Radio Debate: James White vs. Dan Barker

The Meaning of Fundamentalism and the Authority of the Bible

I have a couple of guests with me here in the studio who are going to, for the next hour or two, going to go into the subject of fundamentalism, and we're going to find out a little bit about what fundamentalism is, specifically, it's a word that's thrown around a lot.

We'll get the specific definition today and find out just what it is doing for or to America, depending on your point of view. With us here in the studio is Jim White, the president of Alpha and Omega Ministries.

Jim's been with us many times before. Jim, thanks for being here. It's good to be here again. And Dan Barker, who is with the Freedom From Religion Foundation. And Dan, as I understand, you used to be a minister.

Is that correct? That's right.

What kind of a minister? I was ordained at an independent fundamentalist church in California. I was charismatic and Bible preaching and evangelist, missionary, pastor of three churches. I pastored a Quaker church, and I co-pastored an Assembly of God church, and then an independent church.

And being that you are with the Freedom From Religion Foundation, I would assume that you are no longer a minister?

I've had quite a change, yes, that's right. You are an atheist, I understand. Well, I guess atheists can have a status of minister. I suppose anyone who talks about atheism can be ministering the good news, the free thought.

Aha, okay.

Fundamentalism. I want to get a definition, well, from you, Jim, and Dan, if you disagree, you can jump right in.

What is fundamentalism, Jim? Well, that's a very interesting question, because fundamentalism has taken on meanings over the past few decades that it never had when it was in its infancy, shall we say.

You've got to determine whether you're talking about fundamentalism as a political force, as this whole movement. Fundamentalism to me, in its strictest definition, goes back to what happened at the turn of the century when liberalism came into some of the main seminaries in America, specifically Princeton, and there was a reaction against that liberal thinking, and the liberals denied the things that what the people became known as fundamentalists believed, such as the authority of the word of God, the deity of Christ, virgin birth, salvation, the fundamentals of the Christian faith.

And so since they pushed for the fundamentals, they became known as fundamentalists. And this position is the strictest definition of fundamentalism, dealing with a person who accepts the fundamentals of the Christian religion as true.

Unfortunately, especially recently, fundamentalism has become somewhat different than that, a much wider definition. I was reading some of the material from Mr. Barker's organization, and fundamentalism in there is using a very wide, wide terminology.

Anyone who basically would stand for a Christian position, no matter what else, is grouped within fundamentalism, and so one must define their terms a little more closely than they are being defined by the media today.

I don't know if that answers your complete question, but to me, fundamentalism in its strictest sense is a theological position, but it has effects, outgrowths in the political spectrum, in social ideas, because if you get a bunch of people together who accept certain creeds or positions as being true, that's going to affect them as a political group, as a social group, and many other aspects.

Don't you think it's true of all fundamentalists, though, that the authority of the Bible is a common denominator? Yes. The authority of the Bible above every other authority, it is absolute truth. Yes.

Okay. Yeah. I would say that's definitely one of the fundamentals that was, quote-unquote, attacked by liberalism at that point, and was the basis for the entire reaction against that liberalism, would be the acceptance of the Bible as God's word and as the final authority, and that is what has given it its distinctiveness over the years.

Pat Robertson, Politics, and Religious Views in Public Life

All right, let's get down to why we are doing this program today, or where we came up with this idea in the first place. We have somebody named Pat Robertson running for president. This fellow is a minister.

He does a television program called The 700 Club, which, every time I've tuned in, seems to be asking for money. He doesn't seem to be doing much else other than that. But the troubling thing about Pat Robertson is not what he does for a living.

Generally, it is what he would propose to do as president of the United States. He would like to run this country according to the word of God. As interpreted by Pat Robertson. As interpreted by Pat Robertson would be, I think, fair.

Jim, how do you feel about that?

Well, again, they're dealing with the political spectrum idea. I don't think that it is right to say that because a person holds any religious viewpoint that they are automatically disenfranchised because of that.

And so I know, for example, some of the local people here that are involved in the political scene in the House, so on and so forth, who are Christians. They feel that that is what they should do. I personally feel that some people have possibly taken it too far in that they feel that if you're a Christian and you are not, every other day, somehow taking part in a political activity that you're somehow betraying your trust as a Christian.

I certainly wouldn't take that position at all. And in fact, Dan and I were talking before, I'm probably a little more moderate than some of the extremes on that end. And the interesting thing is, the extremes are normally what you end up hearing about.

