Voting, Racialism, TGC Article, Chesterton’s Romanism in a Jumbo DL

Election Day, Voting, and Worldview

Greetings, welcome to The Dividing Line on Election Day 2018 in the United States. I am reminded that people overseas invest significantly more energy in knowing about our elections here than we ever invest in knowing about elections someplace else.

Wasn't it Al Mohler who was, he was at the Field Conference down in Brazil, and so he did this whole thing on the briefing about the election down there. Well, actually he did two, before the election and then when the super conservative guy who identifies as a Christian won, who back here, you know, he's being identified as worse than Trump and all the rest of the stuff, it was interesting to get more of a perspective from down there.

But anyway, he's going on and on and on and on. And I was thinking to myself, man, this is the most I've known about a foreign election.

In...

I mean, we sort of follow a little bit about what's going on in like Germany or the UK. We know about Brexit, you know, stuff like that. But for most Americans, they don't know who the prime minister or anything is of any place.

They know who Putin is. That's about it. There aren't any real elections there anyways. So, yeah, here in the United States, as the Babylon Bee pointed out, this is the most important election of your life until 2020.

And 2016 was the most important election of your life and on it goes and goes and goes. I did vote today. My wife does the early voting thing. I don't like early voting. I'll be honest with you. I don't know when we started doing that.

What if... I wonder how many people... For example, all those Kirsten Sinema videos came out only in the past couple of weeks. How many people had already voted for her who then see those videos of her mocking Arizona and Arizonans and go, I don't want to vote for her.

Too late. You already did. So, you know, back when we were kids, you showed up on the first Tuesday in November and you voted. And I wouldn't mind if you're going to know you're going to be gone and you have a reason to do something like that.

But this early voting stuff, something like that. Yeah. But all this, I am highly skeptical of it personally. But anyway, I did vote today because I don't do the early ballot thing. And I get to the polling place.

It's just walk down my street. I like walking down there. It's all of like 300 steps. And walk in, no line. There have been lines in the past, no line. But they're all staring at the computers. And so I scan my driver's license and I had my voter ID card, but evidently mine's so old that it doesn't work.

So I guess I'll have to get a new one or something.

I don't know.

I haven't, I've been at the same place. You know, do you realize this is 2018 means 20 years, 20 years, the same, same, same place, same address. And it just sits there staring at me. It's doing the spinny, spinny thing.

And there's only three places where you can sign in to get your ballot. And so there's somebody at each one. We're all just sitting there going, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do. And then it keeps coming up.

Do you live at such and such address? And yes, spinny, spinny, spinny, spinny. Do you live at such and such address? Yes, spinny, spinny, spinny. So the poor lady is on the phone and she's calling and then I hear her say, total reboot,.

Huh?

And, and about 30 seconds later, whoa, it's, it's working. But yeah, they had to reboot the 386 computer using Windows 3 .1 that they were running it on and it started working again. So there you go.

Wow.

So, you know, I get the ballot and I had worked through it with my wife before she mailed hers in. So that at least helps, you know, at least, you know, what, what's going to be on it. There's a socialist in my neighborhood.

There's two socialists in my neighborhood, right across the street from each other. And they're on one of the routes I normally run. And I almost, I am so tempted to, to drop a note in their mailbox to say, thank you very much for filling your yard with campaign signs, because all I have to do is take a picture and then when I fill out the ballot, everything that you are for, I know I'm against.

It made it really easy for me. But, but I mean, seriously, I mean, they were big Bernie fans and they're almost right across the street from each other. And so it's sort of like, well, this makes it easy.

As long as they're for it, that means it's probably pretty bad. And I think, honestly, on everything that they had to sign up about, I did vote against the person, either the person or the thing. But it wasn't just because they did that.

It was that once I sat down and looked at it, I said, oh, yeah, they are socialists. They are promoting everything. So what guided my voting today? Well, obviously, what guided my voting today was an issue of worldview.

And there are certain aspects of worldview that I'm starting to notice. I noticed, especially over the past number of weeks, an interesting divide in social media between those who are promoters of the social justice perspective and myself on what defines a Christian worldview.

It used to be fairly obvious that if you promote homosexuality, that you are clearly opposed to creational revelation from God as to the proper function of male and female in the sexual realm. If you promote the redefinition of marriage, if now you promote the concept of transgenderism, if you use terms like homophobia and transphobia and if you're doing all the phobia stuff, it used to be fairly obvious which side was doing that and which side wasn't and what that meant.

