he looks back on it and says, let's
let's let's see what really happened there.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
Good for let's see No. So, I mean, I think
when we're you know, the books are already starting to
come out on you know what we got wrong? And
Steve Mosito, very distinguished Princeton professor, very much man of
the left, has a new book out like we got
it all wrong? You know what, we the left got
(14:54):
it all wrong for, you know, very lefty Princeton professor
to say that. I mean, that's something else.
Speaker 1 (15:00):
So yeah, so tell me about your book. Excuse me,
your article I was thinking about. You showed me the book.
We'll come back to that. Tell me about so let
me first say, I'll show it because if Steve does,
this is uh an addition of national Affairs. It's I
don't know if it's going to show very well, but yeah,
(15:23):
it's a little blurry, but it includes an article by John,
an article by Steve and me, and an article by
Vincent Philip Munos, and we're gonna we're going to just yeah, no,
we're going to discuss that one article today because without
John here, it's really awful that whenever we have to
(15:43):
discuss these deep philosophical issues, it works better to school
John when he's actually not in the room, because then
he doesn't lawyer us. But we'll give him, we'll give
him equal time. Tell us a little bit about the
the thesis.
Speaker 4 (15:57):
Of your article.
Speaker 2 (15:59):
Yeah, well, thanks for asking about it. It's called the
American Revolutions of seventeen seventy six revolutions plural and in
the article I try to explain sort of three core
elements of the Founding political philosophy, all of which are
encapsulated in seventeen seventy six. The first revolution is that
(16:22):
legitimate government is via consent. Legitimate government is via consent
because all men are created equal, all people are equal
by nature, No one has a right to rule. No person,
no class has a right to rule by nature. So
that's the first revolution, and we can come back to
that because that gets right to the part of the
theological political problem which I know you've been talking in
(16:44):
recent episodes. So the first revolution is legitimate government is
instituted via consent. Second revolution is the purposes of government
are to protect natural rights, not to save citizens souls,
protect their rights. The third revolution, connected to the first two,
(17:05):
especially the second, is that why do we limit government
to protecting rights, protecting natural rights and not saving souls?
And we limit government to those more limited ends to
leave room for church authority out of deference to and
respect for church authority. Perhaps this is the most novel
(17:29):
aspect of the article. I say, I try to connect
and I think this is the Founder's understanding. We limit
the authority of the state because the state doesn't have
authority over our souls. Who has authority over our souls? Well,
ourselves will to God and our churches. And so we
(17:49):
limit state authority out of deference in respect of religious authority. Okay,
that's the Third Revolution. So those are the government by consent,
limited government protecting natural rights. We protect natural rights and
due regard in deference to church authority, our obligations to
(18:10):
our creator. Okay, So the revolutions of seventeen seventy six.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
Right, So I would only argue that in your second
to revolutions, you don't go far enough. And this is
this is why I will say so. First of all,
the reason that that you don't have a government responsible
(18:36):
for saving souls is because I agree with you, not
so much out of deference to church authorities, but the
absolute belief that Jefferson says, I should have pulled it
up before this. You know that it makes one half
of the world fools and the other tyrants. Right, is
that that the phrase something like that if you try
(18:58):
to force beliefs on people, you can't do it because
Almighty God hath created the mind free. So from the
point of view of human nature, Madison calls the right
to conscience a natural right, and Jefferson certainly thought of it,
included it in the idea of the rights of the
(19:18):
natural rights. Among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness. The reason that it's a revolution, and that
I agree with you about this, is it's the first
time it ever happened. It's I mean, all throughout ancient history,
the political authorities were the religious authorities and vice versa.
They were one and the same, and your piety was
(19:39):
the same as your patriotism. If you obeyed the laws,
you obeyed the gods. Christianity comes along and it's a
universal god, monotheistic religion, and you could have a loyalty
to God that might be different from your loyalty to
your political authority, to the political SoC and even see
(20:02):
some evidence of why that's problematic in the Gospel and
in some of the letters the epistles. But over the
years those things became joined. You had the Holy Roman Empire,
you had the King of England becoming the head of
the Church of England, where all of a sudden, now
(20:24):
you have religious wars. You have religious wars which define Europe,
and even in many cases of wider conflicts for a
thousand years at least, if not more. And you know,
America was founded by people wanting to practice their own
religion here in America that they were prevented from practicing
(20:47):
over in Europe. So religion and politics is probably the
single most important conflict in human history.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
I would say, yeah, I mean, you're getting right at
the heart of what we talk about limited government. Sometimes
conservatives confused limited government with small government. I mean, we
conservatives used to like small government, you know, lower taxes.