You rarely hear about the middle of the road people, the extremes are what you end up hearing about. Well, the extremes are more dangerous, in most cases. But they're also not exactly reflective of the actual belief system and beliefs of the people involved.

That's true, but most damage is done by the fanatics on the fringe. And as far as Pat Robertson goes, you know, Madeleine Murray O 'Hara can run for president if she wants to, and obviously she'd get real press coverage, but she wouldn't get the coverage that Pat Robertson is getting.

She wouldn't get elected. Well, no, she probably wouldn't. And I personally doubt Pat Robertson's chances of that either, especially due to the fact that there are a number of people who are throwing their hat in the ring that are quote unquote acceptable to the political position that would be characteristic of fundamentalists.

Is it possible to be a person like a Pat Robertson, not necessarily the Pat Robertson, but is it possible to be a minister and run for office and not have a point of view that you're going to ram your views down the throats of everybody else?

Well, I think A, yes it is, and B, I think something needs to be mentioned here, and I'm glad that Mr. Barker brought it up before I did, and that is each person that is involved in anything has a particular viewpoint.

He mentioned that he might be called the minister of the good news and free thought. I have here the newsletter we're going to be sending out next week that has an article in it called Atheism is a Religion, because atheism makes a statement concerning the ultimate being, there is none, basically, and you do not automatically disenfranchise a person because they're an atheist, just because they don't happen to believe that there's a God, even though that is, in a certain definition, a religious statement of their own.

And so they're going to have certain viewpoints that I, as a theist, am not going to agree with, and would rather see someone who has a different viewpoint in that position, but everyone has a viewpoint.

You have a viewpoint. I listen to you quite often. I've tried very many times to break that habit, but I listen to you quite often. And especially when I'm feeling, you know, especially good that day and I need to get down a little bit more.

Thank you. You're very welcome. I give you a listen, and I know that you have a specific position that colors any comments that you're going to make. Now, that does not mean that you are going to shove your position down someone's throat, but you do have a position.

And why a certain... I wouldn't run for office, though. And the reason I wouldn't run for office, well, there are many reasons, one reason being that an honest person could never win, but the main reason is because, I mean, let's face facts, I have very strong points of view, and I don't know that I could be very tolerant of the point of view of the majority of the people many times, and I do believe a politician does have to be sensitive to what his constituents want.

And I don't believe you could be a good politician and not be sensitive to the masses.

Can I say, I think this is a little beside the point. No one is denying people like Pat Robertson the freedom to run for office, or anyone with any particular view, or Ronald Reagan to say a prayer privately, or even say a prayer in a public ceremony.

What our organization is stating is that people who hold fundamentalist and extreme religious views, they are a danger to society, in that they want to bring us backwards, they want to, they're anti-progressive, they want to go back 2 ,000 years in thought, where the liberals in this country, the people who are progressive, want the human mind to advance, we want society to go forward.

We feel, many of us feel, that religion is a stagnation of the human mind, and anyone who's in a progressive society, anyone like Robertson or Reagan, who thinks that there's an authority higher than the human mind, like the Bible, is a dangerous person.

We see that in Iran right now. And it's not that we're denying him the right to have his views, or even to get elected. If he did, Ronald Reagan got elected, and we moved the country quite a bit to the right.

That's fine, that's America, that's beautiful, that's our system. But we feel it's time to champion liberal thought, progressive thought, and that fundamentalism in our government is dangerous, for the main reason that the Bible is held to be the ultimate authority.

And this country, being a pluralistic country, is a country of diversity. There are Hindus, there are Zoroastrians, there are Christians, there are atheists. And we feel that no one small group has the right to impose its morality on the rest of the country, by dogmatic means.

And most fundamentalists, I don't know about Jim, but most fundamentalists think that the world should be a theocracy, that it should be run by God, that the principles of the Bible, the principles that Jesus spoke and that God speaks, are those principles that this country should be run by.

And we disagree. We think that's a step backwards. That's the real point. Well, I would respond by saying that I certainly do not think that fundamentalism is a step backwards. I think the progressive thought that the atheistic societies would engender and would push for is not progressive at all.

It has been around for thousands of years and has led to the downfall of many a civilization. For example? Well, for example, everyone always brings up the example of the Roman Empire and the moral decay that ate at it from the inside and the outside.

After Christianity came out. Well, when you say Christianity, you must define what you're talking about. You're talking about institutionalized religion, or you're talking about Christianity that's based upon the scriptures.

