First Amendment on TRIAL? What to Do with Shiloh Hendrix | 7/31/26

Summary

Podcast Summary: Steve Deace Show
Episode: First Amendment on TRIAL? What to Do with Shiloh Hendrix | 7/31/26
Release Date: July 31, 2026

---

Overview

This episode of the Steve Deace Show (Blaze Podcast Network), hosted by Steve Deace together with Todd Erzin and Aaron McIntyre, dives deep into recent cultural and political events, offering sharp conservative analysis with a blend of snark and earnest conviction. Joined by frequent guest Oran (Oron) McIntyre, the panel discusses the erosion of free speech in America, specifically through the lens of the Shiloh Hendricks case—a Minnesota mom convicted for using a racial slur in a playground confrontation and what it signals about First Amendment protections. Core topics include the broader implications of selective justice, multiculturalism, the decline of a high-trust society, and the conservative movement’s struggles and shortcomings.

---

Key Discussion Points

1. The “Bleep. Lord Nefarious Says” Montage & Cultural Depravity

[02:09–17:26]

• Montage Reaction: The panel listens to a string of recent news soundbites and political gaffes, reflecting dysfunction in America—from immigration debates and labor arguments, to contradictory stances on policing and crime, to shocking relativism in how society deals with serious offenses (e.g., a rape victim advocating for her attacker’s freedom).
• Oran’s Take: "I am absolutely exhausted with these people pretending like they were somehow foundational to the formation of this country...you arrive entitled on the shore, pretending that you have somehow built this country when you arrived here 10 minutes ago...that’s just grounds for deportation..." ([06:32])
• Todd’s Analysis: Emphasizes that the endless refrain that only immigrants do certain jobs is an excuse embraced on both sides of the aisle, reflecting Americans’ unwillingness to pay the cost of cultural integrity and labor ([07:41]).
• Discussion on American Jobs & Wages: Both Oran and Steve agree: “It’s not that Americans won’t do those jobs. It’s just they won’t do them at the subsistence wages these corporations want to pay.” ([10:18])
• Immigration’s Consequences: Oran claims that uncontrolled immigration paired with corporate interests erodes wages and undermines the American workforce, further driving cultural decline ([09:21]).
• Depravity Score: All panelists rate the current state of cultural chaos a "10" on their depravity scale ([17:19–17:26]).

Memorable Quotes:

• Oran: “We need to stop deluding ourselves like these constitutional rights are not protecting our freedom of speech and nobody is standing up for this.” ([21:25])

---

2. Case Study: Shiloh Hendricks and the First Amendment

[17:26–29:39]

• Recap of Case: Shiloh Hendricks, a white Minnesota mother, is convicted of disorderly conduct for using the N-word during a heated park confrontation. Notably, the man involved (a Somali with a sexual assault record) also used the slur but was not charged.
• Oran’s Core Argument: “It is illegal to be white...they both say exactly the same word, but one of them was convicted of a crime for doing that. And the only explanation...is that she was convicted for being white.” ([18:24])
• Broader Implications: Oran and the hosts argue the case exposes a “two-tier justice system” and the arrival of “hate speech laws in the U.S.”—a sign that First Amendment protections are rapidly eroding.
• Selective Justice: They draw parallels to high-profile figures (like Anthony Fauci) who escape all consequences, arguing this exposes total regime failure ([19:33]).
• Consequences of Multiculturalism: Oran’s exit answer: “The minute you have multiculturalism, you don’t have a culture at all. And then it is simply totalitarianism that can keep you in line.” ([29:39])

Memorable Quote:

• Steve: “The Trun wedding is not a neutral space. It’s not even trying to be. It doesn’t want to be. It’s an invasive space. It’s an invasion of something sacred.” ([62:13])

---

3. Broken Justice, Community, and the Collapse of High-Trust Society

[12:35–16:58]

• On Victims Siding with Perpetrators: The panel analyzes the psychological and societal decay reflected in the refusal of some crime victims to demand justice. Oran connects this to the deliberate dismantling of communal (and masculine) responsibility: “Today, we want to freeze [community justice] out. We don’t want any men to take any action. We want to seal all vitality, all agency, all duty from men and therefore also rob them of all virtue.” ([15:38])
• Decline of “Soft Power”: Aaron and Steve discuss how removing shared values and shunning enforcement of social norms leads to hard-edged, punitive (“Singapore model”) justice or pure chaos ([27:29], [28:34]).

