June 6, 2025 • 44 mins
Prayer is an indispensable part of the believer’s life but is so often one of the most confusing parts as well. On In The Market with Janet Parshall this week we turned to a trusted friend and highly regarded bible teacher to clear up that confusion. He tackled topics like what prayer is and is not, why it is so vital to the life of the Christian and whether or not prayer can actually change the mind and plans of God. For many it is easier to believe that man is a machine with no soul controlled by the organ of the brain. But a highly respected neurosurgeon begs to differ. We shared the insights of this former non-believer who shared the highly personal story of how God reached into his life and made Himself known. Then relying on his more than 40 yeas of practice in the field of brain medicine, he explained why science has it wrong and that the soul is real and why the brain alone can not explain the existence of the mind. The homosexual agenda is coming for the heart of the of the Christian faith by bending the holy word of God to fit its ideas. We talked to former gay man who has spent his life drawing others in that lifestyle to the hope of Christ. He addressed the efforts of a new book to view the Bible, the people in it and Jesus Himself through the lens of queer acceptance. Our guest grounded us firmly in the truth of scripture to expose the fallacies and misguided teachings of those are pushing this agenda. We visited with our favorite missionary to the entertainment industry to hear more stories of how God is moving and working in the lives of these creative people. Then we talked to one of our favorite friends who shared more stories of Jesus changing the lives of people in the Middle East including Palestinians and Orthodox Jews who are turning to the Savior. As we wind down another week, we invite you back into our radio classroom as your favorite teaching duo continue their lessons on how to use the Bible as a measuring rod against the confusing and often downright lies that permeate the news today.
Become a Parshall Partner: http://moodyradio.org/donateto/inthemarket/partners
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
S1 (00:00):
Hi friend, thank you so much for downloading this podcast
and I truly hope you hear something that edifies encourage, equips, enlightens,
and then gets you out there in the marketplace of ideas.
But before you go, I want to tell you about
this month's truth tool. It's called Have You Ever Wondered?
And I absolutely love this topic because if you're like me,
going out into the night sky and looking up and
seeing a million stars, don't you just stop and think
(00:22):
about God? And are you not in a moment of
awe and wonder or looking out over the vast expanse
of an ocean and you start thinking, what is man,
that thou art mindful of him? And it makes you
wonder about the magnificence of God? I think that sense
of wonder was put there on purpose, and this wonderful
book includes a composite of multiple authors who have written
(00:42):
from their perspective as a scientist, or a historian, or
a mathematician or an artist, on why they all have
this sense of awe through the work that they do.
In other words, the heavens declare the glory. And as
it tells us in Romans, we are really without excuse
because his handiwork is everywhere. And this book invites you
to walk through the chapters written by people who all
(01:03):
have a sense of awe and wonder when it comes
to God through their various disciplines in life. It's an
amazing book and it's yours. For a gift of any amount,
just call 877 Janet 58. That's 877 Janet 58. Ask
for a copy of Have You Ever Wondered? And we'll
send it right off to you as my way of
saying thank you, because we are listener supported radio. Or
you can go online to in the market with Janet Parshall.
(01:26):
When you're also on the website, consider becoming a partial partner.
Those are people who give every single month at a
level of their own choosing. You always get the truth tool,
but in addition to that, you get a weekly newsletter
that includes my writing and an audio piece just for
my partial partner. So 877 Janet 58 or the website
in the market with Janet parshall.org consider becoming a partial
(01:46):
partner or asking for this month's truth tool. Have you
ever wondered? And now please enjoy the broadcast.
S2 (01:58):
Welcome to In the Market with Janet Parshall. Today's program
is where Janet and her husband, Craig, take some of
the stories making headlines this week and offer their insight
and analysis. Before they get started, let's take a quick
look back at some of the highlights from the week.
S3 (02:17):
I is an extremely powerful thing and has enormous capacity
for both good and evil. But every bit of thought
in AI is human thought, and AI leverages leverages our thoughts.
I think in some ways that we don't fully understand yet.
I mean, it's a very complex matter, but everything in
there is us. The computer is just is just the instrument.
(02:40):
It's the tool. We must not let our lives be
governed by this idea that since God is God and he's.
He is, uh, good and gracious and generous. He's going
to do for me whatever he wants to do, whether
or not I ask. And I just think the answer
to that is no, he isn't. He has suspended the
bestowal of his blessings on the petitions and the intercession
(03:03):
of his people. So I know that's hard for people
to reconcile, but there's no way to get around the
clear teaching of Scripture in that regard.
S4 (03:10):
We never think to pray for the people with talent
who don't know the Lord. And so I want to
highlight the names of people who really are incredible talents
given from God, and ask us to lift them up
and to let God work through them personally, not just
with their talent. And so I like to do it
with people with names of people who really are household
(03:31):
to a lot of us. And so this is the
way I don't want to say on here, they need
Jesus or they're lost or they're bad. I want to say,
let's appreciate their talent. We know it's from God, and
let's lift them up so the Lord can do more
with them.
S5 (03:44):
Anybody claiming the Bible doesn't have a sexual ethic has
either not read the Bible or is reading the Bible, um, with, with, uh,
blindfold Because virtually every book in the New Testament, not
to mention most of the Old Testament books, mentions and
condemns sexual sin that right away tells you there is
such a thing as sexual behavior that is not God's will.
(04:06):
And the only form of sexual expression that's commended in
both testaments is a heterosexual covenant union of marriage between
a man and a woman.
S6 (04:16):
They don't want to be under Hamas. They don't want
to be under the Palestinian Authority. They want to be
under Israel. And so there's going to be a great pushback.
So what are we just going to force these people
to do this and it's going to get worse. We're
going to get worse. It's just going to cause more radicalism.
So who knows what's going to happen. But it's just
Israel again is in the vice grip. They just go
(04:39):
from one crisis to another. And this is a vise grip.
They've got a date. They've got a time. We're forcing
a Palestinian state. And whether you like it or not, well,
what country would undergo Go that and not fight back.
S2 (04:55):
To hear the full interviews from any of those guests,
go to In the Market with Janet Parshall and click
on Past Programs. Here's some other stories making headlines this week.
S7 (05:05):
US job growth cooled in May amid uncertainty about President
Trump's tariffs, according to a closely watched report out Friday
from the Labor Department.
S8 (05:14):
Immigrant communities across the United States are reacting in shock
to the president's sweeping new travel ban.
S9 (05:20):
Donald Trump and Chinese leader XI Jinping spent over an
hour on the phone Thursday talking trade. The rare leader
to leader call came after weeks of tensions over tariffs
and critical minerals.
S2 (05:33):
Janet and Craig have lots to share, and they'll put
the first story on the table when we return. To
get more information or to download the podcast of any
of the interviews, go to In the Market with Janet Parshall.
S1 (05:57):
So many in our culture today are spiritually curious but
hesitant about religion. That's why I've chosen. Have you ever wondered,
is this month's truth to explore how everyday experiences might
be the signpost pointing to deeper biblical truths? As for
your copy of have you ever wondered when you give
a gift of any amount to in the market, call
877 Janet 58. That's 877 Janet 58 or go to
(06:19):
in the market with Janet Parshall.
S10 (06:25):
This is London. London calling in the home overseas and
European services of the BBC and through United Nations radio Mediterranean.
And this is John Snagge speaking. Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary
Force have just issued communique number one, and in a
(06:48):
few seconds I. I will read it to you. Communique
number one, under the command of General Eisenhower, Allied naval forces,
supported by strong air forces, began landing Allied armies this
morning on the northern coast of France. I'll repeat that communique.
(07:09):
Communique number one. Under the command of General Eisenhower, Allied
naval forces, supported by strong air forces, began landing Allied
armies this morning on the northern coast of France. This
ends the reading of Communique Number one from Supreme Headquarters
(07:34):
Allied Expeditionary Force.
S1 (07:37):
And that's what radio sounded like June 6th, 1944. Hello, friends.
Welcome to In the Market with Janet Parshall. Craig partial
is with me. And this is where Craig and I
want to start today because history matters and we need
to understand who we were, particularly when that great, great
group of people who fought in World War Two are
(07:58):
slowly stepping into eternity. Our dads were part of World
War two. My children's grandparents were part of World War two.
And with each succeeding generation, we are one tick away
from trying to understand how in the world do you
press on, persevere, and hang on to hope when the
entire world is on fire. So D-Day was in fact
the name given on the June 6th, 1944 date. It
(08:20):
was the invasion of the beaches at Normandy. There were
actually five beaches on that northern coast of France. U.S. troops,
Canadian troops, UK troops and others during World War II.
What you just heard was the BBC covering Great Britain.
You can imagine how they were glued to their radios
hearing about this assault that was taking place. Remember, it's
not that far from the southern part of the UK
(08:42):
to the northern coast of France. You can actually drive
a tunnel underneath the ocean between those two countries. Now, France,
at the time, you will recall, was occupied by the
armies of Nazi Germany and the amphibious amphibious assault. It
had a codename. It was called Operation Overlord. Landed some
156,000 Allied soldiers on the beaches of Normandy by the
(09:04):
end of the day. Now, despite their success, some 4000
Allied troops were killed by German soldiers defending the beaches.
And at the time, the D-Day invasion was the largest naval,
air and land operation in history, and within a few days,
about 326,000 troops, more than 50,000 vehicles and some 100,000
(09:25):
tons of equipment had landed. By August of 1944, all
of northern France had been liberated. In the spring of 1945,
the allies had defeated the Germans. Historians often referred to
D-Day as the beginning of the end of World War Two.