There's a vast difference there. Well, Christianity, historical, cultural Christianity. Well, see, there you're dealing with a system rather than with the belief itself. But it is Christianity. It's based on the Bible.

No, I would definitely disagree with you. It was not Hindu. It was not Islam. It was not Buddhism. Allow me to finish my point. The point is that very soon, about four or five hundred years after Christ, you have the production of a religious system that, since you said you came from a fundamentalist background and would know this, is not in any way the same faith as a fundamentalist would discuss today.

And many fundamentalists would not even identify it as being the same. But it was Christianity. Culturally, it was Christianity. If you want to identify it that as such, you may. Yes, it was. But I would not identify it as the Christianity which is based upon the scriptures.

On your particular Christianity. Well, let me give you an example. One of the common objections made, common things brought up by atheists and others, and it's happened many times here on the air, is that Christianity is in some way a form of slavery for women.

And they will point to this side of the other thing. I recall Ben Ackerley, the author of the X-Ray Bible, of course, brought up a number of quotes concerning that subject when I spoke with him here on the station.

But the point of the fact is, that ignores what we're actually talking about. Mr. Barker is exactly right. We are talking about the Bible when we talk about fundamentalism, when we talk about Christianity.

And that really ignores the scriptural teaching concerning it. And someone who would say that, for some reason, Jesus Christ enslaved women, or something like that, or that Christianity is somehow a slam against women, is either very ignorant of the facts or is willfully changing the facts.

Atheism, Religion, and the Existence of God

We're going to take a break here. Dan, we left off with you. Jim, you said that atheism was a religion, and that could be a true statement if religion is defined as a group that binds people culturally or perhaps philosophically.

If you define religion, as most people do in a popular way, as having some belief in a supernatural realm, then of course, atheists are not religious. The members of the Freedom from Religion Foundation in Madison, Wisconsin, are sort of an umbrella group for people who call themselves agnostics, atheists, humanists, secularists, rationalists.

And I would not say that we are a religious group, although we have taken a position on a religious question. But it is not true to say that atheists are religious. We do not worship some transcendent being or outside of ourselves.

If you want to call respect for the human mind worship, then yes, depending on how you define the word. I would accept atheism as religious in a very, very narrow sense of the word. Well, the way I meant it was the fact that atheism does indeed have a supreme power, and that is you yourself and yourself.

Well, that's not true, Jim. It's not supreme. It's very limited. Well, supreme in, I'm not talking about supreme over the universe, I'm talking about supreme over yourself. And in that realm, atheism is just as much a viewpoint that makes claims concerning the religious issues as any other viewpoint.

That's not necessarily true. Atheism doesn't make a statement. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in God. Some atheists might believe in astrology. Some atheists might believe in ESP, but atheism does not make a positive statement.

We merely say that we are justified in not holding a belief in God. I don't think that that is a consistent position. Even the Supreme Court has ruled that humanism can be defined as a religious statement or a religious viewpoint.

For legal purposes. Well, certainly. And so you do make statements, whether they be negative or positive, it's still a statement. Confusing my having a positive statement concerning the existence of deity and your saying a negative statement that there is no existence of deity, we could change it around.

But I don't say that. What do you say? I do not say there is no God. I say that I do not have a belief in God. There might be a God. I can't prove that there's not. And I would like for you to perhaps try to prove that there is, and if you do, I will accept your proof.

I'm not saying that God does not exist. I'm just saying that I, as a human being, am without grounds for belief and I'm justified in being atheistic, not a theist. Well, you came out of a theistic position.

Why did you come out of a theistic position? Because there is no evidence for the existence of a God. None at all? None at all. There is no evidence at all. You can sit here and you can utilize speech and you can look at me with one of the most complicated instruments that we know of called the human eye and you can look at the history.

You say you were in a fundamentalist church. You can look at the history of the scriptures and the history of the nation of Israel and things like that and say there's not so much as one bit of evidence.

You can look at prophecy. You can look at all those things and there's not one bit of evidence. Those things, the scripture and prophecy, are evidence of religion. No one doubts that there is such a thing as a religious experience.

I wasn't saying that. I believe that religion is a very powerful, very motivating, and to many people a very practical thing. I don't doubt that it exists and I know for a fact that the religious experience exists in the human mind.

It's very powerful. The idea of the human eye being evidence for God, the human eye is evidence for nature. If you're saying the human eye is evidence of a transcendent being that exists somewhere, how do you make that connection?

Well, it's rather logical actually when you look at anything. If you look at this control board we're sitting behind here, there is, it is an obvious thing for a human being to realize that someone created that control board.