---

4. GOP Weakness, Immigration, and Betrayal of Conservative Voters

[30:25–40:33]

• Spotlight on GOP Leadership: Clips of Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine and Senate GOP leader John Thune expose lackluster, often capitulatory stances on immigration and legislative battles.
• Oran’s Critique: He argues DeWine is more dangerous than Thune because he directly betrays and demoralizes his own base by encouraging mass immigration into Ohio ([36:46]).
• Steve’s Synthesis: “For DeWine to turn around and betray the very issues that caused the state to lean more red...I think that’s even more damaging than Thune, because I don’t...Thune is not a unique figure.” ([38:09])
• Parody and Sarcasm: The hosts use humor to emphasize how these GOP leaders neuter any conservative pushback—“Thune is the political manifestation of the old Mel Kuiper line: Looks like Tarzan, plays like Jane.” ([36:32])

---

5. Power Rankings and Political Hypotheticals

[41:01–45:57]

• Ranking John Fetterman: The panel revisits where progressive PA Sen. Fetterman would rank among GOP senators, lamenting the ineffectiveness of the Republican caucus (“He wasn’t in the top 10 before. I’ll put him in the top 10 now.” —Todd, [41:40]).
• GOP ‘Do-Over’ Picks: Each host nominates a Republican office holder they’d most want to retire and replace:
  • Aaron: Markwayne Mullin (OK) for his insufficient border stance ([44:03]).
  • Todd: Texas Gov. Abbott, replace with Chip Roy ([44:46]).
  • Oran: Appoint Ron DeSantis as Supreme Court Justice to maximize his effectiveness without electoral complications ([44:56]).

---

6. Listener Feedback: Christianity, Marriage, and Church Conflicts

[50:21–95:21]

• Advice on Attending ‘Trune Weddings’: The team reiterates it's never appropriate for Christians to affirm same-sex or transgender weddings since they are a direct subversion of God’s definition of marriage (“...the Trune wedding is a direct intentional subversion of something that directly comes from our practices.” —Steve, [55:29]).
• Traditional Marriage for Sinful Couples: By contrast, the hosts affirm attending the wedding of heterosexual couples, even if their premarital conduct was wrong: “This wedding is an attempt for unholy people to access something that is holy...” ([82:18]).
• Church Volunteer Conflict: On the loss of a ministry role, the hosts urge listeners to prioritize Christ’s cause and seek honest, respectful explanation without resentment ([90:52]).

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• Oran McIntyre:
  • “It is illegal to be white...they both say exactly the same word, but one of them was convicted of a crime for doing that. And the only explanation...is that she was convicted for being white.” ([18:24])
  • “The minute you have multiculturalism, you don’t have a culture at all. And then it is simply totalitarianism that can keep you in line.” ([29:39])
• Steve Deace:
  • “The Trun wedding is not a neutral space...It’s an invasion of something sacred.” ([62:13])
  • “When those around us who are not believers are attempting to raise their own standards, we encourage that. When they demand we lower our standards...we say no.” ([89:30])
• Aaron McIntyre:
  • “Why is this so hard? ...If this is about Alistair Begg, I don’t think anybody here...we’re not condemning him to hell...He’s got a great track record but he’s really wrong on this.” ([65:45])
• Todd Erzin:
  • “You have a lot to say and you don’t know how to say it...If you’re not willing to say it before the ceremony day, I don’t know what ground you really have to stand on for not going.” ([86:35])

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• [06:32] – Oran’s exhaustion with “immigrants built America” talking point
• [10:18] – Discussion on wages, jobs, and immigration
• [12:35] – Aaron’s critique of progressive victim mindsets
• [15:38] – Oran on historical male responsibility for justice
• [18:24] – Oran: “It’s illegal to be white” in Hendricks case
• [21:25] – Oran: “People are more scared of being called racist...watching their First Amendment rights be destroyed”
• [29:39] – Oran: “The minute you embrace multiculturalism, you don’t have a culture, only totalitarianism can keep you in line”
• [36:46] – Oran: Mike DeWine’s betrayal and the “biological warfare” of immigration
• [41:40] – Todd: John Fetterman would now be in GOP’s top 10 senators
• [44:56] – Oran: Ron DeSantis should be Supreme Court Justice
• [62:13] – Steve on weddings: “The Trun wedding is not a neutral space...It’s an invasion of something sacred”
• [82:18] – Steve: Affirming aspiration to Christian marriage, even in sinful couples
• [90:52] – Advice for church volunteers losing their ministries

---

Final Thoughts and Tone

The tone is incisive, unapologetic, and at times darkly humorous, offering cultural critique from a deeply conservative and Christian worldview. The hosts challenge their own audience about complacency and the failure of American conservatism, going beyond mere culture war rhetoric to address first principles, spiritual decay, and their consequences for American freedom.