It's very important that we remember what happened that day,
but it took courage. The same choice to be brave then,
(09:47):
is the same choice to be brave now. General Dwight
D Eisenhower was at the time the general for the U.S. forces.
He would later go on to become president of the
United States. But you can imagine what it would be
like to give the directive, when so many would end
up giving all that they had on those beaches of Normandy.
Here's a part of what General Eisenhower said.
S11 (10:09):
Soldiers, sailors and airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force, you
are about to embark upon the great crusade toward which
we have striven these many months. The eyes of the
world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty
loving people everywhere march with you in company with our
brave allies and brothers in arms. On other fronts, you
(10:33):
will bring about the destruction of the German war machine,
the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of Europe,
and security for ourselves in a free world, your task
will not be an easy one. Your enemy is well trained,
well equipped and battle hardened. He will fight savagely. But
this is the year 1944. Much has happened since the
(10:57):
Nazi triumphs of 1940 41. The United Nations have inflicted
upon the Germans great defeats in open battle. Man to man.
Our air offensive has seriously reduced their strength in the
air and their capacity to wage war on the ground.
Our home fronts have given us an overwhelming superiority in
(11:19):
weapons and munitions of war, and placed at our disposal
great reserves of trained fighting men. The tide has turned.
The free men of the world are marching together to victory.
I have full confidence in your courage, devotion to duty
and skill in battle. We will accept nothing less than
full victory. Three. Good luck, and let us all beseech
(11:43):
the blessing of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking.
S1 (11:48):
The roughly 160,000 allied troops who landed in Nazi occupied
France on June 4th. June 6th, 1944. Not only successfully
executed the largest air, land, and sea invasion in history,
and that remains to this day. They did so amid
daunting obstacles, terrible bloodshed and stakes that couldn't have been higher.
(12:09):
Dwight D Eisenhower said, we will accept nothing less than
full victory, and victory in this battle was far from
certain in the first hours of that day. Out of
that day came the saying, all gave some, some gave all.
When Steven Spielberg made his movie Saving Private Ryan, it
opens with 22 minutes of action of the landing on
(12:31):
the beaches. There's not a single word of dialogue spoken.
And history records that there were several World War Two
vets who, in the opening of that film, found it
so realistic they literally had to walk out of the theater.
We cannot forget their sacrifice. It's easy to do that,
particularly with each continuous generation. But Craig, it's imperative that
we remember. I look at America now, and I look
(12:52):
at our animus and our our slothfulness and our licentiousness,
and I think to myself, do we still have that
same character? Do we still have that same courage? Could
you get out of that first boat that hit Omaha
Beach as one of the five beaches as an example,
and you see the bullets the way the Germans were
bunkered up at the top of the hill. So you
talk about, from a military perspective, they had clear aim
(13:13):
right down at those soldiers who hit the beach. And
the footage, by the way, which you can find black
and white, some of it colorized, is horrific because in
very short order, the waters were filled with the bodies
of our troops. Who gave their all your thoughts?
S12 (13:25):
Yeah, we think so much, and rightly so, of the
landing crafts that had to wade in to a storm
of bullets coming their way. But also we had the
Army Air Corps as an example, uh, trying to protect
them and and soften up the Nazi defenses, uh, along
(13:47):
that coast. I read one account, uh, where a gentleman
who is now 106 years old and was at, uh,
as part of the attack on, uh, in the landing
in Normandy, he was with the Air Corps, and he
was a repairman for those pilots and for those airplanes
for the Army Air Corps. He said half of the
(14:07):
pilots in his one company lost their lives on D-Day,
trying to protect those on those landing crafts. So as
of now, we may think, well, was victory uh, shortly after, actually,
it took 11 months after that, before V-E day, victory
in Europe. But every historian of that war recognizes this,
(14:31):
and that is it created the way forward to achieve victory.
Had we not done that, had those men and women
given their last sacrifice, the most important sacrifice for freedom?
In that storm of of defense that the Nazis raised,
(14:53):
then it could have been several years. It could have
been a non-victory, considering some of the weaponry that Nazi
Germany was experimenting with at the time.
S1 (15:04):
And, you know, it was a high risk decision, wasn't it?
Operation Overlord, you find it very interesting that that was
the code name that they gave for it. But you
rightfully pointed out that it takes almost a year before
you can claim victory. But here's what is so significant
about that day. And it has it tells me. And
Eisenhower was a man of faith, by the way, but
tells me that they had to do a lot of
soul searching before they knew they were going to send
(15:25):
so many people into harm's way. But by being on
that beach, it established a new major front against the
Germans in the West, and it helped the Soviet forces
facing the bulk of German troops in the east. And
that's why, less than a year later, Germany was forced
to surrender. You wonder what would have happened if there
had not been a D-Day, June 6th, 1944. If so
(15:46):
many weren't willing to go into harm's way for the
sake of something greater than themselves. And again, I just
keep asking myself the question today, when we're in a post-truth, post-modern,
post-Christian era, do we still have the same strength of
character if called upon today? Could we still have some
who gave all but some, some who gave all and
(16:06):
all who give some?
S12 (16:07):
Yeah. We also have to remember that there were, uh, climactic, uh,
and I don't mean, uh, dramatic, but I mean the
climate and the weather point in that landing, uh, the,
the planning team behind the invasion and the timing of
it had to take into consideration what the weather factors were, uh,
(16:30):
and it, uh, You knew at some point that it
was going to be between the fifth and the 7th
of June, but that was depending on weather. And, of course,
weather is beyond human control. Yes, but we know in whom, uh, that, uh,
atmospheric and weather condition lies. Uh, we we cannot forget
(16:53):
the providential hand of God and the prayers, even, uh,
and most importantly, from General Eisenhower himself, uh, asking for
God's providential care and support in winning that war against
absolute abject evil. And there's no way to counter to
characterize it other than that it was a battle of
(17:16):
good and evil.
S1 (17:17):
Every Memorial Day weekend, we have a concert that's held
in front of the U.S. Capitol. It's called the Memorial
Day Concert. And every year we honor those who have served.
This year, there were several members who did fight on
that day in 1944, all of them very aged, all
of them very proud, all of them keenly aware of
the sacrifice their brothers made on the beaches at Normandy.
(17:38):
May we never forget and always remember their courage. That's
the legacy they left for us back after this. I
shared yesterday that on today's edition of In the Market
with Janet Parshall, knowing that Craig would be with us
(17:59):
and his background as a constitutional attorney, that we would
break down two significant cases that were handed down by
the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday. There were more than two
that were handed down, but two in particular. We're going
to highlight both of them a 9 to 0 decision. Now,
there are only nine justices that sit at the High Court.
So that's pretty rare. But it also really solidly affirms
(18:20):
the outcome of the particular case, by the way. Let
the record reflect, Your Honor, that this is the merry
month of June and the and the term ends at
the end of the month. We're still waiting for some
very important decisions, including one called Skrmetti, and that could
come down any time. And that will deal with a
whole myriad of issues of free speech, exercise of religion, transgenderism.
(18:41):
So it's going to be one of those hot button ones.
I guess the hotter they are, the later in the
month they get handed down. But you can bet Craig
and I will be on top of that and we'll
share when they come out. But as for now, let
me start first with one. And in a unanimous decision yesterday,
the Supreme Court upheld the claims of a woman who
faced workplace discrimination because of her majority group identity and
(19:02):
in this case, what was her majority group. She was
a heterosexual. So the decision upholds the rights of a
majority group, individuals, to be free from reverse discrimination. I
find that to be a sloppy word anyway. Discrimination is
discrimination when it comes in any way, shape or form. Uh,
but but the part of this that's so significant is
that it was considered about the protection provided us under
(19:23):
title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. For
Justice Jackson delivered the opinion. Justice Thomas delivered a concurring
opinion and that was joined by Justice Gorsuch as well. So, Craig,
give the background on the facts of this case and
why this was significant. And again, you don't have this
kind of unanimity that often in Washington. I always jump
up and down and wave the flagpole when it happens.
(19:44):
So you get a nine zip. That means there must
have been some real clarity in the law on this one.
Talk to me about it.
S12 (19:49):
Yeah. The the person who brought this lawsuit originally, um,
in the case called Ames versus Ohio Department of Youth Services, uh,
the plaintiff was Marlene Ames, and she's, as you said,
was a heterosexual woman. Uh, she worked for the Department
of Youth Services, uh, for a number of years. In fact, uh,
started around 2004. So she had been there until, uh,
(20:14):
the episode that led to the lawsuit, which is 2019.
So she was there for 15 years. She was a
veteran of that agency, uh, apparently highly qualified. And she
applied for a new management position that was open. And
as you know, in government agencies, they they will make
public postings of, uh, promotional opportunities. And she applied for that,
(20:37):
but she was turned down and she was replaced in
that position, which she was qualified for by another candidate
who was a lesbian. Um, so, uh, based on some
of the fact finding that she and her attorney made, uh,
by the way, they subsequently later on, they demoted her
from her role as a program administrator. Um, and later
(21:00):
hired a gay man to fill that role. So, in
other words, not only does she not get the promotion,
but then she was demoted and replaced in her regular
position that she had been at for some 15 years. Um,
by by a gay person. So twice she was discriminated against,
according to her lawsuit by, uh, a minority group, which is, uh,
(21:23):
you know, a gay woman and a gay man. Um,
but here's here's the issue. Here's the legal issue. The
legal issue is title VII of the Civil Rights Act
says that if you are discriminated against in employment, and
that's what title VII deals with, is discrimination in employment
based on protected categories such as race or religion or sex.