And of course, I commented to Tom Buck on Twitter this morning. It seems to me that a lot of people who are woke are now broke when it comes to the issue of abortion. All of a sudden, what I'm seeing are people saying that—and I challenged one of the wokest of the woke on Twitter a few weeks ago.

I pointed out that they seem to be buying into a narrative that greatly minimizes the genocide—and that's a proper term. When you start talking hundreds of thousands and millions, that's genocide. The genocide that has been released on the black American population over the past century by Margaret Sanger and her grandchildren called Planned Parenthood.

And oh, many of them will play lip service. Oh, yeah, it's terrible. Yeah, I'm against that. But they'll vote for the people who make sure the Planned Parenthood stays open and gets all the money they can because they fit better with their idea of social justice.

And, you know, when you think about it, there's obviously some kind of overriding, overarching thing going on here when you can ignore hundreds of thousands of black babies aborted per year. Some say 18 million since Roe v. Wade.

In New York City, more abortions than live births. And then you can be so quiet about the thousands of blacks being killed by fellow blacks in Chicago, Los Angeles, you name—how many would it take to get to a thousand?

Chicago plus one other city would do it, or is it much more than that per year? I'd have to look it up again, but I think Chicago does that by itself, doesn't it?

Yeah.

So it's many, many thousands when you throw in L .A. and some of the other places. And then the only thing you hear from these woke people is not about that and not about the abortions. And so you're talking hundreds of thousands of deaths right there.

What you hear about are the 15 unarmed black people shot by police in the United States.

Each year.

But that's about the pace run, 15 to 17. And of course, let's assume every one of those was a bad shoot. They weren't. But let's assume every single one of them was a bad shoot. So 17 in comparison to what, a quarter million?

And one predominates and the other is like, I don't want to talk about that. It's got to be something going on there. Got to be something. There's got to be a reason for this someplace. And so when I see when I see the wokest of the woke, I'm trying to focus our attention on, well, the redefinition, have you noticed, man, this is this is at least those of us who are presuppositionalists saw this coming and shouldn't be as subject to it.

But have you noticed how quickly the definitions of words change in our society now, so as to serve political purposes? Let's take a single word, immigrant. Now I'm starting to push 60. We're going to get there before long.

I'm on the downward slide of the 50s into into the home base of 60. And I pretty much know what immigrant has meant most of my life. And I've lived in a border state since 1974. And we never used the term immigrant of people that snuck across the border.

They're real eagles. You recognize the difference. And my Hispanic friends here in Phoenix have expressed to me many times how strongly they feel about this subject because they know it's the people that sneak in that give them the bad name that they have to live with.

And they don't like those folks. There's a strong division in the community between the illegals and those who are here.

Legally.

And so I know what an immigrant is. I studied about, you know, the Irish and the Scottish and the immigration issues and what happened in New York and and, you know, Ellis Island and all that stuff. And and it's just a given that a nation has an immigration policy and has certain rules and and those rules make sense.

But that's because back then we also recognized that every nation had to have something called a border because that's what defines a nation. If you don't have borders, you don't have taxes, you don't have law, you have anarchy, pure, utter anarchy leading to globalism.

Hmm.

OK, so this is before globalism became the flavor of the day, the Ben and Jerry's flavor. I'm sure Ben and Jerry's has a globalist flavor somewhere, knowing Ben and Jerry's. And so an immigrant was someone who made application, followed the law and was seeking citizenship in United States.

That was that was what an immigrant was.

That's not what an immigrant is anymore.

Now the term is used of anyone in the world. Somehow now has the right to simply come to the United States and move in. We shouldn't have borders. We shouldn't have immigration. If if if somebody in Central America doesn't have as much as people in the United States do because of the governmental choices that they've made.

And because of, well, I guess anymore, I guess even religious people don't think that God blesses one nation over another. But biblically, that's been the case down through the years. We believe that that was the case, but I guess no more.

As long as you in some way can tap into the victimization oppression meme. And start working with intersectionality, OK, then you just you just get to go wherever you want and do whatever you want to do.

And so the very term I'm seeing, quote unquote, evangelicals right now on Twitter, right today, you can go to their feeds and see them. These are people in educational institutions and have a lot to do with Christian publishing and all sorts of stuff like that, who are using these new terms that are laden with all this stuff.

And the result is they seem to be more concerned about these kinds of movements than what has historically defined evangelicals in regards to fundamental Christian worldview issues of, you know, when you murder your unborn children, you really don't believe that people are made in the image of God.