---

Useful For:
Anyone wanting a comprehensive conservative analysis of the Shiloh Hendrix case, modern First Amendment threats, the logic behind Christian orthodoxy in cultural engagement, and internal critique about the integrity of the conservative movement and the American church.

Transcript

[A]

Foreign. Happy Friday. Welcome to the Steve Day show here. That would be me alongside Todd erzin and Aaron McIntyre. We're going to be joined by our friend and colleague or I, McIntyre here in just a moment. Not to be confused with the guy who works here, Aaron McIntyre. They're not the same person. They. They spell it somewhat differently, though they are often mistaken for one another.

[B]

Don't screw up or on. Don't screw up in life, okay? Make me thankful that people get us confused or else I will never forgive you.

[A]

All right, you guys know the drill. Next hour, it's going to be your turn. Feedback Friday. We've got all kinds of your feedback to delve into, but let's kick this thing off as we always do with the DACE group. We have not seen Oron in a. In a few minutes. Right. So it's good to see you again, Oron. How are you? I'm sure just peacefully coexisting with your fellow man. Correct. How are you?

[C]

As always. As always. Thanks for having me again, guys.

[A]

You bet. Enjoy. You just kind of just sitting around and making your benign assessments of where things are. It's always if you want a safe take or on McIntyre is where you want to go. Correct? Indeed.

[C]

Many people say that.

[A]

Many people say everyone, yes, everyone says that about you, Mr.

[D]

Neutral.

[A]

Indeed. In fact, he believes we're in a neutral area and there are plenty of neutral spaces as we. And we should seek those out. In fact. Yes. I think his nickname is cartilage or something like that. Right. Have we carried that?

[C]

I think I should try being controversial. That would probably be.

[A]

Give that a shot.

[C]

Probably be an exciting day.

[A]

Indeed.

[D]

All right.

[A]

I think have we carried the bit too far now? Can we let it go, do you think?

[D]

I know we got time to fill. I bet we could take it longer.

[A]

I think. I think we've done this. I think it's done. It's run its course. Are you guys know how it works? This is your weekly look at the week that was. And it begins as it always does, with issue one, bleep. Lord Nefarious says. So we have a defect there.

[C]

So that woman's splashing her feet in the water.

[E]

Well, everyone is.

[A]

This is like disgraceful because it says honor our veterans.

[E]

Right?

[A]

It says like, don't go in the water.

[E]

And that kid is literally going in the water.

[A]

And you can see that, like people

[E]

are just walking in the pool.

[A]

See all the water. That kid just flew.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

AIs is planning to mount a series of operations, including here in Ohio to target arrest and ultimately deport some of the Haitian immigrants who are set to lose their legal status here. What is your initial reaction to that?

[F]

Well, it's a mistake. It's not good for the United States, and it's not good for the state of Ohio.

[D]

And Haitians, you know, they work hard.

[C]

They're always on time at their work.

[D]

They don't take no days off, you

[A]

know, no days out. They're always there.

[G]

And we are.

[C]

We are.

[G]

We are.

[A]

We built America.

[E]

It's also impacting our economy. Labor here. We have a huge ag industry. So, you know, the only folks that will really do that are immigrants, cows that need to be milked twice a day, 365 days a year that, you know, they don't have the labor for it.

[A]

The tremendous contribution our community has made for America's greatness. America could not be the great country

[B]

it is today without our contribution.

[A]

Without your contribution. You once tweeted about defunding the police. Defunding the police. And tonight you were asked whether you would sign that bill to defund the

[C]

police, and you said no.

[E]

If anyone's been. If anyone's been defunding the police, it's been Robin Voss and the Republicans who have not been adequately funding shared revenue. And you have seen that local governments have had to make very difficult decisions. And I believe that, as governor, that we want to make sure that we're prioritizing public safety. And I believe that, know those types of bills that could include more investment in the things that we know prevent crime. If you want to be tough on crime, you better be tough on the causes. We are putting up these signs as an indication of what the consequences will be to any critical actions on the cta. We are hoping to deter crime and to encourage people to move forward in their witnesses over crime.