(21:49):
Then you have a claim and you can bring your
claim if you can prove that in fact, it was
done intentionally and not accidentally or for some other reasons,
like poor performance on the part of the employee. Uh,
but what has happened over the years, because, of course,
1967 was the beginning of the Civil Rights Act and
a lot of lower court decisions trying to interpret, well,
(22:11):
what happens in a reverse discrimination case where, let's say
a majority group, uh, is so-called discriminated against by a
minority group, uh, in who are in charge of that
particular place of employment. So they have this rule. And
the Sixth Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals had followed their
(22:31):
own created rule. It's not in the text that Congress passed.
It's the legal rule generated by the courts, the lower
courts saying this if you're in a majority opinion or
in a majority category, like let's say a heterosexual, um,
then you have a higher burden of proof. You don't
(22:52):
have an equal opportunity for proving your case. You actually
have a higher level of proof. You have to show
additional background information to show why you fit into the
very unusual, in the words of the court category of
reverse discrimination against majority group. Here's what the Supreme Court
all nine justices, regardless of what their jurisprudential philosophy is, left,
(23:15):
middle or right. Every one of them said, wait a minute,
the text. of the law is what should be binding here.
And there's no such test. It says if you're discriminated
against based on sex or religion or race, regardless of
whether you're a majority or minority, it's an it should
(23:36):
be an equal outcome. It should be an equal application
of justice. But the Sixth Circuit said no. Supreme court
said no. Go back and wipe that extra rule off
the books. The the law itself doesn't apply. Any additional proof,
any additional evidentiary, uh, proof that you have to bring
(23:58):
as a majority, uh, rather than a minority. But there's
a bigger implication for this. And it's how much power
do federal judges have to make it up as they
go along in terms of inventing rules that aren't there
in the congressional statute they're supposed to interpret?
S1 (24:14):
Well, to that point, I think there's many layers to
this decision. And I'm so thankful that you talked about
the legal perspective. There's a cultural application to this as well.
And I do also want to talk about another 9
to 0 decision handed down yesterday. This one deals specifically
with religious liberty. These are important cases by the way.
And again just let the record reflect it's June. This
is when now all the ones where they've heard oral arguments,
(24:37):
almost every one of them will have a written and
decision made by the High Court that will be handed
out by the end of the term, which is the
end of this month. So for the next couple of weeks,
it's going to be a legal heyday. We'll keep you
posted more after this. Jesus told us to go into
the world and not run away from it, and he
(24:57):
didn't say it would be easy. In the market with
Janet Parshall is a program designed to come alongside and
walk with you into the marketplace of ideas. Partial partners
are those friends who support our program on a regular
monthly basis. They know the mandate of influencing and occupying
until he comes. So why don't you become part of
the inner circle of support? Call 877 Janet 58 or
go to in the market with Janet Parshall. This is
(25:21):
in the market with Janet Parshall. Craig partial is with
me as he is on Fridays, where we put on
the lens of Scripture and take a look at the
world around us. Two important cases handed down by the
US Supreme Court yesterday that you and I should know
about both of them, 9 to 0. So that's significant
and solid. And the first one dealt with whether or
not there is such a thing as reverse discrimination. And
it all involves a woman who was working in Ohio
(25:43):
who not once but twice was passed over for her
majority position. She was a heterosexual and given to a
member of the LGBTQ community. So it raises the question about,
is there such a thing under that title? Seven protection
of the Civil Rights Act of 64. Is there such
a thing as protection from, quote, reverse discrimination? Now, let
me repeat myself. I happen to find the words cryptic discrimination,
(26:05):
particularly for a believer, is discrimination. It's not reverse. I
understand its application in the law, but to me it's
it's repeating yourself. Discrimination is discrimination. So the court to nine.
ZIP says, no, absolutely not. And I also take umbrage
with categorizing somebody in a, quote, majority opinion. But here's
something that I thought about, Craig, you started out talking
about the legal application of this decision. I think there's
(26:28):
a cultural application that cannot be ignored. I think this
was a very sharp finger in the eye of die.
When you want to talk about diversity, equity and inclusion,
and you're hiring people based on what their skin color
is or what their sexual orientation is, you are practicing
just by the application of that, a form of reverse discrimination.
(26:50):
So I'm wondering, even if it wasn't addressed directly in
the decision, and we talked about three who wrote on it,
Brown delivers it. Thomas concurs, and Gorsuch writes an opinion
along with the concurrence by Thomas. I'm wondering if that
will take some of the wind out of the application
of die, knowing that because of this ruling, now you
have to be careful.
S12 (27:09):
Yeah, really, if you kind of go to 1000 foot
perspective on this. It really involves the question is the
ground upon which the Constitution is based level ground for everybody,
or are some groups going to get super preference under
the Constitution? Well, the answer should be no. The same
(27:30):
thing with title VII or any act passed by Congress.
Because of course, Congress has to abide by the Constitution
in the laws that they create. Because if it becomes
an unconstitutional statute that Congress passes, the Supreme Court ultimately
will knock it down. They will send it back and say,
start it again. Try another version, because this one's unconstitutional. Likewise,
(27:54):
if title seven, which involves discrimination against, you know, classic
categories of protection like race, sex or religion, uh, if
the if the landscape underneath those principles in that statute
are not even they're not equal, then in fact, we
(28:15):
have unequal application of justice. And that's unconstitutional no matter
which way you look at it. So discrimination, as you said,
is discrimination regardless of whether you're a, quote, majority group,
let's say white employees with three Asians in it, the
Asians are in a minority position in that company. But
as Justice Thomas, in his concurrence, by the way, when
(28:38):
the Supreme Court, um, arrives at a unanimous decision, justices
can still agree with it but have concurring opinions to
add some additional.
S1 (28:48):
Further.
S12 (28:48):
Background and context to other concerns they have that really
gave their vote in favor of the unanimity of the decision.
Justice Thomas made the point of saying, look, how do
you categorize majority in some states in the union, there
are actually numerically slightly more women than men. So are
(29:09):
men a minority? And then if you look at religion,
are you talking majority religions versus minority religions? There are
some communities where other religions are a majority and they're
not Christian. So how do you divide that pie up?
S1 (29:23):
That's a dangerous precedent to start. Let me continue with
Thomas because I thought his observation was brilliant. He wrote,
in his opinion, to highlight the problems that arise when
judges create a textual legal rules and frameworks that becomes
a problem. And he calls the rule, quote, a product
of improper judicial lawmaking. Now, that's tongue in cheek because
(29:43):
judges don't make laws. And what he's saying is the
Sixth Circuit, basically Ex Nihilo, came up with a standard
that doesn't exist. And I found it interesting that, in
her opinion, Justice Brown also said there's nothing in the
text that says that you've got this higher standard that
has to be applied to someone who's in a majority
category as opposed to minority. So I think that's extremely important.
And I think, like I said, with the conversation that's
(30:07):
been going on non-stop in this country about die. This decision,
I think, offers a clarity that says you can try,
but if you really do hiring and there isn't. For example,
under title seven of the 64 Civil Rights Act, you've
done a Passover and you have discriminated against. This is
going to be the consequence.
S12 (30:25):
Yeah. And in a broader sense, you know, I've always
taken the position and I still hold to it because
I think there's some truth in it that when courts
all the way up to the US Supreme Court release
an opinion and they render an opinion in a given case,
they do really two things. The most important thing and
the constitutional thing in the, uh, the article three of
(30:49):
the Constitution thing is that they are acting as judiciary,
as a separate branch of government that says what the
law is. They don't write the law. They simply interpret
what the law is as written. And if Congress intended
something else, then the Supreme Court says, you better rewrite it,
because we're just going on the text. So the job
(31:09):
of the court is to interpret, not to write. Uh,
and in this case, the Sixth Circuit and a number
of other circuits devised these rules because it made it
easier for them to say, we're doing the right thing
here in a discrimination case, but it's not the judge's rule, uh,
(31:29):
authority to say, what is the better thing to do?
That's for Congress to do. That's why we elect them
to Congress to do the right thing by their constituency. Rather,
the judges simply say title VII doesn't say that. And
if Congress wants to rewrite it and add some additional
burdens on majority groups, we'll review that when the time comes,
(31:51):
but not now.
S1 (31:52):
Scalia was famous for saying just that if you don't
like the law, come back with different laws. But we
don't make the laws. So let's turn our attention to
the other case, another nine zero decision that was handed
down yesterday, this one, the Catholic Charities Bureau. Uh v
Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission. That's long, cumbersome title,
but this is an important case dealing with religious liberty.
What are the facts, Greg?
S12 (32:13):
Yeah, this was very troublesome. I remember you and I
discussing this case.
S1 (32:17):
On this.