There was not an explosion in a parts factory and when they walked in there, lo and behold, they found this control board sitting there which just sort of fell together out of random parts. You've undoubtedly dealt with a theistic argument concerning the existence of God in relationship to cause and effect.

The cosmological. And the idea that a man can look at nature, can look at the creation around him and ignore the fact that there is something more involved there than just simply random chance is amazing to me and it's been amazing to some of the greatest thinkers down through the entire ages.

Atheism is not new, that's true, but the idea that you can deny the existence of order behind what we see around us. Well, no, we don't deny that. But you would identify that order as an impersonal, just simply eternally existing universe?

There are about 12 or 13 standard arguments for the existence of God and atheists for the last two or three hundred years have been analyzing and categorizing. You mentioned Paley's argument, the argument from design.

You find a watch, it had to have a designer. The engineer behind this board might disagree with you that there's such an amazing machine. Maybe sometimes it hiccups, but you don't deny that some human being put some effort into that.

I don't think anyone would believe it just fell together by random chance. Atheists, those that I know are usually naturalists. So when we do try to make positive statements about the world, we make a statement in such a way that nature is the cause.

We don't have to take a further step into mystery to say that the cause was some being. There are laws of nature, there are certain ways that atoms can combine. There's a lot of randomness in the world, there's a lot of cruelty.

We see that life is not such a beautiful thing all the time. But we do see design in the universe, but it's not necessarily intelligent design. The design of sand dunes, the design of the way a snowdrop forms, these are designs that are not necessarily intelligent design.

If they are intelligent design, point to the designer. Okay, so naturalism, from your viewpoint then, would you say that nature, what you're attributing this design to, where did nature come from? Well, first of all, design is a human word.

It's a word of ordering. You might see design in something and I may not. You might see a pattern and say there's design. Would you see design in a human being? I would see design by nature, by natural selection in a human being, yes I would.

And where did that come from then? Well, I was just explaining the forces of nature, the laws of science. They've always been? Well, we assume that uniformitarianism, we assume that they have always been eternal.

We don't know. We can't go back and see. But what I'm trying to say is that since the theist sees a human eye and says, my goodness how beautiful, how complex, there must have been a designer, does not mean that that designer was intelligent.

For example, suppose, isn't it also true that the mind of God is beautiful and complex and wonderful? Is that not true? Well, then your argument would require that he also had a designer. No, that is not true.

The theist does not say, when a theist says that God is uncaused, he says that he was eternal. He does not say, the theist does not say, in reference to the world and things like that, that the world and nature and things like that are eternal.

When you talk about the mind of God, you're using a human word to describe something that you and I know about. We have a mind. But since God is completely and totally unique, that analogy fails in applying it to a being who is completely and totally unique, as our language normally does when discussing God.

The point is this, though. Really, there's not all that much of a difference if you are going to say that nature, naturalism, natural laws of nature, uniformitarianism created what we have today, whether intelligent or non-intelligent.

I wouldn't say created. Brought about, formed, whatever English word you'd like to like to use, basically you are applying the cause to nature and making nature something that, since you would not say, we don't know what was before that, is the eternal cause.

You are, in effect, arguing for a theistic viewpoint by making nature, the creator, impersonal as it may be if you look at it that way. But that is still a theistic argument. I don't think so. To be a theist, you have to have a belief in a supreme being.

Nature in the universe is not a supreme transcendent being. No, we're first starting with cause. We're first starting with the existence of a cause for what we see around us. Every effect must have a cause.

Exactly, except for God, you mean. He is uncaused. Every effect. Okay, so he is not an effect. So you do admit that it's possible for there to be an effect which is not caused. Certainly. Okay, then what...

Wait, wait, wait. An effect that is not caused, God is not an effect. Well, then you admit it is possible for something to be uncaused. And what we naturalists say is that the nature is uncaused. Exactly.

We agree with you. That's not a theistic position. And so at that point, you are in effect admitting that there is an eternal, non-ending cause for everything we see here. It is from that point that the theist then moves into demonstrating the personality of that being.

Okay, but that's not theism. Naturalism is not theism. You have taken a step further and tried to then attribute some kind of a cause for the universe. No, what I'm saying is that theism must start with the first cause.

That is not the complete argument. Well, there is a first cause. I'm just saying that theism must start with, what is this around us? Is there a reason for what is around us? And it is from there that you go to discuss the personality.

