Church & State -Jenna Ellis The Big Freedom Debate

Spokane Valley could become a sanctuary city. A different Houseman Caleb Collier says that this I'm. Proposing that the City of Spokane Valley issue of proclamation stating that our city is a Second Image sanctuary. Welcome to the fire today on Church and State, a debate between conservatism and Christian libertarianism with Jenna Ellis. Hello Christian patriots, and welcome to Church and State, where we drive morality and religion over tolerance and apathy. And I'm your host, Caleb Callier, once again, your favorite far right shock jock and the show that talks about politics of religion. Jesus Christ is our referee, so it's always nice and clean. Real quick, I'm going to point you to the website Churchandstate dot media so that you can fill out our registration form so you can get our newsletter and of course a personal phone call from me. While you're there. Please check out our latest episodes. We've got some great ones on there, some great subjects that we're talking about, as well as of course all of our futured guests and Jenna Ellis is on this. If you want to go back and listen to some of those shows, just click the name right there. Also check out some of the affiliates. We've got some great affiliates out there. It's a great way for you to get some needful things and it does help support us here at Church and State. And as always, speaking of support, please hit the donate button for us. It's so much money to be a part of NRBTV, to be on Prepper Broadcasting Network, newscasters, just producing the show show as a whole, it costs money, ladies and gentlemen. And if you like the conversations the daily shows that we're doing, please consider donating to us. Even ten dollars a month can make a massive difference. Lastly, if you want to get a hold of us Church and State seventeen seventy six at proton dot me well that I have been looking forward to this for some weeks. Actually, I gave respectful debate between conservatism and Christian libertarianism and maybe joined by Jenna Ellis. She's a friend of the show, but she is a She's a podcaster for AFR, author of the Legal Basis for a Moral Constitution, holds a BA in Technical Journalism from Colorado State University and a jd from the University of Richmond, and honestly, I mean she's been all over the place, she's been helping out America and Jenna, it's it's been awesome to get to know you and thank you for joining us again. Thanks so much, Bilb. But I'm looking forward to this too because I think there's. A lot of I think maybe confusion around you know, a lot of these terms of what actually is conservatism versus libertarianism and how can we center more on biblical truth? And so thanks so much for having me yet again for this conversation. Yeah, yeah, absolutely, it's gonna be exciting real quick though, I do want to announce to once again the Spokane people, if you live anywhere in eastern Washington, northern Idaho, even western Montana, or even like northeast Oregon, come up to Spokane on the twenty first, We're gonna we're gonna bring this up on the website the Spokane GOP. Jenna Ellis is going to be the keynote speaker at the Lincoln Day in Spokane on March twenty first, and Chris is bringing that up for us. Tickets are still available, all right. She's going to be joined by Coach Joe Kennedy, It's going to be an amazing event. Jenna, are you looking forward to this? I'm really excited to be there, and especially with the Spokane GOP. And then also, you know, to get to do another event with you, Caleb, So it's great to see you in South Carolina a few months ago with Alex McFarland, and so that's going to be another great event. Yeah, I agree, So I would encourage everyone please get some tickets. You're not going to want to miss this. They're doing a great event, fantastic dinner, and of course you're going to get to listen to some of the greats. You know, Joe Kennedy, absolute fighter, I mean, I mean this guy is a marine's marine. And then of course Jenna Ellis, she's been in the thick of it for so long, So please get your tickets. All right, with that, let's get into this debate. As I said, it's going to be very respectful. Jenna and I are both friends looking at things a little bit differently, but as she said, a lot in common as well. So I guess first, can I have you define what conservatism is? Yeah, So when we. Talk about conservatism broadly, there are two kind of different sets of conservatism that we talk about as applied to the US Constitution. So there's conservatism as a philosophy, and then there's American conservatism that's basically conservatism as a philosophy as applied to the US Constitution and America's framework. So for purposes of this discussion, and obviously we can pull examples from our US Constitution, are founding our law all of that, but for purposes of this conversation, conservatism generally not as applied to any specific nation. And I wrote this down conservatism is the philosophy of ordered liberty, recognizing that freedom can only endure when it is grounded in moral truth, cultural tradition, and institutions that sustain a free civilization. Okay, I like that definition, and I would agree with that as far as when we're taking conservatism what it means for America. I think that's a great definition for us, all right, And so on my end of the spectrum, Christian libertarianism. And I actually told Jenna, hey, by the way, I'm a menarchist, and she's like, what's that, And so we had a fun discussion about that. But not a monarchist, ladies, and gentlemen, I am not a monarchist. I am a menarchist. Minimal. What a monarchist is, it's a school of thought within libertarianism, and it's basically you're advocating for a night watchman state. And so when you consider a night watchman, they really don't have much power. A night watchman is simply there to ensure that the building doesn't get robbed, doesn't get burned down, and so it's working within the non aggression principles that is a hallmark of all libertarianism. But we believe that the government should be extremely tiny, like really tiny, just having that ability to ensure that if somebody engages in an aggression against its citizen, then the government has a role there. But everything else should be completely free market, should be privatized, should be to the individual citizens or the churches. And that's my definition of monarchism, all right, thinks So. You know with that too, the question that I have about your definition