Speaker 1 (21:13):
And I still do because the more government does, the
less liberty you have.
Speaker 4 (21:17):
But yes, I get your point.
Speaker 2 (21:18):
But limited government is there's certain things that the state
governing powers people who have the guns can't legitimately do.
An example I like to use is I'm in Indiana,
the state of Indiana, or the state of California, or wherever.
We license doctors, we license lawyers, we licensed cosmetologists, we
(21:43):
license everything. To get married, you have to get a license,
But preachers don't have to get a license the state
from the state from the state. The state of Indiana
doesn't issue preaching licenses. And why not. You can imagine
Governor Dowse some saying there's an epidemic of hate preaching,
(22:08):
and so we need the licensed preachers. And the correct
response was would be, you don't have authority to do that.
You don't you the governor of California. You don't have
authority to determine who is and who is not a
legitimate preacher. Sure, that's what we mean by limited government.
There's certain things that the state can't do. You were
(22:29):
pointing to the foundation of that limit as a sort
of government and competence, or you know, government can't So
what Jefferson says, you know government, government can't make you
believe in the true religion. And I think that's true
to some extent. I mean, that's Locke's argument. Jefferson gets
it from Locke. It's the classic argument of the letter
concerning toleration. I mean that's true to some extent. I
(22:53):
think it actually overstates the case. Really, yeah, you know.
Speaker 1 (22:57):
You mean, because you look at it, say, an is
a Muslim country where they're actually pretty successful at it.
Speaker 2 (23:04):
Well, yes, you could do that or sat Augustine actually
writes about this and he says, experience taught me with
the Donatis. So these, uh, this is this heretical group.
He says, these people were confused in their in their
(23:26):
in their laziness, confused on an account of their laziness,
the accustom. They had certain beliefs which were wrong, religious
beliefs that were wrong, at least in Augustine's point of view.
And he said force can shake them out of their slumber.
So so it is true that compulsion alone can't can't
(23:49):
make you believe something.
Speaker 4 (23:51):
But where does that compulsion come from? For Augustine, Well.
Speaker 2 (23:54):
It's from the state, from those who have, you know,
those who have the guns. Force can make you consider arguments,
it can shake you up, it can end customs. You know.
Belief is a complicated thing, sure, suation of upbringing, and
(24:15):
force can affect those background conditions, if I can put
it in a sort of social scientific way. So it's
not that force is completely impotent. So I think Jefferson
and Locke maybe go to I mean, it's not what
they say isn't true. It's just not the whole story.
Speaker 4 (24:31):
I get that.
Speaker 1 (24:32):
I also think that it's in the rest and it's
by the way, it's half of the world hypocrites and
the other fools, not times hypocrites. And and of course
that is also an instrumental argument, because remember it goes
further and says that God asks us for our our faith,
(24:54):
our belief as a personal choice.
Speaker 4 (24:58):
And so you are, in.
Speaker 1 (24:59):
Fact legitimizing genuine religious belief.
Speaker 4 (25:04):
That's not the right word. You are by keeping.
Speaker 1 (25:07):
Government out of the business of saving souls. As you
put it, if my soul is saved, it's genuine. If
my soul is saved on account of laws and regulations
that will punish me for lack of faith, then it's
not all that genuine. And so he says, the true
religion prefers this freedom of conscience, freedom of.
Speaker 4 (25:29):
Will to choose it.
Speaker 1 (25:31):
And I think again, to a great extent, that's an
instrumental argument, because they want the separation of religious authority
from political authority, because that gives human beings the greatest freedom.
I think it's not that I want to leave this subtopic,
(25:53):
but it takes me to Steve asked us to consider
discussing this article that our good friend Glenn Elmers wrote.
And I believe the name of the article is something
like the Founders wanted Religion, but not I forget exactly.
Speaker 2 (26:09):
What it is mister Wilson's article.
Speaker 4 (26:11):
Yeah, I don't even know who that person is.