S12 (32:18):
Show. And in fact, we talked about both cases, but
this one in particular, um, you know, I don't like
to prophesize or predict, but, uh, you may remember that
I said this, this one really should be, um, an
not an easy one, but an easier one for the
Supreme Court to agree on. Um, it should be a
no brainer here. The state of Wisconsin, all the way
(32:41):
up to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, affirmed a rule in
Wisconsin where a Catholic charity was denied tax exemption because,
in the opinion of the trial court that was supported
by the Wisconsin State Supreme Court, in the opinion of
(33:01):
the courts, uh, the charity, which had a goal and
mission statement that was based on their beliefs, based on
the biblical view of charity and helping others because of
the freedom that the gospel gives us. They said, no,
that's not enough. You have to show that you are,
(33:21):
in fact proselytizing, which is another word for evangelizing. Um,
to change people's mind with your message. And if your
charity work doesn't include that? Well, we're not going to
give you an exemption. Now, at the time, I remember
our discussion because I was the thing that troubled me
the most was the fact that you've got judges saying, no,
(33:43):
that's not religious.
S1 (33:45):
That's not church.
S12 (33:45):
That's not religious.
S1 (33:46):
Enough.
S12 (33:47):
Right. And that's not the role of the court to
decide whether, uh, they've got their doctrine strapped on. Right. Uh,
to be religious enough to qualify for an exemption. Um,
if you are going to say exemptions for any religious activity,
then you have to interpret ultimately religion fairly broadly, not
(34:07):
so broad as to be inapplicable, or I should say nonsensical.
There are some groups that pretend to be religious. You
and I have talked about them that really are are fake, uh,
organizations for political purposes or sociological purposes. They really aren't
religious at all. But there's no question that this was
(34:28):
a religion based charity, and all the work they did
was empowered and influenced by those religious beliefs that should
have qualified easily. And the Supreme Court agreed, uh, that,
in fact, to parse it out that way, to impose
yet another requirement on a religion or followers of a
(34:49):
religion to have equal treatment again and its equal treatment
under law, issue this one involving religion. You better make
sure that you have level ground for everybody and that
your interpretation makes sense.
S1 (35:03):
Uh, hats off to. Becket fund for their superb representation
in this case. So grateful for the work that they do.
And continue to do. Their tagline is Religious Liberty for all.
And this was a perfect example of. That so hat
tip to Becket for the superb work that they were doing,
what I found was necessary. Craig, is that again, we've
talked about this. In colloquial terms, that nowhere in the
Constitution do you find the phrase separation of church and state.
(35:25):
That that song has been played over and over and
over again. And it really was in that remarks that
Jefferson made, not to government, but to a group of Baptists,
the Danbury Baptist Society. It was an assurance to them
that the government wasn't going to poke their nose in
their lives, and they were going to be free to
worship as they saw fit. And remember, we just had
a revolution from a nation that forced you to have
(35:46):
a particular kind of religion and actually has a history
of burning people at the stake who didn't believe the
way the state believed. So why this is part of
the First Amendment is because that was one of the
more onerous things that they were rebelling against as part
of the American Revolution. But this really was a question
of unnecessary entanglement. When the government decides to say to
a religious organization, nah, we don't think that was a
(36:07):
religious enough organization. If there were such a thing as
church and state, you would have hit the red button
at that point. But they didn't. They they just pushed
their way in. That's why the only people who use
that as a cudgel are the people who really want
government intrusion in religion, not people who are saying, look,
just let us be free to worship as we see fit.
That's why Becket's tagline is so important religious liberty for all.
(36:29):
Government doesn't get in the way of your liberties.
S12 (36:31):
If you don't want entanglement, then give a broad version
of treatment for religion rather than a narrow version that
kicks some of them out.
S1 (36:39):
Right. So two excellent decisions yesterday. Doesn't always happen that way,
but these are a couple we're celebrating back after this.
So it's interesting, Craig, you talked before about how we
discussed both of those Supreme Court cases in previous episodes
of In the Market with Janet Parshall. Well, we discussed
suicide pods in previous episodes as well. A right to
(37:01):
die activist questioned for murder after the death of a
woman using one of those suicide pods, has died by
assisted suicide. You can't make this stuff up. Stick with me.
Florian Willet apparently had a mental health crisis after he
was arrested by Swiss police in September last year, said
Philipp Nietzsche. You cannot make this up if you know
(37:24):
Nietzsche is the paradox here. Cannot be missed. Exactly. Philipp
Nietzsche is the inventor of the suicide capsule. Yes. There
you go. Nothingness. Uh, Mr. Willett was the director. The
one who committed suicide by assisted suicide. Who developed the
suicide pods. Are you tracking with me? Here was the
director of last resort. Note the twisting of language. The suicide.
(37:45):
The Swiss suicide organisation which was set up to facilitate
the use of these suicide pods. So apparently, the 47
year old German was investigated for aiding and abetting suicide.
So it wasn't cut and dry. Not just quite the clean,
slick market program. They had about just go out in
the woods and slip in one of these pods, and
all your problems will go away forever. No, it wasn't
(38:06):
quite that tidy. So prosecutors investigated whether he had strangled
the woman when she was in the pub. But that
was ruled out because before he was released in December
after 70 days of pre-trial detention. And so Mr. Nietzsche,
the director of Exit International, he must have teamed up
with his buddy Jean-Paul Sartre. Right, Craig?
S12 (38:27):
So a happy bunch.
S1 (38:29):
Happy bunch. Exactly. Gone was his warm smile, said Mr. Nietzsche.
And self-confidence in its place was a man who was
deeply traumatised by the experience of incarceration and the wrongful
accusation of strangulation. Talk about missing the forest for the trees.
So he was mentally depressed because of his being incarcerated.
How about the fact that you built a machine that
(38:50):
took a woman's life? That that bother you at all,
or just the part that you were incarcerated.
S12 (38:54):
Your thoughts? Yeah. Um, you know, I was struck with it.
You and I have gone back, uh, many years dealing
with this issue. I handle a case in a state
Supreme court, um, dealing. And this was a long time
ago dealing with the issue. And it is one that
really tells us a lot about the problems in our
(39:15):
culture and in the thinking that has, uh, really a
very delusional aspect to it. And that is that somehow
you're winning if you are the person deciding the time
and date of your demise. What you don't realize is
God already knew it in advance. He didn't cause it.
(39:35):
But in a world, a sin sick world, uh, since
the garden, um, people make bad choices. And I really
felt bad for this individual because there were some mental
health issues with him, clearly. And apparently he had sought
psychiatric help. But you know what I thought? I thought
of a verse. I thought of what Jesus said in
the 10th chapter of John, verse ten. He said, the
(39:59):
thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I
came so that they might have life and have it abundantly. Um.
Euthanasia like this. Which is a fancy word that is
a euphemism for suicide. Let's face it. It's taking your
own life, no matter what aspect of language you want
(40:20):
to apply to it. The bottom line is you. For
you to say, I'm making a choice, and I'm being
victorious by being the person determining the time and date
of my life is not only a delusion, because that
was determined when you know God created the first atom
in the universe. But more importantly, he's lost the opportunity
(40:42):
for an abundant life, that there are forces out there
and bad ideas that have come to steal, kill and destroy.
They don't come dressed like that. They come dressed like
the euthanasia movement for self-determination and having a good exit
from life and choosing your way to be able to
(41:05):
leave this life behind us. And the language and the
flourishes and the advocacy all covers the fact that this
is killing and destroying a life that could have found
an abundant life and eternal life had they gone to
the life giver and His Word.
S1 (41:25):
There is a way that seemeth right unto man and
the end there in his death. I mean, if that
isn't a succinct verse for that particular situation. The other
thing I was also thinking about, too, is this raises
some transcendent issues that is maturing believers we need to
be thinking about. And that is, is there anything profitable
that can come out of suffering? You know, we've talked
interesting a couple of times this week. We've been talking
about suffering. It is an age old question. It's one
(41:47):
humankind has struggled with since we walked out of the garden.
But can we see a value in that? Why would
we be invited into the fellowship of his suffering? So
you've got someone who's suffering mentally or physically, and you're thinking,
isn't it merciful? I mean, look what we do to
the family dog. Isn't it merciful to do this to
a family member as well? Well, those are deep theological questions.
(42:09):
Searching about this. And I've decided for me personally that
while no one wants to suffer. Suffer is where I
get refined like no place else. The points get whittled off,
the having to press into him, completely understanding you were
never in control. And these circumstances are reminding you absolutely
you have no control whatsoever. So, um, the idea that
(42:31):
all you have to do to get rid of your
problems is to simply step into this pod, which, by
the way, this woman who was killed, I'm not going
to say she committed suicide. They said it was fast
and it was dignified. They put her in a pod
and they suffocated her. That's what, in a word, that's
how the mechanics work. There's nothing dignified about that. It's brutal.
And it fails in our recognition of the image of
(42:52):
God in our fellow man. How dare we? Your thoughts?
S12 (42:56):
You know God has a plan for how we should
handle suffering. The perspective. And it's again in his word.
He made it easy for us. Second Corinthians, the very
first chapter. God who comforts us in all our afflictions
so we may be able to comfort those who are
in any affliction with the comfort with which we ourselves
(43:16):
are comforted by God. When you go through trials and
tribulations and God is able to bring you through, you
can bring that fact of God's comfort to other people
who are suffering so that they may receive the blessing
of it as well.