and how your view may or may not differ from overall libertarianism. You mentioned the non aggression principle, and so would you say then that government as an institution itself is inherently evil? Yeah, I would say yes, actually on that one, governments are if we're looking at it, Historically, governments have been the worst contributor to the loss of human liberty and human life. Certainly, we can go through all the different communist countries that have emerged. The United States was a bit of an outlier, I would say on this one, especially with the original intention. But as we've seen the United States progress, I would argue that, yeah, they've definitely come over to that side of being an evil. Some might argue a necessary evil, but they certainly really attack human life and liberty. Okay, And this is where I think our key distinction is because I would disagree with that and say that government can become evil if it's used for illegitimate purposes. But overall, government, civil government is actually God ordained and it is necessary to promote individual liberty, but also to promote and foster good and restrain evil. It's a necessary part of our ordered liberty that comes from God himself. So God ordained. In context of conservatism, God ordained three spheres of government, which is the church government, the family government, and the civil government. And so of course each of those can be abused. I mean, we have instances where parents can be abusive, parents can be neglectful. We certainly have, you know, even instances. Where parents murder their own children, which is the most you know, heinous, active evil that a parent could perpetuate. Upon their own child. Right, But that doesn't then mean that parenting and the family overall is inherently evil. So conservatism under God's ultimate authority and his divine created order would say that the civil government, well. It could be used for evil, just. Like the family or the church, is necessary as an institution to promote good restrain evil. And as Madison. Said in Federalist and Federalist Papers and Federalists forty one, until men are angels, then government is necessary in order to restrain evil for the purpose of the good of the whole. So, just like the family is necessary to foster the environment where children can best grow up and learn virtue, just like the church is a necessary ecclesia and ordered sphere of an institution that God created, so is civil society for the broader good of society. And certainly this is why I'm a monarchist and not an anarchist, because I do believe that we need a small level of government to ensure that people are abiding in my case, those non aggression principles, and so we do want that very very tiny government. But just going off of what we're talking about here, historically speaking, I don't see a lot of examples of government that was actually operating for the good when we look at it, I think the scales are balanced pretty significantly on the side of evil when it comes to government. Well. And I think while you can point to individual examples, you can point to scripture and particularly Romans Thirtein. You can look through scripture where God himself calls civil government to carry the sword, calls civil government to promote good and restrain evil. I mean I can think of many instances of where government is actually doing good. I mean, when the government imposes the death penalty for rapists, for murderers, for example, that is actually a good that only the civil government can effectuate. And so when you look at the morality that's central to law, then that moral component necessarily has to be carried out by the civil government, because if we leave that to either the individual or the church, then that's actually a vigilante or individual promotion of something that is outside the. Scope of ordered liberty. And so if you remove the moral component and you just have a quote unquote non aggression principle, then you're actually deviating from what creates a legitimate moral society. And so if you. Reduce government just to non aggression, then you're removing the government for being a force for good. Where we could give example after example after example of how the civil government daily is being used for good. I'm really thankful I can call police officers to my home if I'm getting robbed, and I'm really thankful that Governor DeSantis signs death warrants for. Perpetrators of evil. I'm really grateful that we. Have a civil government that is premised on moral truth. And while they may not always carry that out, that's actually the vested, legitimate obligation. So if government deviates from that, of course we need to restrain it. And that's talking about how we correct government when it goes off. But when we're talking about just. The institution of government itself and what government is supposed to be doing in a moral and upright society, we have to start with the premise that civil government is part of God's created order, and the intention of a legitimate civil government is to promote good and restrain evil. So how would you define the non aggression principle? And then I can define what I mean. By ordered liberty. And actually I was about to say that because I think we're talking actually about the same thing when we're defining non aggression principles, and you brought up you're thankful that you can call the police when you're getting robbed. That is aggression against you. You are the homeowner, that is your private property. Somebody has entered in to that illegally and is trying to steal some item of yours that is in fact yours, and so calling the police, having a police structure in a government for something like that, that would absolutely apply to a monarchist. That is in part of my belief system. When we have the government punishing an evildoers, somebody that has gone and raped or murdered somebody, that is a violation of those non aggression principles, and certainly the government would have a role there. It's just when we're looking at everything else the government is doing when they're not applying to those non aggression principles, then we see a bureaucratic red tape nightmare. And I think you and I would both agree on that. Well, so how would you define the non aggression principle, like what falls within that scope and what doesn't. Sure, so at tax on life, attack on liberty, attacks on private property, those would all be aggression against an individual's rights that are