I am not attempting to attribute personality to nature. What I'm saying is, you admit there has to be some reason for what is here, whether you call it intelligent or not, is irrelevant. Well, you're talking about metaphysics then.

We both have a metaphysics. Both of us believe... Since you asked to deal with that, yes.

A Christian Caller on Intolerance, Homosexuality, and Biblical Ethics

All right, we're going to take a break here, and let's go right to the phones. Jason is a first-time caller from Tempe. Hi, Jason. Good afternoon.

Thank you. I will identify myself as a born-again Christian, and I will say that I have never for an instant been ashamed of my religious convictions. I, however, am very ashamed of what has happened to the Christian community in contemporary America.

I feel that Christians have become so oppressively intolerant of other people. We have reached a point where Christians want us to have liberty. Those that are approved by the Christian community, and no liberty.

I think that is the core of fanaticism. And I think that people like Pat Robertson, even though we are brothers in Christ in sharing our religious conviction, I think people like him are every bit as dangerous as Islamic fundamentalists like Khomeini.

And I think the sadness of all of this is that the gospel of Christ is losing its impact in this country, because people who aren't Christians can't get past this oppressive intolerance that is displayed over and over and over again today by the Christian community.

Well, I would like to say to that that intolerance is one of the things that I was trying to when Tom was asking me about definitions of fundamentalism, was trying to get into at that point. It does seem that in recent years especially, this aspect has grown into the overall umbrella definition of fundamentalism.

And that is not true for all people who identify themselves as fundamentalists. There are fundamentalists who identify me as a heretic and a liberal. There are some people who believe, for example, the King James Bible is the only true English Bible, and they've come down pretty hard on me for my stand that that's definitely not the case.

And so, yes, you're right. There is a great deal of that going on, and of course I am accused of that because my main ministry is dealing with cults, and people automatically figure that since I deal with cults, that means I don't think they should exist, I don't think they should have rights, I don't think they should do this, that, and the other thing.

That is not true. My personal belief is that the best way for the church to deal with these issues is not through intolerance, but through dealing with the issues. Doing your homework, doing your study, as Mr. Barker will tell you, I personally expose myself, certainly not as much as I feel I should have by the time of my age, but I do expose myself to other positions, and why they hold that position, and attempt to deal with it from that angle.

And I think that's something that Christianity needs to face up to today, is that if it's going to make a decent presentation to our society, is that Christians need to know what they believe and why they believe it, and realize that other people are going to hold different positions.

That doesn't mean you agree with it, but you should learn to deal with that position in the proper way, and you can't deal with someone rationally or in the proper way if you don't know what you're talking about.

Someone who doesn't know what they're talking about just ends up arguing about something instead of really dealing with it. Can I ask these guys a question? Go ahead. How would either of you feel about open homosexuality?

Do you think the government should make laws that limit or punish or in some way restrict homosexuality? A homosexual teacher admitting it to his students. How would either of you feel?

Go ahead and let Jason answer first. I think it's shameful that issues of that nature find their way into the religious community.

The Bible says it's an abomination and they should be stoned. Don't you agree with the Bible? First of all, you're taking that out of context. That's one of the main things that I've seen amongst atheists is they do not read the Bible in its context and let the Bible speak for itself.

Well, I certainly did read it in its context as a fundamentalist. Could I respond to that?

Please, go ahead. I would respond to it in this way. Isn't it a shame that today that we as Christians are more judgmental and less tolerant than those who find themselves in the atheist community? You know, we could mention issues from here until midnight and we probably would not reach resolution.

But I think the shame is that we have to condemn people and present this horribly judgmental posture. How are we ever going to expect them to want to share in our religious beliefs when we come across as tyrants?

And that is what is happening hand over fist on such a broad scale that I find it frightening.

Well, my response to the question would be that, first of all, you mentioned the Bible calls for abomination. It most definitely does.

It does in the New Testament also. The Bible also says women should keep their mouths closed in church. The Bible says a lot of things. And you can pick out little issues like that and run them into the ground.

Can't you agree? Can't you see the significance in this intolerance we are presenting to the rest of the world?

Well, certainly I can see when you're talking about intolerance, if you're talking about a blind.

Position that does not... And aren't you frightened by people like Pat Robertson? I mean, this scares me. And I am a Christian and have been for 14 years.

Sir, allow me to finish what I was saying. Mr. Barker first asked about homosexuality. I wanted to respond to that by saying that in the New Testament homosexuality is just as much of a sin as it was in the Old Testament.