And they love to use that term, too. They seem to think that as long as anyone is in the image of God, that means that everybody has to be on the same level. So it's it's the Marxist thing. So this is the Christian Marxist version is you what you do is you invoke the Imago Dei.

You ignore the rest of the scriptures that reveal the Imago Dei, which talks about God blesses some and he places some in positions of authority and he gives some people blessings of riches and some other people who don't.

You ignore that part. You take the Imago Dei part out and you say, ah, that means we should all have equality of result. We should all it's it's Karl Marx's dream. We should all have the exact same amount of stuff, basically.

And that's what's that's what's being promoted. That's the new good.

And it's happened so fast.

It has happened so fast. It is truly amazing to observe what has has been going on. This leads me to a Twitter thread that, well, this is Timothy Isaiah Cho is the editor, I believe, of Faithfully Magazine, which is the most woke publication ever found, OK?

So it's the it's Christian wokeness, OK? So Christian left. And he is quoting a lot of people went after him without recognizing that these are the words of Jamar Tisby from The Witness, the old Ron, someone who has been very instrumental in introducing critical race theory and these types of concepts into reformed circles over the past decade or so.

And he's quoting Tisby. And here's here's what appeared. This was this was, well, five days ago already. But this this is from Timothy Isaiah Cho's Twitter feed. What if we applied Matthew 23 to race and justice?

What if we exercised a little creativity and thought about what Jesus might say to the church in America when it comes to race and justice? What if Matthew 23 were to read, woe to you, reformed Christians and racial moderates?

I have no idea.

Hypocrites! For you hold events to commemorate civil rights activists and read books about the martyrs of anti-racism, saying, if we had lived during the civil rights movement, we would not have taken part with the racists and shedding the blood of the protesters.

Thus, you witness against yourselves that you are sons and daughters of those who murdered Martin Luther King, Jr. Oh, I think that's pretty much what Thabiti Anabili said, right?

Right.

OK.

Fill up, then, the measure of your slaveholding and segregationist fathers and mothers, you racists, you racial moderates. I don't know what a racial moderate is.

I'm sorry.

How are you to escape being sentenced to hell? Therefore, I send you social justice warriors. Think about that one for just a second, because initially I send you prophets and apostles. Social justice warriors and community organizers and activists, some of whom you will put in jail and lynch, some you will call Marxists in your churches and troll on social media so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth from the blood of the Medgar Evans to the blood of Emmett Till, the son of Mamie Till Mobley, whom you lynched in Mississippi.

Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this millennial and Gen Z generation. What if Christ is speaking those words to us, powerful words by Jamar Tisby? Watch the whole lecture here. So I assume you can watch a whole lecture.

You hadn't seen that?

Yeah.

This is what it means to be woke. This is what it means to divide the body along racial lines. This is what it means to get up in the morning and everything you see is determined by this narrative and by this worldview.

That's what you get.

Sounds to me like somebody woke up in the twilight zone. That's what it sounds like.

Well, look, Jamar Tisby sits at the big tables. Let's put it this way. There are far more doors open to him today in reformed academia than to me because he takes this position. That's how quickly this has infected even our seminaries at the highest levels.

Now we notice, I hope you noticed, no definitions, no careful thought, taking Jesus's words about the Scribes and Pharisees in the first century and applying them, utilizing American categories and hence making accusation against one's ancestors in this fashion.

It's reprehensible. It should bring censure upon Jamar Tisby and upon Timothy Isaiah Cho for repeating it, but it will not. This is now what is promoted and considered and lauded as good, and if someone says anything against it like I just did, oh, you're terrible, you're a racist, you're hateful, you're a bigot, just start the roll.

I'd see it in my feed over here right now if I hadn't already blocked or muted so many people. You would already be coming. But that's where we live today. That's what we've got. So, yeah, fascinating, fascinating.

And by the way, turning a little bit, Reformation 21 just posted I think today the second of the articles that I have written in explication of and expansion of the statement of social justice and the gospel, and so I've tweeted that out.

I think I may have put it on my Facebook feed, I'm not sure. If you go to Reformation 21, you will be able to read that, and it is on the subject of sexuality and marriage, which a lot of people said was, we just tacked that on to get people to like what we were saying about race or ethnicity.

No, it actually happens to be central to the whole point of our worldview, but that is out there now as well. Hmm, oh, what's, what's, I'm sorry? All right. Well, I know I tweeted it. So let me see here.