Speaker 2 (26:13):
Sorry, I say one thing on the last point, just yeah, sure,
of course there's a prudential argument and then a more
principled argument about religious freedom and separation of church and state.
The prudential argument, as you were getting at, is, you know,
when we have the union of church and state. Religious peoples,
my post liberal friends they say, well, if we had
a closer connection between church and state, well, then church authorities,
(26:37):
you know who we respect, or the churches we belong to,
they'll govern the political authorities, and then the political authority
can be used to, you know, to if not save souls,
at least help form souls in the proper direction. But
in fact, history teaches us the opposite is true. It's
not for church authorities direct political authorities. It's that political
(26:58):
authorities direct the church authorities. Yes, absolutely. At the time
of the founding, the class of people who are most
against the American Revolution the Anglican bishops. And why were
the Anglican bishops the established clergy. Why were they against
the revolution? Well because who was their patron? The power
(27:22):
came from the crib who owned all the church property,
who their appointment? They were government officials and Madison's argument.
Jefferson's argument. Part of the argument is just prudential. Look,
when you have a union of church and state. You
can see this Catholic church in Germany right now, which
gets its tax dollars, gets tax dollars from the state.
When you have a union in church and state, the
(27:43):
state always ended up controlling the church.
Speaker 1 (27:46):
Let me just add one small point to that. Having
lived in Germany and enjoying all of those actually not
enjoying them because they didn't really apply to us. There
are more religious holidays in Germany that are federal national
government sanctioned holidays. I can't even imagine how to get
(28:07):
anything done, to be honest with you. I think there's
two a week or something like that.
Speaker 4 (28:10):
It seemed like. But the point was, with.
Speaker 1 (28:13):
All of that government sanctioning of religion and support for religion,
the churches were empty. There is in fact no discernible
religious community in Germany anymore. You know, my daughter was
confirmed in a twelve hundred cathedral from that it was
(28:36):
built in the twelve hundreds, and it was the most
people because it was a bunch of military families there
that that church had seen in like ten years in
a mass.
Speaker 4 (28:47):
You know, it's just which is.
Speaker 1 (28:49):
You know, that kind of proves the point that if
the state gets involved in religion, it no longer leaves
it up to the individual to decide. And I think
it underminds and cheapens the religious experience. But I don't
think that was necessarily the founder's central goal. I do
believe it was. They believed it was necessary to separate
(29:14):
the idea of church and state. And the way they
did that is in some ways it's brilliant. And I
think it's all tied up in the phrase. We laughed
about it last week because Claremont has hats that say
this nature and Nature's God. So for the first time
you've had a country founded on the idea that both
(29:39):
revelation and reason supported the notion of human equality and
the need for government based upon consent. And my way
of introducing that to students, and you saw that I
wrote about it is I really do think that this
is sort of revolutionary in and of itself. When Jesus
(30:01):
goes to the well and the he's by himself, as
does disciples have gone to get food or something, and
the Samaritan woman comes up and he talks to her.
We don't have a sense of what that means. We
talk to anybody, but for a rabbi to talk to
a woman, first of all, an accompanied woman, second of
(30:24):
all a Samaritan, not a Jewish woman. And third of all,
it's you know, they make it so she's probably a prostitute,
and he talks her like she's a human being. That
to us, it's it's hard to fathom how revolutionary, how
(30:45):
that single passage in the Bible was, but it's it's
clear she and remember what happens. Then he says, you know,
I know you're a sinner. You're living with a man
who's not your husband. And he forgives her, and then
she goes back to her Samaritan community and talks about
and so for the first time, what you see is
(31:06):
not only that salvation is not just for the Jews
or just for men, or you know, or it's the
opening the recognition by Jesus that all human beings are equal,
and that notion of equality takes a long time, but
(31:27):
in my opinion, is embalmed in the Declaration of Independence,
but not based upon religious authority alone, based upon the
idea you said at the beginning that human beings, by
nature are not.
Speaker 4 (31:41):
Fitted with rulers and ruled. You.
Speaker 1 (31:44):
You can't tell by nature who is a ruler and
who was born to be ruled, and therefore.
Speaker 4 (31:50):
We are are our own natural rulers.
Speaker 1 (31:53):
That's to me, the biggest revolution of all of them
is that religion and reason teaches us that human beings
are fundamentally equal and the most important respect.