God given. And so with that, then what conservatism would say is that govern government is obligated actually to do more than that, and you can't actually define what aggression is and isn't without a central moral premise and ordered liberty. And so this is where I think we agree. Mostly, but then we disagree on the scope, right because I would say that you can't define what aggression is and isn't without moral truth, because if this is just individual liberty, you can't define what genuine individual liberty is in the context of well, this is my truth versus your truth. You have to do that with an absolute truth as the standard. And so again, if absolute truth is the standard, then civil government, if it's obligated to do anything that is enforcing good and that laws are either moral and legitimate or they're immoral and illegitimate, then government by definition must be a legitimate moral institution and must be necessary and it's not inherently evil. And I would agree with a lot of what you're saying there for me. And the reason why I would say government is almost a necessary evil is because we live in that fallen world and I think God established that government. When we look at the Garden of Eden, there really was no government system there other than God was with us. And so government has been instituted by God to manage this fallen world that we're currently living in. But I wouldn't necessarily argue that it's a good thing. When we're talking about non aggression principles here, and I agree with your assessment here. We have to have a moral standard one hundred percent, and as a Christian libertarian, I'm going to point to the Bible every single time. That is our moral standard. But when it comes to the principles of liberty, I heard it explained this way. If the greatest joy that I have in my life is swinging my fist as hard as I can, just swinging in front of me as many times as I can, that's my greatest joy in life. Well, my liberty to punch the air as much as I I want stops at your nose. I cannot do it anymore. If you are standing right in front of me. And that's how libertarians would approach this non aggression principle. As long as I'm not hurting anybody else, as long as I'm still living under that moral standard I want, I want to make sure that emphasize that that moral standard that comes from the Bible, and I'm not hurting anyone else, then government hands off well. And that's where I think is also a key difference is the definition of harm, which goes into the non aggression principle, because aggression implies that there is a negative harm, that is that the government is supposed to moderate and arbitrate. And so when you're talking about swinging your fist, that's a in your hypothetical, a essentially morally neutral action, right and tell I step in front of you and the fit and your fist then you know, comes into contact with my face, then it's no. Longer morally neutral. But when you apply that principle more broadly into other areas, such as things like adult consent for homosexual behavior for example, you know, things like insider trading, many different examples that we could point to, then those laws conservatives would say are not morally neutral. But a libertarian. Classically, and you can obviously answer and maybe differ from this, but a classic libertarian would say that as long as there is consent between two adults for the action, there's no harm, and that isn't morally neutral. Sure, I'm actually going to go to the godfather of libertarianism, you could say, doctor Ron Paul, because when he was running for president, he was asked about homosexual marriage and his response absolutely blew them out of the water. They weren't expecting it, but his response was, why do you want the government involved in your marriage in the first place, And that is in fact the answer. I don't want the government telling anyone who they can or cannot marry. I want that to be exercised in its proper authority under the church, because for central really since the creation of marriage, it was always a church issue. And so when we allow for the church to enter into that free market to say, hey, we are United Methodists and we're going to marry anybody that we want, and then somebody else says, you know, we're LCMS, we don't do that, we don't engage in homosexual marriages. Well, then it's up to the people to decide which one of these is actually going to be fruitful. And if people are actually following the word of God, they're going to say, hey, it says in Romans one that we are not supposed to do this, We're not supposed to engage in homosexual behavior. So we're going to actually follow that church that one's more aligned with our faith. As I said, the free market's going to enter in. One's going to succeed and one's going to fail without any government intertrusion or intrusion. Sorry, okay, so putting a pen and I disagree with you, but I'm going to change to illuminate my point. I'm going to devate a little bit from the marriage. Debate specifically, because that involves two people who are consenting, and obviously I would agree with you, involves the church. But what about out homosexual behavior itself at all? So we're not talking about marriage, we're not talking about condoning that, we're not talking about legitimizing it, but in terms of just homosexual behavior. And then when we get to the harm of a third party, including for example, the adoption of children into a homosexual coupling, and even if they're not married, there are two consuming men who want to adopt a baby. So should the government be involved in arbitrating that. I believe that they shouldn't. I would actually all evidence to me would suggest that they're actually going to make more of a mess of it. And when we allow government into this situation, we can see that it ebbs and flows. At some point we might have a leader who says we disagree with this. At some other point we're going to have a leader that says, yes, absolutely. And that's kind of the history of the United States is moving from the progressive agenda to the more conservative agenda and back and forth. And so when I look at something like this like homosexual behavior, right, I'm going to argue for the point that this has to be a heart issue. It can't be a government. Governments can't force individuals to not be gay. When we look at something like the Inquisition, for example, this was forced upon the citizens of this region where they were forced to adhere to