[A]

These signs are a message to all

[C]

of our riders and employees that we are working together with the county state's

[A]

attorney's office to take action and ensure and promote a safe ride on ct.

[C]

Let's just say somebody who has r

[B]

ped a woman, Would you like them to be out in the street?

[E]

I think my answer is yes, even though that's a challenging answer to say.

[A]

So if you got.

[B]

Would you like your rapist to be out in the street?

[E]

Well, like, let me finish. Because I have been raped, and they are out in the street, and I'm not sure, like, them going to jail is a solution to, like, whatever's going on inside their heart.

[C]

Is there a vote?

[B]

Mr. Larson has taken that you disagree with. 60 seconds.

[A]

Gosh, absolutely.

[B]

I mean, the two most recent are

[C]

his votes to honor Charlie Kirk. I think that was absolutely deplorable.

[A]

So, folks, you can't share a country with literally any of that.

[D]

Right?

[A]

And with that, let's get to it. Oron, as is the custom, is the guest. You get the first crack at it. What was the vilest of the vile that you were just subjected to and why?

[C]

I think that montage was specifically designed to raise my blood pressure.

[A]

Halfway through. Halfway through. I thought, Aaron is absolutely trying to yank the chain of aura.

[C]

No, he's trying to kill me on camera. He's like, I will be the only one with a McIntyre name.

[A]

There will be only one. No, but McIntyre, first of his name. Yes, that's right.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

The Indian immigrant and the Haitian immigrant asserting that they built America has. Has to certainly take the cake for me.

[A]

Explain why, other than the obvious, because

[C]

I am absolutely exhausted with these people pretending like they were somehow foundational to the formation of this country. And the fact that the Democrats, the left in general, have fed them this propaganda, allowed them to walk around making these absolutely ridiculous claims is insane. If you want to be an immigrant and actually try to assimilate to the nation over generations through grateful service to this country that my ancestors built, that's a story I might want to hear from you. But when you arrive entitled on the Shore, pretending that you have somehow built this country when you arrived here 10 minutes ago. No, actually, I think that's just grounds for deportation, denaturalization, Go back to wherever you came from. How about you build that into something worthwhile? Why can't you do it? Oh, it's because you're stupid, because you're a liar, because your country can't do anything and that's why you had to run here, steal all our stuff, and then have stolen valor.

[A]

I think that is an excellent point, which is, if all of these things and values were automatically transferable, why can't they build these things in their own culture? I think that is a phenomenal point. Todd, what stood out the most to you? Or if you want to comment on orange, you may.

[D]

Well, I think I'm going to pick the lady in the split box who was talking about the jobs that only certain caliber of immigrants will do. Picking the lettuce, things like, here's the thing, Steve, our entire adult life, that talking point has been used. That's not a new talking point. And here's the thing, we have to deal with montages like that. That almost kill Orrin McIntyre because we didn't destroy that argument to begin with. And it's not just dumb libs. There's all kinds of people certainly in the middle. And yes, even on the right. Marjorie Taylor Greene Construction company. They'll say things, but they won't believe it. They ultimately like, I don't really want to do that job. When he talks about the stolen oran, rightly, the stolen valor, the hard work that's supposed to be done to maintain a culture. The simple fact is they keep using that and abusing that and winning with that is because quite frankly, most of us who even think disagree with it won't put in the work to make sure that it can't be used against us. Way too many of us believe in a way too comfortable lifestyle where we don't like, I don't want to be. I want to be in air conditioning. I don't want to pick the lettuce. And therefore we get this. The lie that we've been telling to ourselves in that segment right there is the reason why we have everything else in that segment or on.

[A]

You have a response to what you just heard from Todd.

[C]

I think in a lot of ways that's true. Though, to be clear. Also, it's because American companies have been allowed to just constantly bring people in to undercut a living wage for Americans. I just had a trucker on last Friday on my show who explained very clearly that the problem is not some lack of Americans who will drive trucks. It's that the trucking industry has specifically gone out of its way to import people to undercut the wages of truckers. So I think that it is true on one end that we need Americans who are willing to be active both in their community and willing to do jobs that they might feel that are somehow beneath them. But it's also important to understand that the corporations have walked hand in hand with our government to ensure that those wages stay so low that those jobs are basically inaccessible to Americans. Yes, they are there, but they pay nothing. And the. The attempts by the corporations to manufacture that wage have been well documented.