Speaker 2 (32:08):
Yeah, there's three interrelated ideas which you are articulated all
of them. I mean, the first really comes from the
Jewish scriptures. There's one God, a monotheism. You mentioned this earlier.
I mean that there's so in the ancient world and
the non Jewish world. I mean, you can see this
in the Old Testament too. You know, when when you're
(32:30):
when your country went to war, your gods were waging
war against their gods. That is, it wasn't a world
of monotheism. What Judaism brings to the world is there's
the one God and he is the true God. That is,
those other gods are not really gods, they're false gods.
So okay, that's the first. The second is there's one
(32:52):
God and he's the god of everyone. We are all
sons and daughters of the One True God. I mean
that idea we don't appreciate. The left especially does not
appreciate how revolutionary that idea is. I mean, this is
why we have what we call human rights slots. That's
(33:16):
why we don't just we take prisoners of war. We
don't shoot them. You know, why do so? We're at war,
they're in uniforms, the opponent is in uniforms. We capture them.
Why don't we just shoot them? Right? We house them,
we feed them right right well, because look, they may
(33:39):
be our enemies in battle, and it's legitimate to kill
them on the battlefield, but once we've detained them, taken
away their guns, once they can't harm us, they are
still children of God.
Speaker 1 (33:51):
It's why my favorite Christmas song, I won't call it Carol,
is Snoopy's Christmas. To me, it's the perfect emblematic idea
that our humanity uh and and the what Christmas means
to humanity is even more important than uh, than than
(34:13):
than enemies clashing exactly.
Speaker 2 (34:16):
I mean that that our enemies are still children, sons
and daughters of God. That that is a as a
revolutionary concept that Christianity brings, brings to the.
Speaker 4 (34:30):
World and that Lincoln reminded us of and we use.
Speaker 2 (34:34):
The language of human dignity today.
Speaker 1 (34:36):
Yeah, yeah, we're gonna get comments about that, but we're
gonna leave that.
Speaker 4 (34:43):
I get what you're all going to say.
Speaker 1 (34:45):
Human rights today doesn't necessarily mean exactly what what Phil
has in mind here, but I understand what he means
by that. It's the recognition of the natural rights of
other human being.
Speaker 2 (35:00):
And we all have them, not just Americans, but they're
natural rights, we all humans. And then the third idea,
which is to connect to the equality idea, is so
there's one God, it's a god of all of us.
But that God doesn't appoint political rulers for our political communities.
I mean, we participate, you could say, in the divine
governance of the world. I mean, I don't want to
(35:22):
be flip about it, but God says, look, your social beings,
by nature, you need to live together, figure out how
to live well using your mind. Right, I don't have
to appoint rulers for you. You're equal. Right, form a community.
(35:44):
Do it on the ground of equality.
Speaker 4 (35:46):
You're You're in the gospels.
Speaker 2 (35:48):
Give to Caesar, what is Caesar's So Caesar has a
legitimate authority give to God. What is God's Caesar's authority
is not appointed directly by God. This particular ruler is
not a pointed by God.
Speaker 1 (36:01):
But it took seventeen one hundred years for call it
political states and political philosophers to.
Speaker 4 (36:08):
Figure that out.
Speaker 1 (36:09):
Because remember what ruled Europe for centuries was the notion
of the divine right of kings. It was the controlling
philosophy of government, call it that theory of government before.
Speaker 2 (36:24):
Consent, a heresy that is convenient for those who want
to have power or hold power to say, my power
comes from God.
Speaker 1 (36:34):
A very powerful heresy, very powerful heresy, very powerful heresy.
And as Jefferson says, you know, we finally come to
the point where we're no longer being ruled by monks
and superstition ignorant, right.
Speaker 2 (36:50):
I mean, it's a dig at the Gallic Church, but
it is No church is perfect. So yes, you could
say that you cannot go all the way back to Erstutle,
that you can go to other earlier thinkers who understand
that there's a problem with the divine right of kings.
But in terms of actual real politics, real governance, it's
(37:11):
the great contribution of the American Founders to not only
us as Americans, but to Western civilization to the world
is the creation of a system of government that respects
human equality, yes, and religious authority and religious liberty. And
I think this is the point you're driving at that
(37:31):
the Founders in this sense solved the theological political problem.