What's, never seen a senior. Oh, I see. I just see someone going after somewhere there. Interesting. Interesting. Which do I do next? Well, I'm 23 minutes in. Let's, let's go ahead and do this one next.

Race, Justice, and Matthew 23 Parodies

Two more subjects I want to get to, but they're going to take some time.

They're going to take some time.

And they are important. An article appeared on November 5th, so that's yesterday, by Sam Albury on the, I think it was the TGC website, titled Where to Find Hope and Help Amid the Sexual Revolution. Now, there's a lot in this that is, that is good.

And I'm going to agree with a lot of it. And then there's others where I'm going to go, not sure what's being said here. I'm concerned that this is being said, or this is being ignored or something along those.

Lines.

But I would recommend it to your reading, though I would recommend it to your critical reading, as anything these days, and everyone these days, need, we need to read critically and carefully, myself included.

So, Where to Find Hope and Help Amid the Sexual Revolution. He begins by saying, much has changed, and it's changing very quickly. He says, the Christian view of marriage as being between a man and a woman, and the basic assumption that we're all made as men and women, may not have always been championed by our culture, but it was at least seen as a legitimate, if quaint, part of Western thought.

Well, actually, I would say that if we're talking about Western culture, Western culture was based upon the idea. You can't understand our law or anything else without the Christian assumption of marriage as between a man and a woman, and the gender binary that is the only sane way of viewing mankind.

Now such views are increasingly seen as an actual danger to society. That is true. It is very difficult for us on the older side of the spectrum to even understand how to interact with gen, iGen, Gen Z, whatever you call the people who are younger than the millennials.

Now.

It is hard for me to not laugh when talking with someone who is so disconnected from the reality of life around us that you could actually contemplate the idea that the gender binary, for example, is not the reality that we face.

It's difficult. Yeah, it is difficult to make that. That is a chasm that I'm not sure Evel Knievel would be able to jump. And I just dated myself because half the people, millennials and below, don't even know who Evel Knievel was.

So there you go. It is that that is a major, major problem. He lists four significant cultural changes. And I wish that he had more clearly identified the origins of these changes. I will do so. Number one, our moral intuitions have changed.

Well, actually, what it is, is the necessary worldview changes that accompany secularization and the abandonment of any meaningful identification of man as the creature of God results in moral intuitions changing of necessity because there is no longer any objective revelation by which morality or ethics is to be judged or defined.

And so there's something much more basic here. He says, this being so, we can see how Christian culture so quickly embraced gay marriage, applying the first of the three moral taste buds. Does it do harm to anyone else?

See, so. So harm, rather than glorification of God, transcendent purpose, self-sacrifice, promote the good in light of divine revelation. Secularism has no place for that. Therefore, does it do harm to anyone else?

Surely, if the lovely gay couple down the street is allowed to marry, it's not going to affect me in any adverse way. And yeah, that was that was the reasoning. That's all you have left. Of course. The lovely polyamorous quadruple couple down the street, same thing.

The father, mother, the father, daughter or mother, son or father, son, couple, incestuous relationship. The guy married to his three dogs. Lovely people, right? Again, there's no there's no moral standards anymore.

So as long as they're down there, they're not allegedly going to affect me. It does affect you. You just no longer have the moral and ethical sensibilities to be able to see how it affects you and how it impacts the entirety of the culture around you.

Second, prohibiting gay marriage feels oppressive rather than freeing. Notice the language. Prohibiting, no, redefining marriage to even allow for the concept. We tried. But again, you have to have ears to hear and people weren't willing to hear.

Prohibiting gay marriage feels oppressive rather than freeing. Surely someone has the right to love whom they want and to express that love in the way they want. That's that's our society. You no longer have to worry about a Christian definition of love or a definition of love that will have any meaning after you're gone.

You just get to whatever. Call it love. And third, it seems deeply unfair to oppose this. How can it be fair for just or just for one couple to be able to marry but not another couple? Viewed this way, supporting gay marriage seems intuitively right.

No wonder many once supposed have shifted their thinking in recent years. Why? Because the Christian worldview and the shadow that it cast in our law and in our educational system is now gone. The shadow is gone.

And so these next generations, the millennials, the Gen X's, Gen Z's, whatever you call.

Them.