S1 (43:30):
We talked to Doctor Matthew McCullough of Edgefield Church yesterday
on his new book, remember Heaven. And one of the
reasons why he challenged us to remember heaven is to
remember that when we get our perspective right on heaven,
it helps us endure. As the words of Scripture declared
these momentary afflictions that whatever we're dealing with here, it
is going to be surpassed by the eternality of being
(43:52):
forever in his presence. So it's important that we remember
that and that we continue to press on. So something
to think about. A lot of stories there. So we
thank you so much for spending the hour with us,
reminding you again love our truth tool. It talks about
the wonder of God. So a whole bunch of authors
contributed and asked questions about why we seek money when
we know it won't satisfy, why we want happy endings
(44:15):
and stories, why we long for happiness. The list goes
on and on and on. And when it all gets
said and done, it points to God himself and the
relationship of a great king who put that sense of
awe and wonder in us because he is the very
essence of awe and wonder. It's a great truth tool.
It's yours for a gift of any amount. 877 Janet
58 or online at in the market with Janet parshall.org.
(44:38):
Have a great weekend. Stick around if you can join
us for the next hour or listen on the podcast.
We'll see you next time.
Hi friend, thank you so much for downloading this podcast
and I truly hope you hear something that edifies encourage, equips, enlightens,
and then gets you out there in the marketplace of ideas.
But before you go, I want to tell you about
this month's truth tool. It's called Have You Ever Wondered?
And I absolutely love this topic because if you're like me,
going out into the night sky and looking up and
seeing a million stars, don't you just stop and think
(00:22):
about God? And are you not in a moment of
awe and wonder or looking out over the vast expanse
of an ocean and you start thinking, what is man,
that thou art mindful of him? And it makes you
wonder about the magnificence of God? I think that sense
of wonder was put there on purpose, and this wonderful
book includes a composite of multiple authors who have written
(00:42):
from their perspective as a scientist, or a historian, or
a mathematician or an artist, on why they all have
this sense of awe through the work that they do.
In other words, the heavens declare the glory. And as
it tells us in Romans, we are really without excuse
because his handiwork is everywhere. And this book invites you
to walk through the chapters written by people who all
(01:03):
have a sense of awe and wonder when it comes
to God through their various disciplines in life. It's an
amazing book and it's yours. For a gift of any amount,
just call 877 Janet 58. That's 877 Janet 58. Ask
for a copy of Have You Ever Wondered? And we'll
send it right off to you as my way of
saying thank you, because we are listener supported radio. Or
you can go online to in the market with Janet Parshall.
(01:26):
When you're also on the website, consider becoming a partial partner.
Those are people who give every single month at a
level of their own choosing. You always get the truth tool,
but in addition to that, you get a weekly newsletter
that includes my writing and an audio piece just for
my partial partner. So 877 Janet 58 or the website
in the market with Janet parshall.org consider becoming a partial
(01:46):
partner or asking for this month's truth tool. Have you
ever wondered? And now please enjoy the broadcast.
S2 (01:58):
Welcome to In the Market with Janet Parshall. Today's program
is where Janet and her husband, Craig, take some of
the stories making headlines this week and offer their insight
and analysis. Before they get started, let's take a quick
look back at some of the highlights from the week.
S3 (02:17):
I is an extremely powerful thing and has enormous capacity
for both good and evil. But every bit of thought
in AI is human thought, and AI leverages leverages our thoughts.
I think in some ways that we don't fully understand yet.
I mean, it's a very complex matter, but everything in
there is us. The computer is just is just the instrument.
(02:40):
It's the tool. We must not let our lives be
governed by this idea that since God is God and he's.
He is, uh, good and gracious and generous. He's going
to do for me whatever he wants to do, whether
or not I ask. And I just think the answer
to that is no, he isn't. He has suspended the
bestowal of his blessings on the petitions and the intercession
(03:03):
of his people. So I know that's hard for people
to reconcile, but there's no way to get around the
clear teaching of Scripture in that regard.
S4 (03:10):
We never think to pray for the people with talent
who don't know the Lord. And so I want to
highlight the names of people who really are incredible talents
given from God, and ask us to lift them up
and to let God work through them personally, not just
with their talent. And so I like to do it
with people with names of people who really are household
(03:31):
to a lot of us. And so this is the
way I don't want to say on here, they need
Jesus or they're lost or they're bad. I want to say,
let's appreciate their talent. We know it's from God, and
let's lift them up so the Lord can do more
with them.
S5 (03:44):
Anybody claiming the Bible doesn't have a sexual ethic has
either not read the Bible or is reading the Bible, um, with, with, uh,
blindfold Because virtually every book in the New Testament, not
to mention most of the Old Testament books, mentions and
condemns sexual sin that right away tells you there is
such a thing as sexual behavior that is not God's will.
(04:06):
And the only form of sexual expression that's commended in
both testaments is a heterosexual covenant union of marriage between
a man and a woman.
S6 (04:16):
They don't want to be under Hamas. They don't want
to be under the Palestinian Authority. They want to be
under Israel. And so there's going to be a great pushback.
So what are we just going to force these people
to do this and it's going to get worse. We're
going to get worse. It's just going to cause more radicalism.
So who knows what's going to happen. But it's just
Israel again is in the vice grip. They just go
(04:39):
from one crisis to another. And this is a vise grip.
They've got a date. They've got a time. We're forcing
a Palestinian state. And whether you like it or not, well,
what country would undergo Go that and not fight back.
S2 (04:55):
To hear the full interviews from any of those guests,
go to In the Market with Janet Parshall and click
on Past Programs. Here's some other stories making headlines this week.
S7 (05:05):
US job growth cooled in May amid uncertainty about President
Trump's tariffs, according to a closely watched report out Friday
from the Labor Department.
S8 (05:14):
Immigrant communities across the United States are reacting in shock
to the president's sweeping new travel ban.
S9 (05:20):
Donald Trump and Chinese leader XI Jinping spent over an
hour on the phone Thursday talking trade. The rare leader
to leader call came after weeks of tensions over tariffs
and critical minerals.
S2 (05:33):
Janet and Craig have lots to share, and they'll put
the first story on the table when we return. To
get more information or to download the podcast of any
of the interviews, go to In the Market with Janet Parshall.
S1 (05:57):
So many in our culture today are spiritually curious but
hesitant about religion. That's why I've chosen. Have you ever wondered,
is this month's truth to explore how everyday experiences might
be the signpost pointing to deeper biblical truths? As for
your copy of have you ever wondered when you give
a gift of any amount to in the market, call
877 Janet 58. That's 877 Janet 58 or go to
(06:19):
in the market with Janet Parshall.
S10 (06:25):
This is London. London calling in the home overseas and
European services of the BBC and through United Nations radio Mediterranean.
And this is John Snagge speaking. Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary
Force have just issued communique number one, and in a
(06:48):
few seconds I. I will read it to you. Communique
number one, under the command of General Eisenhower, Allied naval forces,
supported by strong air forces, began landing Allied armies this
morning on the northern coast of France. I'll repeat that communique.
(07:09):
Communique number one. Under the command of General Eisenhower, Allied
naval forces, supported by strong air forces, began landing Allied
armies this morning on the northern coast of France. This
ends the reading of Communique Number one from Supreme Headquarters
(07:34):
Allied Expeditionary Force.
S1 (07:37):
And that's what radio sounded like June 6th, 1944. Hello, friends.
Welcome to In the Market with Janet Parshall. Craig partial
is with me. And this is where Craig and I
want to start today because history matters and we need
to understand who we were, particularly when that great, great
group of people who fought in World War Two are
(07:58):
slowly stepping into eternity. Our dads were part of World
War two. My children's grandparents were part of World War two.
And with each succeeding generation, we are one tick away
from trying to understand how in the world do you
press on, persevere, and hang on to hope when the
entire world is on fire. So D-Day was in fact
the name given on the June 6th, 1944 date. It
(08:20):
was the invasion of the beaches at Normandy. There were
actually five beaches on that northern coast of France. U.S. troops,
Canadian troops, UK troops and others during World War II.
What you just heard was the BBC covering Great Britain.
You can imagine how they were glued to their radios
hearing about this assault that was taking place. Remember, it's
not that far from the southern part of the UK
(08:42):
to the northern coast of France. You can actually drive
a tunnel underneath the ocean between those two countries. Now, France,
at the time, you will recall, was occupied by the
armies of Nazi Germany and the amphibious amphibious assault. It
had a codename. It was called Operation Overlord. Landed some
156,000 Allied soldiers on the beaches of Normandy by the
(09:04):
end of the day. Now, despite their success, some 4000
Allied troops were killed by German soldiers defending the beaches.
And at the time, the D-Day invasion was the largest naval,
air and land operation in history, and within a few days,
about 326,000 troops, more than 50,000 vehicles and some 100,000
(09:25):
tons of equipment had landed. By August of 1944, all
of northern France had been liberated. In the spring of 1945,
the allies had defeated the Germans. Historians often referred to
D-Day as the beginning of the end of World War Two.
It's very important that we remember what happened that day,
but it took courage. The same choice to be brave then,
(09:47):
is the same choice to be brave now. General Dwight
D Eisenhower was at the time the general for the U.S. forces.
He would later go on to become president of the
United States. But you can imagine what it would be
like to give the directive, when so many would end
up giving all that they had on those beaches of Normandy.
Here's a part of what General Eisenhower said.
S11 (10:09):
Soldiers, sailors and airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force, you
are about to embark upon the great crusade toward which
we have striven these many months. The eyes of the
world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty
loving people everywhere march with you in company with our
brave allies and brothers in arms. On other fronts, you
(10:33):
will bring about the destruction of the German war machine,
the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of Europe,
and security for ourselves in a free world, your task
will not be an easy one. Your enemy is well trained,
well equipped and battle hardened. He will fight savagely. But
this is the year 1944. Much has happened since the
(10:57):
Nazi triumphs of 1940 41. The United Nations have inflicted
upon the Germans great defeats in open battle. Man to man.