[A]

So let's get to where the rubber meets the road on stuff like this really quick. All right. Because I completely agree. It's not that Americans won't do those jobs. It's just they won't do them at the subsistence wages that these corporations want to pay. I agree. All right. But then we have to, you know, on the back end, someone's going to pay that cost.

[G]

Right.

[D]

The lettuce will Be more expensive.

[A]

Yes, sir. So if we're going to pay lettuce pickers $20 an hour, is everybody okay paying five bucks for a head of lettuce as opposed to whatever you're paying right now? Right. That's. That's where the rubber meets the road. What do we think the answer to that question is? I'm genuinely asking.

[D]

Well, regular people, it's the cost Oran talks about. There is a cost for the privilege of living here in America. And if all of us who were born here will not pay it and keep finding excuses not to pay it, whatever that cost may be, actual time, talent, treasure, then we are stuck with the nonsense that now we have to evaluate.

[A]

So we're more than an economic zone, is essentially your argument.

[D]

All right, citizens.

[C]

Well, and, and let's remember we are paying that cost. Remember, you can't eat bagged lettuce right now, and that's because immigrants are pooping in your lettuce. That's the actual cause. That's why it's happening.

[A]

Right.

[C]

So, yeah, yes, you paid $2.

[B]

It's true, though. It's true.

[C]

But you might. That's why I said having explosive diarrhea. So how much is your explosive diarrhea worth? Is it worth paying an American $2 more for a bag of lettuce? My vote is yes.

[B]

That's why I said don't research how the cyclospora or whatever is coming about is exactly what he just said. I would have a little bit. My lettuce budget might be increased a little bit if the people probably, maybe illegals had not screwed up the interior drain tiling in my house. And I have to pay thousands of dollars to get that fixed. I think if I didn't have to pay thousands of dollars to get that fixed, I might have a little bit more money for my lettuce budget.

[A]

That sucks. Aaron, what stood out about your montage that you did to you the most?

[B]

The gubernatorial candidate in Wisconsin. Just the words the kamalabalidygook word salad about. Well, the Republicans are the ones who are trying to defund the police. And if we want to actually address crime or whatever term she used, we have to go to the root causes. Cut to. Hey, we're putting up signs. Please don't stop. Please stop criming on the Chicago Transit Authority buses. Cut to. Yes, I've been raped, but I. I'm fine with rapists being out on the street. Just utterly chaotic. There's nothing more to say than that.

[G]

How.

[A]

Let's Discuss. Everybody here has some level of theological acumen, so help our audience to understand how it's possible that a woman who claims she was raped could get to the point that she thinks victims like her should have no justice and benefit of the doubt should be given to those who committed the crimes against her. How does this occur? What manifestation of a broken brain? Because the normal sinful reaction that every previous generation of the west would have had would have been to find the person that she accused and without any trial or any evidence, string that person up like right away, like a posse, right? Or, you know, neighborhood justice or vigilante justice, or her husband or father took matters into his own. These would, I mean, this, these are the things that, you know, great books of yesteryear, like To Kill a Mockingbird are written about, right? That. Well, that just sounds like you're guilty and somebody did this, so it must be you. That every previous generation's inclination was to just bypass justice altogether, to take justice into their own hands out of zealotry for justice, right? What is it about this generation that the, that the, the, the sinful manifestation is the exact opposite inclination, but just to say it's actually my assailant that deserve is worthy of mercy and not myself. What's uniquely happened here?

[B]

I think, I think we just have to apply Occam's Razor, that the heart is totally and utterly, utterly postrate, I should say prostrate towards hell. I think that's just the simplest explanation. That is absolutely chaotic thinking. I remember the story a couple of years ago, out of New York City was caught on CCTV camera. This guy and his girlfriend heading home from a bar or some sort of social gathering late at night. Just a random attack. The boyfriend got stabbed, stabbed, stabbed, died, bled out on the street. And I think his girlfriend opted not to or said that he didn't. She didn't want the boyfriend's assailant to be charged or to spend lifetime in prison. I just think you have to apply Occam's razor here. That's just chaos. They just want chaos. They might not be able to figure out why they want it. They might be able to dress it up in any sort of a technical terms that you want to throw at it. You can try to diagnose that. I think you just have to apply Occam's razor. Their hearts are just post straight towards hell.