Christianity, and they tortured Jews, and they tortured a number of individuals. No one who is tortured, no one who is forced against their will to live a certain lifestyle or in this case, to accept Jesus Christ as their savior is actually saved. We need to turn that back once again to the individual. If we really want to correct morality in these United States or really any region in the world, we have to first address the heart issue, and government stepping into that is not the answer. Well, now, I think that you're arguing subjective morality, because while you're arguing that as applied to homosexuality, you certainly wouldn't argue that as applied to rape or pedophilia or murder, right saying, well, those are her issues and the government can't address that, and so you're going back to an arbitrary moral standard. And so the conservative position would say that, no, there still is a harm involved, and it's still the government's obligation to have laws that foster a civil society for ordered liberty. And so we're not. Suggesting at all that the government has no role in promoting good and restraining evil. If everything just boils down to a salvation issue, then the government is reduced to merely arbitrating contract disputes, and where there are two consenting adults, than any behavior is permitted in a civil society, and that ultimately leads to a lot of harm, including third parties. Like children who are then adopted into a gay unions. It leads to the perpetuation of prostitution, it leads to drug proliferation, it leads to a lot of things that adults may consent to, but overall is not good on a biblical. Scale of defining good. Obviously, we're talking about moral uprightness, and I think you and I agree on the definitions of those. We can assume we agree on those. If you want to flush it out, that's fine. But you're arguing subjective morality as applied to things that you don't personally deem harmful. But then you're applying objective morality to the things that you do personally see the government should step in, and that's actually an arbitrary standard. Conservatism would say no, it is the government's obligation to say that certain behaviors are prohibited and certain behaviors are permitted in a society. And the difference between prohibitions and permissive laws is that those. Are rooted in the foundation of objective truth. And speaking of objective truth, there so number one, you were talking about, like rape or pedophilia, that obviously would would not adhere to the non aggression principles, so we can kind of put that one aside. Obviously, the government should have a role in somebody who is raping somebody. They should absolutely punish the rapist in this case or the pedophile in this case. When when it comes to the issue of adoption to homosexual men that want to adopt a child, I believe that this would would come under the standard of natural law. When we look at this, obviously we can see violations of what God has created here. Homosexuality is a violation of that. If you want evidence, you can see that they can't procreate. And so if somebody is violating natural law here, then no, they shouldn't have the ability to have children because just from nature what we can observe in nature, these two individuals cannot have a child. So we shouldn't bring in an adopted person an adopted baby for these people to have. Right. And so that's something where the government should step in. Right to me, once again, it's more of the individual and it's more of the church issue. Once again, we're not going to restore morality or force morality upon people. If the government is doing it, you're going to actually increase it through through what would what I would call black market. Certainly, drugs would apply to this one. This is another area where we're probably going to disagree to bring drugs into the conversation. But I would argue that making drugs illegal has actually done worse things for America than if people were actually able to decide whether or not they were going to partake in that behavior. Well, I disagree. From the example of my home state of Colorado, before marijuana was legalized recreationally through our Amendment sixty four to the Constitution, you hardly saw that anywhere because it was actually enforced. Now, because people have that free choice under the constitutionally protected right in Colorado to smoke, you see it absolutely everywhere. And so where man is inclined to sin, and we know that he is, I mean, man is naturally that toward evil, the government is the only restraint on civil society because individuals aren't always accountable to a family or to a church. And going back to the situation of adoption to a homosexual couple, it's not the church that arbitrary to those guardianships. It is the state. And so if the state says, well, you know, you can't have. A child naturally, but Therefore, we're going to say that surrogacy is okay. You can adopt an egg, you can. Rent out the womb of a woman, and you can create a child, intentionally creating a child motherless and not knowing his or her biological mother. By definition, morally speaking, a child has one and only one father and one and only one mother, and there are circumstances, unfortunately where the biological parents aren't in the picture. But that doesn't mean morally that the government should permit two men to intentionally manufacture a child and commoditize a child, to bring that child into a situation where they are intentionally motherless. That is a harm morally, and the government has a duty and obligation under a conservative worldview to stop that and prevent that moral evil. I think the greater problem here is that we've allowed government into the family in the first place. I mean, I think you and I would both agree that CPS is a pretty horrible ABC organization from the government. I mean, when we look at the positive sides of what CPS has done versus the negative things, we see a lot of people that are getting separated from their kids, maybe because they don't want to vaccinate There's been a whole bunch of stories in the news as of late of what CPS has done. They literally, and I think it was in Arizona, they were wearing professional kidnapper shirts. That is terrifying, and so we should we should completely remove government from parenthood. And I think that's going to be more of a solution. I don't think bigger government, more government is ever the solution here. When you were talking about drugs, I think the