They advised an arrangement that they devised an understanding and
then a political political institutions that both respect religious authority
and legitimate and legitimate political authorities. And they showed how
religious authority and political authority could coincide. That by limiting
(37:57):
political authority and saying that those who religious authorities don't
get to govern on account of the religious character. Right
in a nutshell, that's how you solve the theological political problem.
I've really simplified here, let's be honest, So John will
hopefully understand this. But that's the genius of the American Founding.
Speaker 1 (38:19):
One more addition to that, and that is it's very important.
I thought of it when you were talking about human rights.
It's also necessary, as the first paragraph of the Declaration
tells us that that one people have to come together
in recognition of those natural rights, with the goal of
(38:41):
securing those natural rights. And it is so that's why
I sort of hesitate a little at the notion of
calling them human rights, because human rights implies to me
today the notion of a un or global global government.
It can't be done by global governments. It cannot be
done in a way that does not allow for the
(39:02):
sovereignty of the people to exercise their consent on a
continuous basis in some way. And that consent is a
mutual consent with each other, it is that's the important part.
It's consent with your fellow human beings inside of what
you create as a political community. And then you choose
a government to secure your natural rights. And never forget
(39:26):
the Aristotilian ends of safety and happiness. The government is
there to secure your natural rights, to conduce to your
safety and happiness, which of course are the alpha and
omega of Aristotle's political ends political tilos. So I want
to move that discussion then to a discussion of how
(39:48):
that informs our constitution, because I do think that that
question may be the most important question not only between
the left and the right today, but also between elements
of the right itself. Even my good friend John claims
that our Constitution is not based upon these natural rights ideas.
Speaker 4 (40:09):
He calls it the.
Speaker 1 (40:10):
Natural law, and he says the natural law in seventeen
seventy six is not the same as it was when
the fourteenth Amendment was passed. And you know, I think
sometimes he just does that to tweak me, but he
does say it. Does our constitution have a basis that
is greater than simply the agreement the consent that you know,
(40:36):
the method of consent that the constitutional Convention decided, you know,
or send it to the people, not to the states,
send it to the people in ratifying conventions after elections
in their state. Does it have a greater force? Are
there more principles?
Speaker 4 (40:54):
Are there?
Speaker 1 (40:56):
Is there a natural law basis to the Constitution that
is how would you say operative? I hate to use
that term, but I think you know what I mean. Ken,
Our politicians are elected officials, and our judges turned to
that natural law basis of the Constitution to inform them
on how to interpret the provisions of the Constitution in
(41:19):
a meaningful practical way. I think that's the biggest question, right.
Speaker 2 (41:24):
So there are two issues here, and I think it's
really important to at least analytically keep them separate. The
first issue is what are the purpose? Why do we
have the constitution? We do? Are the what are its purposes?
What are its ends? Why did the founders design it
as they did? And here positivists and sometimes John who
(41:47):
likes to flirt with positivism, says he thinks he is
a positive. He's not really, but he thinks he is.
He says, Look, it's simply a matter of will. That's
the constitution they gave us, and the people ratify, and
so it's really the people's will. We have the constitution
we have simply because that's the constitution we gave ourselves.
(42:08):
I don't think that's right. It's true the necessary condition
of authority is that it was ratified by the people.
But that's not sufficient because the people could make a
very bad constitution. The purpose of our constitution? Let me
take one constitutional provision, the taking's clause. Government can't take
(42:30):
your property except for public use and just compensation. Why
is that provision in the constitution. We's in the constitution
because the founder said the purpose of the constitution is
to protect our natural rights, including our right to property.
The problem of demand, and I especially yeah, you know,
the fundamental problem of popular government or democracy is the
(42:52):
many taking the property of thew And that's wrong. It's
wrong even if it's done lawfully. You can't just the many.
Can't just plunder the few. The fu shouldn't plunder the many.
But why do we have a right to property, a
natural right to property? Well, because if I pick the apple,
(43:13):
it's mine. No one owns the apple tree I'm out there.
If I'm out in the ocean and I cast a
line and catch a fish, it's mine. Why do I
own my property? Why do I own my labor? But
why do I get the apple? Who made that rule?
That I own my own labor? That's by nature. That's
(43:36):
what it means to be a person to own your
own labor. Slaves are people who don't own their own labor.