[A]

Orion, do you have a hypothesis as to why? All previous generations in the west, the temptation would have been just to bypass a justice system and to act out you know, of their own accord. And maybe every now and then do so at the expense of somebody innocent because they took their zealotry for justice too far. But there's a unique temptation that goes in completely the opposite direction in this era to say, yeah, I'm a victim of that very crime, and I'm not really entitled to any justice at all. Do you have a theory as to what's happened here, why the brain is broken in that direction?

[C]

Well, because we specifically and intentionally bred it out of people. Right. What do we think everyone reads To Kill a mocking bird?

[B]

4.

[C]

Don't forget that the New England Puritans had an office of constable that they used to replace the office of sheriff from England. And the reason they did that is they feared that the English, the English sheriff was too powerful, that his ability to wield deputies in the power of the state was too oppressive. If you wanted to arrest somebody in New England as a constable, they you had to go and gather a posse. Basically, justice was impossible without the community. The men of the community had to be active participants in any and every arrest or execution or any kind of other punishment that you laid out on the criminal. This was something that the community did together. Men were responsible for delivering this kind of justice communally. Today, we want to freeze that out. We don't want any men to take any action. We want to seal all vitality, all agency, all duty to from men and therefore also rob them of all virtue. And when you do that, well, people then make the kind of concessions that they're making now. No one can ever take action. No brother, no father. These people will be discouraged or destroyed if they ever step up. We also happened to Daniel Penny. The state and only the state can make these decisions. And of course, when the state is in charge and the only one that's able to wield this kind of power, well, we see where that tends to go.

[A]

That's good stuff right there. Let's get to the exit. Question. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being how sincere most of the posthumous Lindsey Graham flattery has been and 10 being Trump, offering Vance and Hegseth tic tacs during Graham's funeral was probably the most sincere moment of the entire event. Rank this week's level of total depravity. Todd.

[D]

Because those who believe in nothing will believe in anything. It's a 10.

[A]

Aaron.

[B]

10.

[C]

Or Ron, it's a 10.

[A]

Let's get to issue two. Shiloh Hendricks.

[B]

The case of Shiloh Hendricks has become a free speech flashpoint in the country after Hendricks, a Minnesota mom, went viral after using the N word during a confrontation at a Rochester, Minnesota playground.

[C]

You call him a n. A child.

[A]

The you talking.

[B]

Did you call the child a business? It is my own business. You call him a.

[C]

Okay.

[B]

Why don't you have the boss to

[C]

say it right now? Again, you.

[G]

Now.

[B]

Hendricks has been found guilty of one count of disorderly conduct related to her interaction with the man who recorded the incident. Hendricks was sentenced to a $1,000 fine, 200 hours of community service, and a stayed 90 day jail sentence, meaning she won't serve jail time unless she violates the terms of her sentence. Her attorneys plan to appeal.

[A]

Let's get to the opening question here. Oran, I'll start with you. What does this, what does this case tell us about the current state of the culture we're in,

[C]

that it is illegal to be white? Let's be really clear. Both that woman and the man in the video who, by the way, was accused of sexual assault against a 16 year old. So we have a Somali criminal sexual assaulter doing this, creeping on this woman with a child in the park, but she says the same word he does. They both say exactly the same word, but one of them was convicted of a crime for doing that. And the only explanation, there's literally only one, is that she was convicted for being white. And of course, we see this conviction alongside Anthony Fauci and his testimony this week. And as nice as it was to see Anthony Fauci embarrassed, we all know that pretty much no penalty is coming for Anthony Fauci. So we now live in a country where Shiloh Hendricks can be convicted of a crime, but Anthony Fauci can kill millions of people, destroy the economy and the lives of millions of children, and receive no penalty. This is a regime complete problem. This is an entire system breaking down. This is the justice system entirely eroding before our eyes.

[A]

So in other words, there's a context being applied to her. They're using the same vocabulary. But your argument is there's a context being applied to her that's not being applied to him. And what would be the justification for said context? And it would be her whiteness, essentially. Therefore it comes with a connotation, a historical connotation that it couldn't possibly come from the Somali who's black. Is that basically. And that's what she's being judged for, therefore, is her whiteness. Because if two black people were saying this to one another in any context, we wouldn't be here with any kind of A trial in Minnesota or anywhere else.