solution there is to remove entitlements. Once again, big government has given the opportunity you were talking about your home state of Colorado for individuals to just engage in as much drug behavior as they want. But if we removed all entitlement programs and truly operated under a free market system, those funds dry up. They're no longer there. If somebody wants to waste their life just smoking pot all day long, well they're not going to survive for very long because they got to go out, they got to get go get a job, they got to get sheltered, they got to have food, they gotta have water, all of that things. A lifestyle of just pure addiction doesn't promote having a long standing job. And I think that kind of irons itself out. I think that's more of a utopian ideal of a free market solution when you have a what you and I would both agree is a falling human nature. Right. And so going back to this example of CPS and how the government, I would agree with you, the government has many instances where we can say they have been abusive, just like in due process we can point out in the criminal justice system there are abuses. There is lawfare that we can point yoummy, I've been a victim of that myself, right. But just because I have been a victim of lawfare doesn't mean that then I advocate to remove due process as a whole. The solution is not to throw out process completely or government's legitimate intervention in society. It's to restrain. Government and have government only exists in its lawful, legitimate, and appropriate context, which again is to promote good and restrain evil. We're not going to have, obviously a. Perfect government, even in your paradigm or in mind. But when we talk about the ideal, not just the subjective of instances and the anecdotal evidence that you present, you're kind of pivoting to saying, well, it's okay to not arbitrate the moral harm of a child going into a motherless family, because look, CPS is. Doing damage over here. That's not actually a response directly to the harm of a child coming into a motherless situation or the responsibility of government to promote good and restrain that evil. So in a conservative paradigm, we would say that we restrain government in the instances where it has gone too far, and we also would permit government and say it is a moral obligation and a duty of government to exercise its authority and its purview over instances like homosexuality, like homosexual unions, and like the commodification of children. All right, and we've hit that heartbreak, ladies and gentlemen. But this is fun. I hope you're having a lot of fun. By the way, it's not the first time I've been accused of being living in a utopian world in my own mind, So no offense there whatsoever. I'm having fun. This is Caleb Collier with Churches State don Media. This is gentlemen. If you're not sleeping on my pillow, do you even patriots? I gotta tell you, this is the most wonderful stuff from a man who's given it all for your freedoms, whether it be the pillow, the sheets, or the slippers. I absolutely adore my pillow. My pillow has the greatest products around. I know when I want to shuffle around in my bathrobe and slippers and yell at the neighbors. Of course, I'm buying from my pillow. I need you to head on over to Trick State Media, scroll over to shop because every single time that you purchase any of these products using the promo code Church and State, you ensure that we keep our message out on the air. I thank everybody for your support and using a promo code Church and State, you guys go to you go to my pillow at dot com forward slash Church and State too, and then you get your own no platform right there, everybody. And we were back. Thank you for staying with us. You're over at Church and State dot Media and we're going to go right back to this debate in just a second. But I got to promote one of my affiliates here and as I'm scrolling or as Chris is scrolling through here, I haven't talked about beef Jerky in a little bit, And now you know, I love beef jerkey, and I actually had to like I'm doing like like this is this is a good debate, Right, I'm going against one of the experts here definitely better educated than I am, so I had to pump myself up full of great protein by eating a whole bunch of beef jerky. Right, And so I want you guys to get this stuff grid down showdown dot com. Not only do they have storable beef ten to fifteen year shelf life in case the grid goes down, but they also have this wonderful beef jerky that's probably the best I've ever tasted. So I want you to try it as well, so that you too can debate as well as Jenna and I are doing. So check them out grid down shout out dot com and use the promo code Church and State. And then one more reminder, ladies and gentlemen, please please just hit the donate button for us to keep us on the air so that we can continue to do things like this. And with that, let's go back to Jenna and I think it was my turn. Yeah, I believe it was, yes, but I wanted you. Were bringing me some of this beef jerkey to Spokane because that looks really good. So I only was like heavily caffeinated coming in here so to this debate, But you know, I would have had some of the beef jerkey. Oh man, I'm on methylene blue and coffee and jerky, and I mean I got all sorts of prepped. I'm even wearing my my libertarian shirt here with a killdozer that made Colorado rather infamous. Yes, but no, that jerky is amazing. And it's the kind you gotta like like literally like chew, like tear it apart. That's the kind of good stuff. So anyway, we're going back to this. We're gonna we're gonna continue this this wonderful debate, and I hope you're having fun because I am as well. Yeah, it's a great they do. And once again, I think when we're going through this, so much of this stuff, I think we agree. It's just not necessarily the role of government that we're agreeing on or the process of how to get there. And I do I will echo again. I have definitely been accused of living in this utopia, and a lot of libertarians get accused of that. But I think it's just this massive distrust when it comes to government and looking at history and seeing continued violations of our natural rights over and over and over again, and looking at it and beating ourselves against our heads against the wall, saying we got to do something different, and the whole cycle is just elect somebody different and we get a lot of promises, and then we just see the continuation of this great state that