Slavery is wrong. Now those moral pronouncements I just made
that the apple, if I pick it is mine. That
slavery is wrong. If I enslave someone, the slave picks
(43:57):
the apple, I take it. Those those moral pronouncements are
not because of some positive law we made. Those are
that is the natural law.
Speaker 1 (44:07):
Okay, So here's I'll be John for a second. Yeah,
he just says that that's a cost benefit. The reason
that we protect property is because it leads to economic prosperity,
which it does.
Speaker 2 (44:22):
It's true it does, but that's not the reason we
protected The reason why we we think slavery is wrong
is not because it's inefficient. It's because, no, the slaves
own their labor too. I mean, Abraham Lincoln says, you work,
I eat is the root logic of despotism.
Speaker 4 (44:45):
Yep. No different from kings or tyrants in the past.
Speaker 1 (44:49):
Yes, so I want to read to you really quickly.
This was a story. But you said you didn't have
time to pay too much attention to the headlines. Senator
Kine from Virginia when he was questioning a nominee to
actually the nominee was to I don't even Assistant Secretary
(45:12):
of State and the Riley Barnes in his opening his
I guess opening statement, Riley Barnes says, we are a
nation founded on a powerful principle, and that powerful principle
is that all men are created equal because our rights
come from God, our creator, not from our laws, not
(45:32):
from our government. He warned that when rights are untothered
from that principle, they can be easily manipulated by authoritarians
and bad actors. OK.
Speaker 4 (45:44):
You and I would agree with that.
Speaker 1 (45:47):
I think it's true simply speaking, and that's a secondary issue,
that it's problematic if you don't abide by that principle.
Speaker 4 (45:55):
But Cain said that the.
Speaker 1 (45:58):
Notion was extremely tru bling, that it should make Americans very,
very nervous, because the notion that rights don't come from
laws and don't come from the government, but come from
the creator. That's what the Iranian government believes.
Speaker 2 (46:20):
I mean, has he not read the Declaration of Independence
by our creator? Our rights are endowed by our creator.
I mean, it's but it's an embarrassment that the United
States senator would say that. I mean he's directly contradicting
the Declaration of Independence.
Speaker 1 (46:39):
Of course, But is it not emblematic or symptomatic of
the the rot in our government and amongst the left
and left and so forth that he could say that
and not be laughed off the stage?
Speaker 2 (46:53):
Well, because he actually believe. It's not just ignorance, it's
what he actually believes. I mean, it's the modern left.
I mean, this is intellectually you go back to Herbert
Crowley and Woodrow Wilson. They actually believe no rights are
a product of historical development. They're a product of the state.
You only have property rights. To go back to our
own example, you only get the apple because we made
(47:15):
laws to say that you get the apple. That your
property rights are a product of the state. They're granted
by the state, and then they're readjusted over time, right
by whatever the state decides as best for human development. Sure,
that is the modern conception, the modern progressive conception of government.
(47:36):
So Senator Kane, you know, we say it's laughable because
it's against the Declaration of Independence, which he obviously is
unaware of, but he's actually speaking of truth. He actually
thinks rights come from the state.
Speaker 1 (47:51):
There's I think a secondary issue there too, and that
is this is my bias against the left. For all
of their talk about all quality and equity, what it
really means is if it's God who gives us our rights,
or call it even nature, nature being some unchanging principle,
(48:12):
then of course you're limited as a politician, and you're
just not just a servant of God but a servant
of the people. That's the whole idea of American political
power that is consistent with the Constitution that our representatives
are senators, our president, even though our judges are our
servants who have been given the sacred responsibility of governing
(48:35):
the American people. But of course Kine doesn't think of
himself that way, not even I mean, not even close.
He thinks that, you know, if power comes from God,
it means I don't have power.
Speaker 2 (48:48):
Yeah, And if rights come from the government, he is
the bestower rights.
Speaker 1 (48:52):
Yes, yes, and so there's an incredible arrogance about this,
but it's very because of course, then the other thing
that that the left likes to do, in my opinion,
that once you no longer believe that rights come from
God or from nature, from from a rational understanding of
(49:14):
human nature, then you can make rights and be anything
you want them to be. Like you talked about back
back somehow, uh, turning us back to a place where
the many can take away the property of.