[C]

Right. We would just call it a rap video. Right. And that's obviously the case. This man was harassing a woman with a child in a park. He has a history of sexual violence against minors. But she is the violator here. And let's be clear, there were two charges here. One was against her addressing the child, allegedly. And then her addressing the man who was harassing her. She was found innocent of directing the slur at the child. It was only the slur directed at the man who was harassing her, the sexual offender, the foreign sexual offender at the park who she was ultimately convicted of harassing. Again, this is just a hate speech law. This is two tier justice. We can mock the UK all we want. We can say that, well, we have the first amendment because we have the second amendment. No you don't. Shiloh Hendricks does not have a first amendment right and nobody with the second amendment came to defend her right. So we need to stop deluding ourselves like these constitutional rights are not protecting our freedom of speech and nobody is standing up for this. Organizations like FIRE who are supposed to be dedicated to free speech, refused to defend Shiloh Hendricks in court. That's where we're at. People are more scared of being called racist. They are watching their first amendment rights be destroyed.

[A]

Let's take your point a little further. I mean, we don't know her genealogy. What if, you know, she is, you know, not that we have a recent case or anything like this, but let's say, you know, a recent immigrant from an Eastern European country, you know, and you know, instead of getting murdered on a subway, this is her right. So therefore she would have no historical ties to any of the context of that word. You see where I'm going here? She would have, there's nothing in her background whatsoever. She has no historical ties. Her family has lived another hemisphere away for hundreds and hundreds of years, came here to escape, say war torn Ukraine. Ok, so what if, where, where do we go with that? Then it's so, it's just then that she's white because she has no historical ties to the ugly legacy of that term's past whatsoever.

[C]

Right, well, and let's not forget that Aruna Zyrutska, who you're alluding to there, her murderer said, I got that white girl. He didn't care that she wasn't a white American. She didn't, he didn't care that she ultimately wasn't attached to some theoretical legacy of oppression and slavery and all these things that would give him A justification for the murder.

[A]

Right.

[C]

He just cared that she was white. And so I understand a lot of people being worried about the idea of some kind of shared understanding of whiteness at this point. But people are getting murdered, people are getting thrown in jail because of that characteristic. Whether you believe it's a real cogent category, a salient category or not, it really doesn't matter because both people who want to murder you and people want to put you in jail will categorize you that way, whether you fit inside the narrative context or not.

[A]

Aaron?

[B]

Yeah, so, I mean, I'm not a huge fan of the N word, the connotations along with that, but I kind of think this is just kind of cut and dried, that this is what the First Amendment was for. Unless there's under very narrow circumstances that you would not have those applications, you're calling for a very specific action that would violate someone else's, you know, rights, God given rights. This is a pretty cut and dried case. I don't think it goes much further than that. You may not like the word, but if we are serious about having a real First Amendment, then we should be serious about this. And I don't think, I think if this indicates anything, it's that even in blue, in blue states, there are just some areas even within those blue states. Minnesota, you go two hours to the north of Rochester, past the Twin Cities. It's like being in Alabama again. But there are just certain no go zones for people who are conservative, who actually have whatever conservative means, right wing, whatever you want to call it. There's just no go zones for people like us. You have to tow every single line to a T because you really don't fundamentally, if you get in front of a jury, you don't have rights.

[A]

Correct.

[D]

My answer is just like my first answer. It's about the lies we like to tell ourselves on the right. For the longest time we are, we want a more libertarian notion of what conservatism means. Just I want to be left alone, don't bother me. But here's the thing. If you want to just be left alone, then, and this is a theme Oren talks about all the time, you have to have a very high trust society. And if you aren't willing to at least put in the infrastructure for a high trust society, there's people like that who guarantee, while you want to be left alone, they will take everything from you. And because then we're ashamed to have an actual conservative identity, which Oren also talks about all the time, this what you just saw is inevitable. We like our lies too much. We won't smash the idols. We are responsible for our own chains. We let the chamber of commerce dictate on the right. Who the. The infrastructure of who. Or construction companies like Marjorie Taylor Greene, who's going to work there. We make sure that immigrants get to literally sit around in parks and. And stalk your women and children. But somehow it's your problem because we won't do the things that create a high trust society. It's really all our fault in the end. I mean, yes, Oron's right. It's okay to hate whites, but we guaranteed that's where this was going to go.