But what he didn't mention in his statement was in the New Testament there is forgiveness for that just like there is for anything else. You're not going out and stoning anyone in the New Testament. And that has taken the Bible out of its context to say that.

That was the Old Testament law. But anyone who's read the Bible realizes that we're in a different situation at this moment. As far as what you're saying to me about Pat Robertson, you say he's dangerous.

Well, if you're saying by that that you feel that he has no capability, willingness, or intelligence enough to allow for any diversity on any issue whatsoever, then anyone in that situation is obviously going to be dangerous.

But if you allow him, as well as the most rabid atheist who would run for office, the intelligence to realize that this is not a monarchy, that the president doesn't run everything, and that they can push for their ideals, yes, but that there's going to be other opposition, there's going to be other positions, then I don't see him as dangerous as you're attempting to make the Ayatollah Khomeini.

Khomeini would cut your arms off if you didn't vote for him.

I don't think Pat Robertson would do that. Let me just close by saying something is very, very wrong with Christianity in America when the atheists are more tolerant than Christians.

Thank you, Jason. That was a good call. This is William. Hello, William. Long wait, Emperor.

Well, you're here now. Yeah, I just thought, you know, when I was a child, I was thrust into Christianity. I was beaten and subjugated to believe. I never had a choice until I became a man, and then I studied science from anthropology to zoology.

Oh, and by the way, you know, God in the human eye being akin to the human eye and also the scallop. I'm fully aware of that, sir. Yes, sir. Well, sir, I believe that, you know, why don't you tell these people that the Western Bible is edited and tailored for Western civilization.

There were other holy, there were Kavinaks, but we don't have time for that because I believe you're a Bible idolater. I listen to you people every morning on the radio. You let me have my say like you bully other people.

And you're a Bible idolater. When you die and you go to heaven, you're going to see a great big Bible with arms and legs coming in and says, Holy Bible and golden words coming to break you because that's your God.

Sir, you have mental intercourse and you indoctrinate them and mold them in this philosophy of yours. The intelligent masses that you lead, the evidence of their intelligence is in the TV guide in a popular show.

That's the kind of people, they don't study paleontology, ichthyology, herpetology, oceanography, physics, social sciences, military science, and or history.

Well, I am very...

If you would have been born elsewhere, sir, say in Bangkok, in Rags, and you would have been born into suffering, I wonder how much of this zeal you would have, sir.

Well, sir, you're obviously a very mad person. You're very upset with me. I don't think many of your statements are even rational for that matter. I'm not going to respond in kind, sir. I would just like to mention to you that I have studied anthropology, biology, physiology, anatomy.

You studied physics? Sir. The quantum theory? Sir, would you please allow an intelligent... Are you a fundamentalist?

I thought the world was created in 10 ,000 years. Well, sir, you obviously...

Are we going to talk about... Sir, you obviously and I understand that having an intelligent conversation has no sense in attempting to do that. Lead on, lead on, sir. First of all, goodbye, sir. Well, there he goes.

I think he was a little upset. What do you think, Tom? I think so.

The Fall of Rome, Pluralism, and the Need for Public Discourse

Let's say hi to... Well, let's say hi to Jim in Glendale. First time caller to FYI Radio. Hi, Jim.

Hi, I'm not sure how to follow that.

I don't know if you can, but give it a try. Well, okay, well...

Gee, this is kind of the wrong time to come in, but what I wanted to say was one thing is... Tom, I heard you say once that the fall of the Roman Empire was due to expansion. They outgrew themselves. And then this man here says it's due to Christianity.

And I wanted to throw one more cog in there. It's actually due to lead. That's right. I've heard that. That's right. Due to what? Lead. Lead. Yes, the pipes that the Romans transported their water in was made of lead.

The vases that they drank out of was made of lead. And, of course, it's well documented now that what lead poisoning does to people. And the thing was is that the upper-class people were the only ones that drank out of these containers, mostly, for the most part.

And it was even noted by the philosophers of that time that the upper-class people were growing weak not only physically but mentally. And that's an interesting comment.

Can I say, I did not blame the fall of the Roman Empire on Christianity. I was just saying that Christianity was on the rise then. You certainly could not blame it on atheism, whatever you were blaming it on.

It could not be on a lack of religion. Oh, no.

I blame it on one chemical element.

Well, there might have been other factors, but that's interesting.

That's true. The next is, I guess, a comment. This is going to sound real bracy, but who cares? We care. This is important to us. We're human beings. There's no one group that's going to take over the United States.