Speaker 4 (49:26):
The rich or vice versa.
Speaker 1 (49:28):
Or turning us to a place where you can say,
there's a right to health care, a right to uh,
you know, a right to a fair and appropriate public education,
a right here's.
Speaker 2 (49:41):
Your gender, right to do whatever you want. I mean
that there's no nature, yes, right, there's nothing stable. There's
nothing fixed, there's nothing that limits the power of the government.
To get back to our earlier point or first point
was one of the revolutions was we limit the power
of the state. But if there are no natural rights,
it emancipates the state. And that's really what Tim Kain thinks.
Speaker 1 (50:07):
Yes, yes, and you know the idea that he didn't
lose his seat, that he wasn't the whole Senate didn't
censor him for saying those remarks. Again, I think it's
a rot at the center of our government these days,
and I think, pardon me, that, excuse me, I'm so sorry.
That's one of the things to go back to the
(50:28):
very beginning of our discussion that Civitas and some of
these other civic education are trying to reintroduce.
Speaker 2 (50:37):
I am.
Speaker 1 (50:39):
Optimistic, not just because there are places like Civitas, but
also because I believe that Trump's success. I don't think
Trump is perfect. Don't anybody accuse me of that. But
Trump's success is that there's a lot more common sense
out there in America that understands what Tim Kaine does
not understand.
Speaker 2 (51:00):
I think every day, everyday Americans are still a very sensible.
Speaker 4 (51:03):
Bunch, and they may not understand it the way we do.
Speaker 2 (51:07):
But we should get back to our point, because there's
the first point you asked about natural rights and constitutional government.
Our first point was that there is a moral foundation
in nature, Nature and Nature's God and human rights and
natural rights that our constitution is meant to protect. So
there's natural rights. The fact that I get to own
(51:27):
my own labor, that's a natural right. The natural right
of property, or natural right to acquire property, that's part
of the natural law. The natural law is just to
say what's reasonable. It's not reasonable that if I pick
the apple you can take it from me. Right, you
can't take my property. We all understand that right, and
that's that's the natural law. We create a constitution to
(51:49):
protect our natural rights. So the natural law, the natural
rights are inform the constitution. Now John thinks he makes
a quick jump. He says, if you belie believe that,
then a judge can always invoke the natural law to
adjudicate a case. And he says, well, but different people
disagree about what the natural law is. Therefore you're just
(52:11):
emancipating judges to be policymakers, to be philosopher kings. That's
too quick of a jump. Okay, So the constitution is
informed by natural law. Again, natural rights are just part
of the natural law. Right. The natural law is simply
the law of natural justice.
Speaker 4 (52:33):
We create there on the hearts of men according to luck.
Speaker 2 (52:40):
And the gospels, and the and the and the we
create a constitution to secure justice. The legislative power is
the body. The body that makes the law is to
make laws, to make good, positive laws for the community
that determine or effectuate the natural law. So we have
(53:05):
all sorts of laws to regulate property, to protect property right.
We divide up the land into parcels. That's all done
by the legislature so people can own it. So law makers,
when they're passing laws, how do we know if a
law is good or bad? What's the standard? I mean,
they're legal because they're laws as long as they're passed
(53:26):
according to the due procedures. But we can say some
laws are good, some laws are bad. Slavery was legal
in the Southern States, but it was a bad law.
Why can we say it's a bad law, Well, because
it's against the natural law. So the political body, the
institution that's most responsible for articulating and then instantiating the
(53:48):
natural law for our political community is the legislature through
passing positive laws. So the civil law, when it's good,
reflects the natural law. This is exactly what Martin Luther
King says, by the way, in his letter from the
Birmingham Jail, he says, look segregation right, the dividing people
by race by law, saying you know, no blacks can
(54:12):
be at the public in the public schools, or the
public swimming pool, or if you own a business, you
must segregate on the race. Those are laws. They're just
deficient laws. They're unjust laws. They're immoral laws because the
positive law is not consistent with the natural law, and
therefore those laws should be overturned. They should be sorry,
(54:34):
those laws should be rescinded. As King's argument, Okay, now
here's the question. If you're a judge and you have
to say the law of segregation or the law of slavery,
what's your authority. The law is the positive laws against
the natural law. But the institution that's responsible for instantiating
the natural law is the legislature. So here's where I
(54:57):
actually agree with John. It's not the role of judges
to overturn the positive law into the in light of
the natural law. The role of the judge in our
system is to articulate in a case by case basis,
what the positive law is. That's the role of the judge,
(55:20):
simplifying a little bit, but it's to interpret the constitution.