is being developed, this big government state that just keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger, and we keep figeding that monster. And so for somebody like myself, I'm like, let's cut it off, like let's cut the head off of the beast and go back to something that might make sense. I mean, certainly, I think, Jenna, you could let me see if you agree with this statement our founding fathers and the original intent behind the Constitution and the creation of this republic. I would say it was a whole lot more libertarian than where we've gotten to now. I would not agree with that in this sense. I would say that it was more conservative than where we've gotten to now. And the reason for that is because the founders echoed exactly the same sentiments that you did. Of you know, look at this outrageous a big government that we're seeing they're wanting to tax even our tea. This is ridiculous. Let's throw off this government. I mean, we are about to celebrate the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the greatest civil complaint that has ever been written in the history of legal docors, which is our Declaration of Independence. And they said exactly that that when in the course of human events it becomes necessary to dissolve the political bands that have connected us to each other and throw off the civil government, they wanted to create something different, and so. You're not alone in that at all. And I don't think and. I'm certainly not arguing that the modern twenty twenty six definition of constitutional American constitutional conservatism is what I'm advocating for. And that's why in the very beginning I wanted to separate those two because a lot of people, very well meaning patriots, advocate for our constitution as it's currently written. I actually don't. And you and I have talked about this, Caleb, that there are amendments that were passed, especially through the twentieth century, that actually eroded the original intent. Of our nation. I mean, the sixteenth and seventeenth Amendment, even the fourteenth back to the Reconstruction era, right, those things have proliferated to actually undermine the original intent. Of our founding. And so when you have. The popular election of senators, when you have unlimited taxation through income through the sixteenth Amendment, when you have the Supreme Court with the reverse incorporation doctrine of the fourteenth Amendment, to suggest that now the Bill of Rights that was meant to restrain the federal government now applies to the states, and states can't actually be be Christian and openly so, I mean, these things have undermined the conservatism and the overall conservative philosophy. And they have set about this course that people, well meaning patriots, actually believe in secular pluralism, and they say, well, we the people, it comes down to what we want, and they're basically advocating for a democracy. And that's not at all what our founders wanted. But what they didn't want was such a limited government that it couldn't restrain evil. What they argued for after their beautiful deckl saying that truth is self evident, that you know, it's a God ordained institution of legitimate civil government, and we look to the supreme judge of the universe for the rectitude of our intentions, the moral uprightness. What they debated and then created originally was a constitutional framework that gave enough power to the federal government and to the states through the state constitutions, to restrain evil and to promote actually incentivize good. But what they didn't and then they separated the powers. But what they didn't do was create such a soft government like the Articles of Confederation that ultimately the Constitutional Convention rewrote because they understood through American history that the Articles of Confederation actually didn't give enough power to the government to restrain evil. So they were philosophically, not every single one of them, but the majority at least they were conservatives in terms of the philosophy to say that this isn't a necessary evil, this is actually ordered liberty that comes from God himself. And in order to have ordered liberty, you must have moral virtue in a people, and you must actually enforce that. And it's not forcing beliefs on people. It's not forcing people to profess Christianity, it's not forcing them to a certain profession. It's saying that as long as you live in this society, you will conduct to yourself in a certain posture. And if you don't, if you don't have moral uprightness, you have public drugnness, prostitution, if you have theft, if you have any of these things that in that originally in America would be punished by hanging. I mean, these are things that public behavior was morally and legally condemned, and they gave the government sufficient power to enforce that. I could certainly understand that. I'm actually really thrilled that you brought up the Progressive era amendments, you know, and I one hundred percent agree with you. The sixteenth and seventeenth Amendment probably the worst things we've done to our constitution. I despise both of those. Obviously, the income tax and the other one effectively gave us a democracy. But we also have the eighteenth Amendment, and this is where the government came in and said we're going to probit or prohibition with alcohol, right, We're going to completely make it illegal for any of you to consume alcohol. And the government even went worse than that. They started poisoning alcohol and literally poisoning citizens that were deciding to thumb their nose at this new regulation that shouldn't have ever existed. So here we have an example of the government coming in and saying alcohol is bad for people. Now you can argue, yeah, large quantities of alcohol. Certainly, there's there is some health benefits to wine, and even like whiskey, the science has actually proven that there are some health benefits for that in moderation. I'm not advocating for anyone going and drinking a fifth of whiskey or something. But we had the government coming here and literally tell us we could not do it, overstepping their bounds. And then luckily or fortunately we had you know, that one was repealed. But here is an example of I think, on more on the libertarian side of things, where the government had no right to engage in the Eighteenth Amendment in the first place. Well, yeah, and I wouldn't say that that's an exclusively libertarian position. I would say that that would