I, Jen, that shadow is gone. That influence is gone. There's no longer a concern about the Imago Dei or anything like that. And so moral intuition becomes moral anarchy. And that's why you can, on the one hand, have the hand wringing in the Kavanaugh stuff, which of course is now unraveling right, left and center.

And people are even being brought up on charges, rightly so, though nothing will ever come of that, I don't think. I don't think it can any longer for lying about, you know, making false accusations, all the rest, that kind of stuff.

But you had people hand wringing about the the alleged events there who on this at the exact same moment will say that any biological male should be able to expose himself to young girls in the female bathroom as long as he thinks he's a female.

OK, that's insanity. It's evil insanity. It's disgusting. It's horrific. But it is irrefutable. Given the secular worldview and its incapacity to generate consistent, meaningful, transgenerational moral and ethical standards.

It's the way it is.

It's the way it is.

And then Albury points out that he says, I remember watching a TV debate about whether evangelical churches should allow gay marriage. The proponent for doing so made a succinct and to the audience compelling case.

God is love. I have found love with another woman. And so this is something God wants to bless and the church should celebrate. Where have I heard that before? Oh, in the debate that we did in Florida last month.

Or was it a month before last? I don't know. A few weeks ago, when Michael Brown and I debated two folks, we heard that exact same argument. Notice what he says. In response, an evangelical pastor kept replying, but the Bible says marriage is between a man and woman.

He is right. And yet he was appealing to something, the authority of scripture that had little traction with those watching. Now this is the Andy Stanley thing. And there is no question that if you're just working on the level of, I want to convince these people of my position on this particular issue, rather than I want to present the Lordship of Christ and an entire worldview, then yeah, you got to find some way to trick them.

Now, notice what he says here. The response to God is love argument is to point out that God being love doesn't mean he approves of everything we think is love. But notice what is presuppositionally behind that sentence.

You have to know what God thinks love is, which means God has to have spoken in scripture in a standard that is available to everybody. Again, the importance of thinking presuppositionally. He goes on, it means God knows far more about love than we do and has had to reveal that.

To us.

And so we must listen to him in scripture if we are to know how to order our lives, as if God's revelation is clear enough to tell us this, and thereby love one another appropriately and well in light of what he has said in scripture.

So, Alberry's argument is right. That would be a part of the proper response to the God is love argument, but it all presupposes what the pastor was saying in the first place, and that is whether God has spoken.

All of it comes down. Everything always comes down to whether God has spoken. Look at all the debates we do, whether it's with atheists or Muslims or Mormons or Roman Catholics. It doesn't matter who it is.

Every debate eventually comes down to has God spoken? Has God spoken? That is the dividing line. That is why this program is called what it's called.

That's the dividing line.

Always will be. Always has been. Always will be. He says, number two, our view of minorities has changed. Secular people today look back on previous discrimination against LGBTQ plus people and feel appalled.

We are now aware of the pain caused by past homophobia and demonization of the gay community. Well, I'm not sure why he says we when the first line is secular people today. Eventually, there's no way around this.

Eventually, these words will be written about pedophilia, about incestuous relationships, about bestiality, about everything, because there is no stopping point. And for someone to say, well, you know, I, as a pedophile, feel that my community and I, I reject utilization of such language, but it's common.

It's a common folks. We've been saying this for decades.

It's a common.

My community has been demonized by the church. The church is wrong. Now, right now, most people aren't going to buy that argument right now. But I wouldn't be surprised. All you need is a just a couple of good Hollywood movies.

All you need is a couple of good Hollywood movies. And the iGen, especially, will be going, ah, let's make it illegal to say anything against pedophilia. And I mean, you, you, you think I'm crazy. We can go out there and find people right now that go, oh, yeah, we don't want to hurt anybody's feelings.

Yeah, there you go.

Uh.

We see movies like The Imitation Game and TV shows like Transparent and are moved to compassion for the people our culture once overtly victimized. I'm sorry, never seen either one and don't feel moved to compassion over terms of alleged victimization, especially when it comes to morality.

I mean. It's in the vast majority of instances, what's being said is that in the past, our culture, because it had clear moral standards, pronounced shame upon violation of those standards. And we're supposed to now feel shame for ever having shamed anyone.

So this is this is the moral and ethical revolution. Turn everything upside down. So shame the people who once held to norms that held our society together. It's not going to last long because it's all going to come crashing down like house cards.

But that's the that's where we are right now. Then he says, in many ways, we Christians can applaud this change. There is ample biblical reason to be appalled at bullying and of this or any other kind.