Our air offensive has seriously reduced their strength in the
air and their capacity to wage war on the ground.
Our home fronts have given us an overwhelming superiority in
(11:19):
weapons and munitions of war, and placed at our disposal
great reserves of trained fighting men. The tide has turned.
The free men of the world are marching together to victory.
I have full confidence in your courage, devotion to duty
and skill in battle. We will accept nothing less than
full victory. Three. Good luck, and let us all beseech
(11:43):
the blessing of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking.
S1 (11:48):
The roughly 160,000 allied troops who landed in Nazi occupied
France on June 4th. June 6th, 1944. Not only successfully
executed the largest air, land, and sea invasion in history,
and that remains to this day. They did so amid
daunting obstacles, terrible bloodshed and stakes that couldn't have been higher.
(12:09):
Dwight D Eisenhower said, we will accept nothing less than
full victory, and victory in this battle was far from
certain in the first hours of that day. Out of
that day came the saying, all gave some, some gave all.
When Steven Spielberg made his movie Saving Private Ryan, it
opens with 22 minutes of action of the landing on
(12:31):
the beaches. There's not a single word of dialogue spoken.
And history records that there were several World War Two
vets who, in the opening of that film, found it
so realistic they literally had to walk out of the theater.
We cannot forget their sacrifice. It's easy to do that,
particularly with each continuous generation. But Craig, it's imperative that
we remember. I look at America now, and I look
(12:52):
at our animus and our our slothfulness and our licentiousness,
and I think to myself, do we still have that
same character? Do we still have that same courage? Could
you get out of that first boat that hit Omaha
Beach as one of the five beaches as an example,
and you see the bullets the way the Germans were
bunkered up at the top of the hill. So you
talk about, from a military perspective, they had clear aim
(13:13):
right down at those soldiers who hit the beach. And
the footage, by the way, which you can find black
and white, some of it colorized, is horrific because in
very short order, the waters were filled with the bodies
of our troops. Who gave their all your thoughts?
S12 (13:25):
Yeah, we think so much, and rightly so, of the
landing crafts that had to wade in to a storm
of bullets coming their way. But also we had the
Army Air Corps as an example, uh, trying to protect
them and and soften up the Nazi defenses, uh, along
(13:47):
that coast. I read one account, uh, where a gentleman
who is now 106 years old and was at, uh,
as part of the attack on, uh, in the landing
in Normandy, he was with the Air Corps, and he
was a repairman for those pilots and for those airplanes
for the Army Air Corps. He said half of the
(14:07):
pilots in his one company lost their lives on D-Day,
trying to protect those on those landing crafts. So as
of now, we may think, well, was victory uh, shortly after, actually,
it took 11 months after that, before V-E day, victory
in Europe. But every historian of that war recognizes this,
(14:31):
and that is it created the way forward to achieve victory.
Had we not done that, had those men and women
given their last sacrifice, the most important sacrifice for freedom?
In that storm of of defense that the Nazis raised,
(14:53):
then it could have been several years. It could have
been a non-victory, considering some of the weaponry that Nazi
Germany was experimenting with at the time.
S1 (15:04):
And, you know, it was a high risk decision, wasn't it?
Operation Overlord, you find it very interesting that that was
the code name that they gave for it. But you
rightfully pointed out that it takes almost a year before
you can claim victory. But here's what is so significant
about that day. And it has it tells me. And
Eisenhower was a man of faith, by the way, but
tells me that they had to do a lot of
soul searching before they knew they were going to send
(15:25):
so many people into harm's way. But by being on
that beach, it established a new major front against the
Germans in the West, and it helped the Soviet forces
facing the bulk of German troops in the east. And
that's why, less than a year later, Germany was forced
to surrender. You wonder what would have happened if there
had not been a D-Day, June 6th, 1944. If so
(15:46):
many weren't willing to go into harm's way for the
sake of something greater than themselves. And again, I just
keep asking myself the question today, when we're in a post-truth, post-modern,
post-Christian era, do we still have the same strength of
character if called upon today? Could we still have some
who gave all but some, some who gave all and
(16:06):
all who give some?
S12 (16:07):
Yeah. We also have to remember that there were, uh, climactic, uh,
and I don't mean, uh, dramatic, but I mean the
climate and the weather point in that landing, uh, the,
the planning team behind the invasion and the timing of
it had to take into consideration what the weather factors were, uh,
(16:30):
and it, uh, You knew at some point that it
was going to be between the fifth and the 7th
of June, but that was depending on weather. And, of course,
weather is beyond human control. Yes, but we know in whom, uh, that, uh,
atmospheric and weather condition lies. Uh, we we cannot forget
(16:53):
the providential hand of God and the prayers, even, uh,
and most importantly, from General Eisenhower himself, uh, asking for
God's providential care and support in winning that war against
absolute abject evil. And there's no way to counter to
characterize it other than that it was a battle of
(17:16):
good and evil.
S1 (17:17):
Every Memorial Day weekend, we have a concert that's held
in front of the U.S. Capitol. It's called the Memorial
Day Concert. And every year we honor those who have served.
This year, there were several members who did fight on
that day in 1944, all of them very aged, all
of them very proud, all of them keenly aware of
the sacrifice their brothers made on the beaches at Normandy.
(17:38):
May we never forget and always remember their courage. That's
the legacy they left for us back after this. I
shared yesterday that on today's edition of In the Market
with Janet Parshall, knowing that Craig would be with us
(17:59):
and his background as a constitutional attorney, that we would
break down two significant cases that were handed down by
the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday. There were more than two
that were handed down, but two in particular. We're going
to highlight both of them a 9 to 0 decision. Now,
there are only nine justices that sit at the High Court.
So that's pretty rare. But it also really solidly affirms
(18:20):
the outcome of the particular case, by the way. Let
the record reflect, Your Honor, that this is the merry
month of June and the and the term ends at
the end of the month. We're still waiting for some
very important decisions, including one called Skrmetti, and that could
come down any time. And that will deal with a
whole myriad of issues of free speech, exercise of religion, transgenderism.
(18:41):
So it's going to be one of those hot button ones.
I guess the hotter they are, the later in the
month they get handed down. But you can bet Craig
and I will be on top of that and we'll
share when they come out. But as for now, let
me start first with one. And in a unanimous decision yesterday,
the Supreme Court upheld the claims of a woman who
faced workplace discrimination because of her majority group identity and
(19:02):
in this case, what was her majority group. She was
a heterosexual. So the decision upholds the rights of a
majority group, individuals, to be free from reverse discrimination. I
find that to be a sloppy word anyway. Discrimination is
discrimination when it comes in any way, shape or form. Uh,
but but the part of this that's so significant is
that it was considered about the protection provided us under
(19:23):
title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. For
Justice Jackson delivered the opinion. Justice Thomas delivered a concurring
opinion and that was joined by Justice Gorsuch as well. So, Craig,
give the background on the facts of this case and
why this was significant. And again, you don't have this
kind of unanimity that often in Washington. I always jump
up and down and wave the flagpole when it happens.
(19:44):
So you get a nine zip. That means there must
have been some real clarity in the law on this one.
Talk to me about it.
S12 (19:49):
Yeah. The the person who brought this lawsuit originally, um,
in the case called Ames versus Ohio Department of Youth Services, uh,
the plaintiff was Marlene Ames, and she's, as you said,
was a heterosexual woman. Uh, she worked for the Department
of Youth Services, uh, for a number of years. In fact, uh,
started around 2004. So she had been there until, uh,
(20:14):
the episode that led to the lawsuit, which is 2019.
So she was there for 15 years. She was a
veteran of that agency, uh, apparently highly qualified. And she
applied for a new management position that was open. And
as you know, in government agencies, they they will make
public postings of, uh, promotional opportunities. And she applied for that,
(20:37):
but she was turned down and she was replaced in
that position, which she was qualified for by another candidate
who was a lesbian. Um, so, uh, based on some
of the fact finding that she and her attorney made, uh,
by the way, they subsequently later on, they demoted her
from her role as a program administrator. Um, and later
(21:00):
hired a gay man to fill that role. So, in
other words, not only does she not get the promotion,
but then she was demoted and replaced in her regular
position that she had been at for some 15 years. Um,
by by a gay person. So twice she was discriminated against,
according to her lawsuit by, uh, a minority group, which is, uh,
(21:23):
you know, a gay woman and a gay man. Um,
but here's here's the issue. Here's the legal issue. The
legal issue is title VII of the Civil Rights Act
says that if you are discriminated against in employment, and
that's what title VII deals with, is discrimination in employment
based on protected categories such as race or religion or sex.
(21:49):
Then you have a claim and you can bring your
claim if you can prove that in fact, it was
done intentionally and not accidentally or for some other reasons,
like poor performance on the part of the employee. Uh,
but what has happened over the years, because, of course,
1967 was the beginning of the Civil Rights Act and
a lot of lower court decisions trying to interpret, well,
(22:11):
what happens in a reverse discrimination case where, let's say
a majority group, uh, is so-called discriminated against by a
minority group, uh, in who are in charge of that
particular place of employment. So they have this rule. And
the Sixth Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals had followed their
(22:31):
own created rule. It's not in the text that Congress passed.