also fall under conservatism, that the government can't go outside their specific textual limited powers. And we see abuses of this all the time in current American society. So we aren't truly living out a conservative constitutional republic right because we see the Congress a legislate on literally anything that they want to, and they're not holding themselves just to the subject matter that they are allowed to legislate on. Textually, their specific limited subject matter is an Article one, section eight. That's it. Domestic relations, education, healthcare. I mean, so many different issues are not actually within their jurisdiction, but they legislate anyway. And then the Supreme Court has also completely overtaken jurisdiction, mainly through the fourteenth Amendment and its incorporation clause, and now they're arbitrating for the entire nation so many different moral issues, and when it comes to things like domestic relations and what they say qualifies as quote unquote healthcare, and this is how we got to roversus wade right. And so all of those things are not actually constitutional. And yet the one failure that I see of the founders that they didn't anticipate was the rise of a judicial oligarchy. And that is something that is neither libertarian nor conservative because there really is no check or balance on a runaway judiciary. And so again, while we can point to all of these examples, and you point into alcohol, you know, as something in the prohibition era that the government overstepped, there are many examples of that. The solution isn't to say that while government must be evil, then in everything, it's to say where has the government overstepped and to restrain them. So, for example, for alcohol, yeah it is okay to drink. And actually, one of the best lines that you know, we're taught in law school if you're on the defense side, right, is to say, did you know that it's actually legal to drink and drive? You just can't drink over the legal limit and drive, right. So this is all about intoxication, not just mere alcohol use. And so it's the same thing when we're talking about use of government versus abuse of government. And so to say that because there is abuse of alcohol or abuse of government, now we have to reduce it to an absolute zero. That's actually wrong on both fronts of both alcohol and government. Yeah, you bring up some really good points. And you know, the judicial oligarchy that is fantastic because if we read the Constitution, it does it does give us a way out. We just don't use it. There's supposed to serve during good behavior, and I think we could argue that a lot of these judges aren't exercising good behavior, so we can't actually remove them. It's not supposed to be for life as we've interpreted it in the modern sense. I wanted to move to three areas and what we'll probably have to close out after these three areas. But I think you and I. Are probably have a part two of this. You might have to, yeah, but I think you and I are probably going to agree on these three issues, and I'll just rapid fire them too, and then we can kind of roll with it. But abortion, healthcare, and education. From a conservative perspective and then from a monarchist libertarian side. All right, abortion, you know, absolutely needs to be restrained as a moral evil. Education is something that is left to the parents, and when it is state funded, that's something that should not be a worldview or teaching a viewpoint. It should be as much as possible viewpoint neutral. But I would actually argue that if we have the context, the true context of the First Amendment, states can and should in public schools teach a biblical worldview, and in fact they're obligated to under the original founding because we are a Christian nation and your third. One sorry healthcare. Healthcare, Yeah, healthcare is something that should not be a government mandated and I'm not for single payer healthcare at all. That's something that should absolutely be free market, except when it comes obviously to some of the harms, like government can intervene when hospitals want to do gender mutilation surgeries, even with the parent consent. I mean, so there are limits on that, and those are moral issues that governments absolutely have the moral duty to arbitrary. Yeah, and so we are going to agree on quite a lot of this. Abortion number one. Obviously, any Christian who is pro choice is not following the word of God. They really need to check their relationship with Jesus at that point. And certainly this is a violation of the non aggression principles. You and I would both agree on this. We're murdering the most when it comes to healthcare. Privatization all the way, this has been the model for a long time in America. Government did not stick their noses in the business of private individuals, private citizens going to a hospital. A lot of them were ran by churches, as you well know. And so privatization is going to be the solution. I mean, Canada spends upwards of a billion dollars a year sending its citizens to the United States, for healthcare, I thought socialized medicine was so great. Obviously it is not so private all the way. Education once again, I'm going to fall to that privatization, like make it completely outside of government. I'm actually I oppose this whole school choice idea of the money following the kids, because you're leaving an open door for government at that point. I think we need to just remove that entirely. Go to homeschools, go to co ops, go to private schools, and the education is definitely better than what we're seeing in the public sector. Yeah, all right, And I mean I learntually agree with you, and I think that you know where we do agree on this is obviously you and I from a Christian biblical worldview perspective, agree on the central moral truth, right, and so it's just a matter of how big should government be and what can a legitimate government arbitrate and what what can they intervene in? And so government intervention for the conservative is a bit broader obviously than a monarchists or a libertarians position. And that's basically due as this whole conversation has eliminated. That is due to I think more things falling for the conservative under the banner of ordered liberty and morality, and if we leave it just to the individual and the free market to arbitrate, then we're going to leave it to a chaotic populace that has a very different definition across the spectrum of what good versus evil looks like. Yeah, I