I'm sorry, shaming people who have violated their covenants and violated the morality and standards of the society is not bullying. That is not bullying. Bullying is sticking somebody else in a trash can upside down because you can at school.

It is. It is not the fact that there have that there is a there is a necessary place for shame and morality in a culture. If your culture has none of these things, your culture will devolve into pure anarchy before long.

There's there's no way around it. And he says, this sense of societal shame over past discrimination has led to the phenomenon of intersectionality. Well, let's be perfectly blunt here. Once again, intersectionality comes from certain movements and perspectives that now, if you even point out the Frankfurt School, Neo Marxism or anything else, not only are you yesterday's news, you must've been listening to Jordan Peterson.

But now. It's it's it's sort of like you're a nationalist. Oh, yeah. I mean, in in six months, entire meanings of words can change. I mean, at the last Olympics. I was a nationalist. I sort of wanted the US to win.

I rooted. I mean. Have you ever watched. The the what what they call it, the miracle when the when the miracle miracle on ice when the US hockey team beat the Russians and see those guys with the American flags and crying and that's now evil.

You are evil. You're a you're not even a Christian. If you actually went. Yeah, cool. We won. No, you're you're evil. You're it's now sinful in six months. Six months. You know, there's another term I mentioned on Twitter today.

I'd never heard until this year. Dog whistle. Dog whistle. And I what? Wow.

Anyway, must be must be.

Yeah, I don't know. I don't know. Who this dynamic has also led to great concern about minorities being emotionally or psychologically harmed some time ago. I was invited to speak on sexuality in the gospel for a Christian group on a secular University campus and the campus LGBTQ plus advocacy group organized a protest.

I met with the protesters shortly before the meeting started to listen to their concerns and see if there was any assurance I could give them as they voiced their worries about the event. It became clear the most significant concern was that my words would be harmful to any gay people of faith who might be present at the meeting.

When I pressed further, I discovered that at least part of what they meant by harm was simply the presence of a contrary opinion. However, graciously, it might be expressed. What this means is is that the secular Western worldview produces children who are adults.

This is infantile thought. It is irrational. It cannot be dealt with. These are people completely controlled by their emotions. There is no reasoning with such people and this idea of damage by the mere expression of another perspective.

I am sorry, but there cannot be a society that shows respect for this because there won't be a society for very long period. We don't live this way. We weren't created to live this way. We can't interact with others this way.

This is so destructive to everything that's good that to pander to this, to do anything other than to say, man up, you grow up, man up, listen to what somebody else has to say and learn the deep, ages-wide wisdom of the philosopher who said, sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

That was one of the first rhymes I ever learned and that is now societal heresy. Sticks and stones will break your bones, but words will absolutely crush you and we will absolutely make you illegal and we will silence you.

There can be no scientific advancement. There can be no government. There can be no law. There can be nothing in a society that embraces that mentality of a three-year-old. It's a mentality of a three-year-old and if entire groups adopt the mentality of a three-year-old, then we need to invite them to realize they're not living consistently with that, but we cannot give into it.

We are giving into the barbarians at the gates when we do that. That's the end of society. That's it. I mean, when that becomes something that becomes honored and respected. When was the first sacking of Rome?

Yeah, that's where we are and eventually, just like we go to the Colosseum in Rome today and you look at, they've shored enough up that you can walk in there without stuff falling on you and dying, but it's ruins.

It's what it is. It's ruins and every apocalyptic movie out there shows the Capitol or the White House in ruins, you know, after some normally nuclear war or the apes take over, whatever else it.

Might be.

I mean, I'm old enough to remember when Planet of the Apes first came out and that camera pan to where you see the Statue of Liberty and it's tilting over and now you understand everything that's taken place and all the rest of it.

Yeah, that's what is coming when people who have the maturity, the emotional and intellectual maturity of a three-year-old are invited to sit at the table. Yeah, that's what's coming. That's what's coming.

Anyway. Okay, our view of sex and marriage has changed. He's absolutely right here. For many, sex has been uncoupled from procreation. It's simply a means of recreation and shouldn't have to be anything more.

No question about it. No question about it. The pill has changed everything. I mean, Roman Catholics like to use this as if today looking at Rome and everything going on in the Curia and stuff would even allow them to do so, but like to use this as one of their big banners.

See, we've been right about this all along. Well, they have been right on the fact that sexuality is given by God and disconnecting it from procreation, hence within marriage, is what the whole issue is.