It's the legal rule generated by the courts, the lower
courts saying this if you're in a majority opinion or
in a majority category, like let's say a heterosexual, um,
then you have a higher burden of proof. You don't
(22:52):
have an equal opportunity for proving your case. You actually
have a higher level of proof. You have to show
additional background information to show why you fit into the
very unusual, in the words of the court category of
reverse discrimination against majority group. Here's what the Supreme Court
all nine justices, regardless of what their jurisprudential philosophy is, left,
(23:15):
middle or right. Every one of them said, wait a minute,
the text. of the law is what should be binding here.
And there's no such test. It says if you're discriminated
against based on sex or religion or race, regardless of
whether you're a majority or minority, it's an it should
(23:36):
be an equal outcome. It should be an equal application
of justice. But the Sixth Circuit said no. Supreme court
said no. Go back and wipe that extra rule off
the books. The the law itself doesn't apply. Any additional proof,
any additional evidentiary, uh, proof that you have to bring
(23:58):
as a majority, uh, rather than a minority. But there's
a bigger implication for this. And it's how much power
do federal judges have to make it up as they
go along in terms of inventing rules that aren't there
in the congressional statute they're supposed to interpret?
S1 (24:14):
Well, to that point, I think there's many layers to
this decision. And I'm so thankful that you talked about
the legal perspective. There's a cultural application to this as well.
And I do also want to talk about another 9
to 0 decision handed down yesterday. This one deals specifically
with religious liberty. These are important cases by the way.
And again just let the record reflect it's June. This
is when now all the ones where they've heard oral arguments,
(24:37):
almost every one of them will have a written and
decision made by the High Court that will be handed
out by the end of the term, which is the
end of this month. So for the next couple of weeks,
it's going to be a legal heyday. We'll keep you
posted more after this. Jesus told us to go into
the world and not run away from it, and he
(24:57):
didn't say it would be easy. In the market with
Janet Parshall is a program designed to come alongside and
walk with you into the marketplace of ideas. Partial partners
are those friends who support our program on a regular
monthly basis. They know the mandate of influencing and occupying
until he comes. So why don't you become part of
the inner circle of support? Call 877 Janet 58 or
go to in the market with Janet Parshall. This is
(25:21):
in the market with Janet Parshall. Craig partial is with
me as he is on Fridays, where we put on
the lens of Scripture and take a look at the
world around us. Two important cases handed down by the
US Supreme Court yesterday that you and I should know
about both of them, 9 to 0. So that's significant
and solid. And the first one dealt with whether or
not there is such a thing as reverse discrimination. And
it all involves a woman who was working in Ohio
(25:43):
who not once but twice was passed over for her
majority position. She was a heterosexual and given to a
member of the LGBTQ community. So it raises the question about,
is there such a thing under that title? Seven protection
of the Civil Rights Act of 64. Is there such
a thing as protection from, quote, reverse discrimination? Now, let
me repeat myself. I happen to find the words cryptic discrimination,
(26:05):
particularly for a believer, is discrimination. It's not reverse. I
understand its application in the law, but to me it's
it's repeating yourself. Discrimination is discrimination. So the court to nine.
ZIP says, no, absolutely not. And I also take umbrage
with categorizing somebody in a, quote, majority opinion. But here's
something that I thought about, Craig, you started out talking
about the legal application of this decision. I think there's
(26:28):
a cultural application that cannot be ignored. I think this
was a very sharp finger in the eye of die.
When you want to talk about diversity, equity and inclusion,
and you're hiring people based on what their skin color
is or what their sexual orientation is, you are practicing
just by the application of that, a form of reverse discrimination.
(26:50):
So I'm wondering, even if it wasn't addressed directly in
the decision, and we talked about three who wrote on it,
Brown delivers it. Thomas concurs, and Gorsuch writes an opinion
along with the concurrence by Thomas. I'm wondering if that
will take some of the wind out of the application
of die, knowing that because of this ruling, now you
have to be careful.
S12 (27:09):
Yeah, really, if you kind of go to 1000 foot
perspective on this. It really involves the question is the
ground upon which the Constitution is based level ground for everybody,
or are some groups going to get super preference under
the Constitution? Well, the answer should be no. The same
(27:30):
thing with title VII or any act passed by Congress.
Because of course, Congress has to abide by the Constitution
in the laws that they create. Because if it becomes
an unconstitutional statute that Congress passes, the Supreme Court ultimately
will knock it down. They will send it back and say,
start it again. Try another version, because this one's unconstitutional. Likewise,
(27:54):
if title seven, which involves discrimination against, you know, classic
categories of protection like race, sex or religion, uh, if
the if the landscape underneath those principles in that statute
are not even they're not equal, then in fact, we
(28:15):
have unequal application of justice. And that's unconstitutional no matter
which way you look at it. So discrimination, as you said,
is discrimination regardless of whether you're a, quote, majority group,
let's say white employees with three Asians in it, the
Asians are in a minority position in that company. But
as Justice Thomas, in his concurrence, by the way, when
(28:38):
the Supreme Court, um, arrives at a unanimous decision, justices
can still agree with it but have concurring opinions to
add some additional.
S1 (28:48):
Further.
S12 (28:48):
Background and context to other concerns they have that really
gave their vote in favor of the unanimity of the decision.
Justice Thomas made the point of saying, look, how do
you categorize majority in some states in the union, there
are actually numerically slightly more women than men. So are
(29:09):
men a minority? And then if you look at religion,
are you talking majority religions versus minority religions? There are
some communities where other religions are a majority and they're
not Christian. So how do you divide that pie up?
S1 (29:23):
That's a dangerous precedent to start. Let me continue with
Thomas because I thought his observation was brilliant. He wrote,
in his opinion, to highlight the problems that arise when
judges create a textual legal rules and frameworks that becomes
a problem. And he calls the rule, quote, a product
of improper judicial lawmaking. Now, that's tongue in cheek because
(29:43):
judges don't make laws. And what he's saying is the
Sixth Circuit, basically Ex Nihilo, came up with a standard
that doesn't exist. And I found it interesting that, in
her opinion, Justice Brown also said there's nothing in the
text that says that you've got this higher standard that
has to be applied to someone who's in a majority
category as opposed to minority. So I think that's extremely important.
And I think, like I said, with the conversation that's
(30:07):
been going on non-stop in this country about die. This decision,
I think, offers a clarity that says you can try,
but if you really do hiring and there isn't. For example,
under title seven of the 64 Civil Rights Act, you've
done a Passover and you have discriminated against. This is
going to be the consequence.
S12 (30:25):
Yeah. And in a broader sense, you know, I've always
taken the position and I still hold to it because
I think there's some truth in it that when courts
all the way up to the US Supreme Court release
an opinion and they render an opinion in a given case,
they do really two things. The most important thing and
the constitutional thing in the, uh, the article three of
(30:49):
the Constitution thing is that they are acting as judiciary,
as a separate branch of government that says what the
law is. They don't write the law. They simply interpret
what the law is as written. And if Congress intended
something else, then the Supreme Court says, you better rewrite it,
because we're just going on the text. So the job
(31:09):
of the court is to interpret, not to write. Uh,
and in this case, the Sixth Circuit and a number
of other circuits devised these rules because it made it
easier for them to say, we're doing the right thing
here in a discrimination case, but it's not the judge's rule, uh,
(31:29):
authority to say, what is the better thing to do?
That's for Congress to do. That's why we elect them
to Congress to do the right thing by their constituency. Rather,
the judges simply say title VII doesn't say that. And
if Congress wants to rewrite it and add some additional
burdens on majority groups, we'll review that when the time comes,
(31:51):
but not now.
S1 (31:52):
Scalia was famous for saying just that if you don't
like the law, come back with different laws. But we
don't make the laws. So let's turn our attention to
the other case, another nine zero decision that was handed
down yesterday, this one, the Catholic Charities Bureau. Uh v
Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission. That's long, cumbersome title,
but this is an important case dealing with religious liberty.
What are the facts, Greg?
S12 (32:13):
Yeah, this was very troublesome. I remember you and I
discussing this case.
S1 (32:17):
On this.
S12 (32:18):
Show. And in fact, we talked about both cases, but
this one in particular, um, you know, I don't like
to prophesize or predict, but, uh, you may remember that
I said this, this one really should be, um, an
not an easy one, but an easier one for the
Supreme Court to agree on. Um, it should be a
no brainer here. The state of Wisconsin, all the way
(32:41):
up to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, affirmed a rule in
Wisconsin where a Catholic charity was denied tax exemption because,
in the opinion of the trial court that was supported
by the Wisconsin State Supreme Court, in the opinion of
(33:01):
the courts, uh, the charity, which had a goal and
mission statement that was based on their beliefs, based on
the biblical view of charity and helping others because of
the freedom that the gospel gives us. They said, no,
that's not enough. You have to show that you are,
(33:21):
in fact proselytizing, which is another word for evangelizing. Um,
to change people's mind with your message. And if your
charity work doesn't include that? Well, we're not going to
give you an exemption. Now, at the time, I remember
our discussion because I was the thing that troubled me
the most was the fact that you've got judges saying, no,
(33:43):
that's not religious.
S1 (33:45):
That's not church.
S12 (33:45):
That's not religious.
S1 (33:46):
Enough.