The Constitution is a positive law, so the role of
the judge is not to go over the positive law
the Constitution to the natural law to strike down. That's
just not the role of the judge. So you can
have both a judiciary that understands its role is limited
(55:44):
to articulating the meaning of the Constitution and say the
Constitution is a product of the natural law. Those are
not incompatible positions. Okay, now one.
Speaker 1 (55:57):
Can't bring that up at the end of the podcast.
Speaker 4 (56:00):
I'm sorry, Phil, that's unfair.
Speaker 1 (56:03):
Go ahead.
Speaker 2 (56:05):
One refinement. Part of the positive law, part of the
Constitution are natural law principles, so the freedom of speech
or the free exercise of religion. So you're judge and
you say, well, the First Amendment says Congress can't pass
a law a bridging the freedom of speech, Well, what
is the freedom of speech? That text, that constitutional text
(56:28):
reflects a natural law principle. The natural law principle is
people have a right to say things that are reasonable,
and they should not be punished for saying things that
are reasonable. But libel, saying false things, Maliciously saying false
things about something someone is not reasonable. You can't destroy
(56:52):
someone's reputation that's actually a real harm to them. So
libel is not part of the freedom of speech. So
a judge in interpreting the positive law the freedom of
speech the First Amendment. When a judge is interpreting the
First Amendment, to interpret it well, according to the text,
you're going to have to understand the natural law principles
(57:14):
that inform the text. That's why a judge can say
libel is not part of freedom of speech. Publishing pornographic
images is not part of the freedom of the press.
So it well, it's true that the role of the
judge is only to interpret the positive law. To interpret
the positive law requires knowledge of natural law principles, because
(57:37):
our positive law is informed by the natural law.
Speaker 1 (57:41):
Yes, and I would love to carry on with this
conversation quite a bit more because it deserves more discussion,
but unfortunately, not only do you have to be someplace
I'm to understand, but we are out of time. So
I thank you very much for joining us joining me
today on the three Whiskey Happy Hour. By the way, folks,
(58:03):
I have to tell you that we didn't talk about
whiskey because it's actually we started at six fifteen am
Pacific time. It's a little early for me because itself.
I do have my eighteen twelve commemorative death Wish coffee cups,
so I guess that'll have to do for this week.
(58:24):
I'm gonna throw a few really quick Babylon bees because
we didn't get to some of the things we were
going to discuss, because you know, that's how it always goes.
Speaker 4 (58:32):
But let me.
Speaker 1 (58:33):
Start with report Chicago shootings are down. As the official
guy who keeps track of all the shootings got shot.
English Bobby's raced past five stabbings to tackle offensive social
media poster man.
Speaker 4 (58:52):
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (58:54):
It's really the corruption of the West right there.
Speaker 1 (58:57):
Yeah, I mean they're pushing back. There's obviously it's similar
I think in Great Britain, parts of you know, Scotland
and Ireland, where the middle class, the lower middle class,
the heartland people, if they have them there, they're a
lot smarter. They have a lot more common sense than
(59:17):
their leaders. Do that. You know that gives me a
lot of hope. It's why I tend to flock with
them rather than my elites. Sorry, I know that's not
very nice. Newsome announces he is anti crime until the
next election. Kamala Harris last scene fleeing dozens of international
(59:40):
assassins after Trump counsels her secret Service protection. Just covering
all those headlines we didn't get to Russia, Ukraine reached
new type of truth where they just keep bombing each
other and finally study finds women in denteds to make
(01:00:02):
other women look stupid. You won't appreciate that, but I do,
all right, Phil, Hey, you want to take us out?
Speaker 2 (01:00:12):
Well, I suppose I'm supposed to say, always drink your
whiskey meat, but I actually preferred on the rocks.
Speaker 1 (01:00:19):
Oh heresy, Thank you, Phil. I hope to see you
on here again soon because John's gonna want a piece
of you. Have a great week, everyone.
Speaker 2 (01:00:58):
Ricochet join the conversation.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.