mean, we're gonna have to leave it at that. I think you're right, we're gonna have to do a part two. We've hit that forty five minute mark and that's pretty much the extent of the time that we have. But it's been a really fun conversation. I hope I'm now your your favorite minarchist. That is my goal in all of this. You're the only one I know, so of course you're my favorite. But yes, there's a few of us. Josie the redheaded Libertarian, I don't know if you've ever heard of her on I think she's so temple. She's a minarchist too, So there's a few of us running around. But honestly, a great conversation. We will have to do this a second time. We probably won't get to it until you get here, but and I actually want to transition to that once again, Chris, if you could pull up the website here for Spokane GOP because I do want to encourage once again people to come and see Jenna. It's been a great conversation and she's you can expect more of this. You can expect a great meal and then sit down and listen to really a great mind in America, Jenna. Anything to add here? Yeah, And you know, as your this up the big Banner Freedom's Framework, that's going to be the topic of the whole evening and I'm really excited about that because the central question I think that all of us are talking about right now is what went wrong and how can we make it right? And that's basically the central question that you and I have been debating as well, because I think that our objective together is the same, which is a moral and upright society. So we're going to discuss that further. And I hope that everyone who can get to Spokane or who's in Spokane on March twenty first. Can join us. Yes, please do so. And I also want to bring up your website because people can listen to you. Is it daily that you're doing this? Yeah, So Monday through Friday we have the live radio broadcast and then it's put on the website after it airs in podcast form, so it's good there. It is Jenna Ellis in the Morning, and you can find it at AFR dot net. You can go and livestream any of our past episodes and we cover news of the day, politics from a biblical perspective, and of course cultural and theological. Topics as well. I'm going to say something that you may not like. You don't have to agree with me on this at all, but it is promoting you, ladies and gentlemen. Listen to Jenna Ellis in the Morning. Don't don't listen to Sean Hannity, please, like, please, don't do that. Jenna Ellis is going to be a much better show for you to listen in the morning, and that's how you find her right there. And you don't have to even comment on that. But I'm not a fan. I appreciate yeah, so yeah, I'm going to promote Jenna over Seawan. There. So, Jenna, thanks again for joining us. It's been a great discussion, a great debate, and look forward to seeing you and gosh, what let's or about a week or. So, yeah, yeah, yeah, a week from Saturday. So looking forward to Caleb, and thanks so much for hosting this. Like I love you know, this kind of debate and interaction. I think we need to have more of this so that listeners can clarify their own position and hopefully, you know, go back to the Word of God and being knowledgeable in the things of God first to rightly divide truth from error and then build up our political philosophy from there. Absolutely, we need to edify, have conversations like this to edify, and really that's what the point is is to edify the body of Christ. So once again, thank you. Gonna ahead close us out. If you'd hold on one more minute just to say goodbye after a production, I'd appreciate it, But again thanks for joining us. All Right, ladies and gentlemen. There you go. A fantastic discussion, a fantastic debate. Probably not over. We probably need to have more conversations like this. But you know, it's opposing views, and I wouldn't even say that necessarily like opposing. It's just different views about a solution to government overreach and understanding that we have to have our Christianity and our morality that comes from that church or state is brought to you in part by colonialized spoken independent agents, Finders Insurance and Mark three to seven dot com. I'm Caleb Collier. I was born for a storm. Welcome to the fire. Unless you're an alien or you've been living under a rock for the last few years, you know that the price of doing business everywhere is going up. Bread, milk, eggs. Have you gone to the gas station lately? Look, inflation is increasing and it's hurting you. The only way that you're going to be that you're going to remain secure in your financial dealings is to go with gold and silver. Now. I know the idea of buying pressions medals can be a little bit scary for the average citizen, but Beverly Hills Precious Medals does such a clear and concise job of walking you through the entire process. It's very simple. I've done this myself. I've moved some of my retirement accounts into gold and silver, and I know for myself that it has allowed me to sleep better at night, knowing that I have my money in something that is tangible and that has always retained value. I need you all to go to bh PM dot com. Use that promo code Church and State. Just fill out the form that they have there. It's really easy, name number, email, and what you're looking to do. Remember to use that promo code Church and State. Hey, this is Caleb Callier and I know you're excited for the Church and State podcast. Now. As a Christian patriot, I love precious metals, whether it's gold, silver, palladium, and of course lead. And this is why I want you to go over to Ponderay Ballistics. Don't ask me how to spell it for all of your ammunition needs. Remember that's p E N d O r E I l l E Ballistics dot com. For all of your ammunition needs. I want you to head on over to Church and State dot Media, Forward Slash Shop, go to Ponderai Ballistics and have a shoot in good time. This is Caleb calli'er with Church and State. Are you tired of your device spying on you? Ladies and gentlemen. We live in nineteen eighty four. Your phones, your tablets, your smart televisions, they all are spying on you. And this is why I heavily endorse Mark thirty seven dot com. This is everything you need for your digital privacy. Phones, tablets, laptops, all of them are ghost protocoled, so that means that you are in charge of your own data. Just go to Church and State dot media, scroll over to shop, and hit Mark thirty seven dot com for all of your privacy needs. Make sure to use that promo code Church and They