S12 (33:47):
Right. And that's not the role of the court to
decide whether, uh, they've got their doctrine strapped on. Right. Uh,
to be religious enough to qualify for an exemption. Um,
if you are going to say exemptions for any religious activity,
then you have to interpret ultimately religion fairly broadly, not
(34:07):
so broad as to be inapplicable, or I should say nonsensical.
There are some groups that pretend to be religious. You
and I have talked about them that really are are fake, uh,
organizations for political purposes or sociological purposes. They really aren't
religious at all. But there's no question that this was
(34:28):
a religion based charity, and all the work they did
was empowered and influenced by those religious beliefs that should
have qualified easily. And the Supreme Court agreed, uh, that,
in fact, to parse it out that way, to impose
yet another requirement on a religion or followers of a
(34:49):
religion to have equal treatment again and its equal treatment
under law, issue this one involving religion. You better make
sure that you have level ground for everybody and that
your interpretation makes sense.
S1 (35:03):
Uh, hats off to. Becket fund for their superb representation
in this case. So grateful for the work that they do.
And continue to do. Their tagline is Religious Liberty for all.
And this was a perfect example of. That so hat
tip to Becket for the superb work that they were doing,
what I found was necessary. Craig, is that again, we've
talked about this. In colloquial terms, that nowhere in the
Constitution do you find the phrase separation of church and state.
(35:25):
That that song has been played over and over and
over again. And it really was in that remarks that
Jefferson made, not to government, but to a group of Baptists,
the Danbury Baptist Society. It was an assurance to them
that the government wasn't going to poke their nose in
their lives, and they were going to be free to
worship as they saw fit. And remember, we just had
a revolution from a nation that forced you to have
(35:46):
a particular kind of religion and actually has a history
of burning people at the stake who didn't believe the
way the state believed. So why this is part of
the First Amendment is because that was one of the
more onerous things that they were rebelling against as part
of the American Revolution. But this really was a question
of unnecessary entanglement. When the government decides to say to
a religious organization, nah, we don't think that was a
(36:07):
religious enough organization. If there were such a thing as
church and state, you would have hit the red button
at that point. But they didn't. They they just pushed
their way in. That's why the only people who use
that as a cudgel are the people who really want
government intrusion in religion, not people who are saying, look,
just let us be free to worship as we see fit.
That's why Becket's tagline is so important religious liberty for all.
(36:29):
Government doesn't get in the way of your liberties.
S12 (36:31):
If you don't want entanglement, then give a broad version
of treatment for religion rather than a narrow version that
kicks some of them out.
S1 (36:39):
Right. So two excellent decisions yesterday. Doesn't always happen that way,
but these are a couple we're celebrating back after this.
So it's interesting, Craig, you talked before about how we
discussed both of those Supreme Court cases in previous episodes
of In the Market with Janet Parshall. Well, we discussed
suicide pods in previous episodes as well. A right to
(37:01):
die activist questioned for murder after the death of a
woman using one of those suicide pods, has died by
assisted suicide. You can't make this stuff up. Stick with me.
Florian Willet apparently had a mental health crisis after he
was arrested by Swiss police in September last year, said
Philipp Nietzsche. You cannot make this up if you know
(37:24):
Nietzsche is the paradox here. Cannot be missed. Exactly. Philipp
Nietzsche is the inventor of the suicide capsule. Yes. There
you go. Nothingness. Uh, Mr. Willett was the director. The
one who committed suicide by assisted suicide. Who developed the
suicide pods. Are you tracking with me? Here was the
director of last resort. Note the twisting of language. The suicide.
(37:45):
The Swiss suicide organisation which was set up to facilitate
the use of these suicide pods. So apparently, the 47
year old German was investigated for aiding and abetting suicide.
So it wasn't cut and dry. Not just quite the clean,
slick market program. They had about just go out in
the woods and slip in one of these pods, and
all your problems will go away forever. No, it wasn't
(38:06):
quite that tidy. So prosecutors investigated whether he had strangled
the woman when she was in the pub. But that
was ruled out because before he was released in December
after 70 days of pre-trial detention. And so Mr. Nietzsche,
the director of Exit International, he must have teamed up
with his buddy Jean-Paul Sartre. Right, Craig?
S12 (38:27):
So a happy bunch.
S1 (38:29):
Happy bunch. Exactly. Gone was his warm smile, said Mr. Nietzsche.
And self-confidence in its place was a man who was
deeply traumatised by the experience of incarceration and the wrongful
accusation of strangulation. Talk about missing the forest for the trees.
So he was mentally depressed because of his being incarcerated.
How about the fact that you built a machine that
(38:50):
took a woman's life? That that bother you at all,
or just the part that you were incarcerated.
S12 (38:54):
Your thoughts? Yeah. Um, you know, I was struck with it.
You and I have gone back, uh, many years dealing
with this issue. I handle a case in a state
Supreme court, um, dealing. And this was a long time
ago dealing with the issue. And it is one that
really tells us a lot about the problems in our
(39:15):
culture and in the thinking that has, uh, really a
very delusional aspect to it. And that is that somehow
you're winning if you are the person deciding the time
and date of your demise. What you don't realize is
God already knew it in advance. He didn't cause it.
(39:35):
But in a world, a sin sick world, uh, since
the garden, um, people make bad choices. And I really
felt bad for this individual because there were some mental
health issues with him, clearly. And apparently he had sought
psychiatric help. But you know what I thought? I thought
of a verse. I thought of what Jesus said in
the 10th chapter of John, verse ten. He said, the
(39:59):
thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I
came so that they might have life and have it abundantly. Um.
Euthanasia like this. Which is a fancy word that is
a euphemism for suicide. Let's face it. It's taking your
own life, no matter what aspect of language you want
(40:20):
to apply to it. The bottom line is you. For
you to say, I'm making a choice, and I'm being
victorious by being the person determining the time and date
of my life is not only a delusion, because that
was determined when you know God created the first atom
in the universe. But more importantly, he's lost the opportunity
(40:42):
for an abundant life, that there are forces out there
and bad ideas that have come to steal, kill and destroy.
They don't come dressed like that. They come dressed like
the euthanasia movement for self-determination and having a good exit
from life and choosing your way to be able to
(41:05):
leave this life behind us. And the language and the
flourishes and the advocacy all covers the fact that this
is killing and destroying a life that could have found
an abundant life and eternal life had they gone to
the life giver and His Word.
S1 (41:25):
There is a way that seemeth right unto man and
the end there in his death. I mean, if that
isn't a succinct verse for that particular situation. The other
thing I was also thinking about, too, is this raises
some transcendent issues that is maturing believers we need to
be thinking about. And that is, is there anything profitable
that can come out of suffering? You know, we've talked
interesting a couple of times this week. We've been talking
about suffering. It is an age old question. It's one
(41:47):
humankind has struggled with since we walked out of the garden.
But can we see a value in that? Why would
we be invited into the fellowship of his suffering? So
you've got someone who's suffering mentally or physically, and you're thinking,
isn't it merciful? I mean, look what we do to
the family dog. Isn't it merciful to do this to
a family member as well? Well, those are deep theological questions.
(42:09):
Searching about this. And I've decided for me personally that
while no one wants to suffer. Suffer is where I
get refined like no place else. The points get whittled off,
the having to press into him, completely understanding you were
never in control. And these circumstances are reminding you absolutely
you have no control whatsoever. So, um, the idea that
(42:31):
all you have to do to get rid of your
problems is to simply step into this pod, which, by
the way, this woman who was killed, I'm not going
to say she committed suicide. They said it was fast
and it was dignified. They put her in a pod
and they suffocated her. That's what, in a word, that's
how the mechanics work. There's nothing dignified about that. It's brutal.
And it fails in our recognition of the image of
(42:52):
God in our fellow man. How dare we? Your thoughts?
S12 (42:56):
You know God has a plan for how we should
handle suffering. The perspective. And it's again in his word.
He made it easy for us. Second Corinthians, the very
first chapter. God who comforts us in all our afflictions
so we may be able to comfort those who are
in any affliction with the comfort with which we ourselves
(43:16):
are comforted by God. When you go through trials and
tribulations and God is able to bring you through, you
can bring that fact of God's comfort to other people
who are suffering so that they may receive the blessing
of it as well.
S1 (43:30):
We talked to Doctor Matthew McCullough of Edgefield Church yesterday
on his new book, remember Heaven. And one of the
reasons why he challenged us to remember heaven is to
remember that when we get our perspective right on heaven,
it helps us endure. As the words of Scripture declared
these momentary afflictions that whatever we're dealing with here, it
is going to be surpassed by the eternality of being
(43:52):
forever in his presence. So it's important that we remember
that and that we continue to press on. So something
to think about. A lot of stories there. So we
thank you so much for spending the hour with us,
reminding you again love our truth tool. It talks about
the wonder of God. So a whole bunch of authors
contributed and asked questions about why we seek money when
we know it won't satisfy, why we want happy endings
(44:15):
and stories, why we long for happiness. The list goes
on and on and on. And when it all gets
said and done, it points to God himself and the
relationship of a great king who put that sense of
awe and wonder in us because he is the very
essence of awe and wonder. It's a great truth tool.
It's yours for a gift of any amount. 877 Janet
58 or online at in the market with Janet parshall.org.
(44:38):
Have a great weekend. Stick around if you can join
us for the next hour or listen on the podcast.
We'll see you next time.
Popular Podcasts
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
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!