[A]

See, I think that's a very. Your angle there is vital. If we're going to have a high trust society, how does something like this happen? And going back to we talked about on yesterday's show, this last era of evangelicalism has convinced a lot of believers that stuff just kind of organically happens. Once you. Once you give your life to Jesus, it just manifests niceness everywhere. Yeah, it's like a big bang. It's like a spiritual or cultural big bang. When in reality, there had to be very specific applications of what. Of what the gospel meant to make this stuff happen. That's why we had adult. How do you create a high trust society? Well, we have laws against adultery, and if we find out you committed it, you'll go to jail for that. We had laws against sodomy. We had laws against blasphemy. These things existed well into the 20th century. Now, we may. Those may not be the manifestations we want to go back to. To repeat, we can debate that. What specific manifestations of power should we install to ensure. Because it's not good. You can't trust human nature on its own. There's got to be some power wielded. There's got to be some accountability mechanism. If men were angels, they wouldn't need government to quote William Penn.

[B]

Right.

[A]

So maybe those aren't the ones you want. Okay, I'll listen. But there's going to have to be some. Right. Do people just trust each other on their own? No, because we're sinners. And so sinners need some form of governing. Now, the trick here is that the ones doing the governing, are they also sinners?

[D]

Yeah.

[A]

And that gets into Ron's constant, you know, discussion between the difference between a sheriff in the old world and a constable in the new one.

[C]

Right, right.

[A]

So the founders were not for small government. Actually, they created a massive bureaucracy of checks and balances. They were for limited government. Limited to what? Well, not so much necessarily based on scope and size as much as jurisdictional authority. So these are conversations I don't think, frankly, we are ready to have.

[B]

This is why the dissembling of a shared culture is just disastrous. It's suicidal for a country because we used to not have to consider things like the Singapore model. I just saw a story yesterday about a French teenager got fined $500 for licking a straw and putting it back. Now that's pretty antisocial behavior. That's pretty punitive punishment for a petty crime or a petty misdemeanor. But guess what they don't have a whole lot of trouble with in Singapore? Petty crime. They don't have a whole lot of problems with that because they punish it so punitively in a shared culture, in a Westernized culture or Western, a Christendom culture. We didn't have to worry about that because that's built into the morality and the ethic of its people.

[A]

Yep.

[B]

The dissembling of that culture means you have to start considering things like the

[A]

Singapore model and see that there's soft, just like there's soft and hard power. Geopolitically. You have that in a culture too. So you know, the reason why you could probably trust that your neighbor wasn't gonna steal your wife and violate the covenant against covetousness or the commandment against covetousness and adultery is because we had adultery laws. And even if the local sheriff didn't want to enforce the adultery laws, that law gave you the, the, the power within a culture to apply a soft power level of shame and, and, and shunning for engaging in that kind of behavior. You see what I'm saying? These are all, these are all mechanisms. If we could entrust, if we could install a high trust society amongst ourselves, we wouldn't need Jesus. You know who thinks they can install a high trust society without God or limitations on human behavior? Communists. And then after they gain that power, they then make sure to limit the behavior of all those who oppose them having it. All right, exit question just for Oran. What's the biggest cultural trend line you'd reverse if you could in 20 seconds. What is it?

[C]

I think it has to be any embrace of multiculturalism. As Aaron was just saying, you have to have that unified culture. The minute you have a multiculturalism, you don't have a culture at all. And then it is simply totalitarianism that can keep you in line. Nothing else will do it more in

[A]

a moment, the STEVE Day show. All right, back here on the Steve Day show, powered by Blaze tv, radio and podcast, we march on with your weekly look at the week that was alongside our friend and colleague Oran McIntyre. Let's get to issue three on Mike DeWine, John Thune and the GOP's human T blockers.

[B]

Hope you're not trying to make a baby tonight. Here's the GOP featuring Ohio Governor Mike DeWine and Senate Myjordie Leader John Thune.

[G]

I'm for anything that we can do to get the Save America act pass. What I always ask, the question I always ask is what is your picture of victory at the end? What is the end game here? And if, in fact, staying here for the month of August means that we assume at some point There will be 10 Democrats across over and vote for the Save America Act, I think we can stay here till Christmas. That's not going to happen. And the other thing I would say about that is that there's not, there aren't going to be 50 votes to get rid of the legislative filibuster. So if budget reconciliation is a path forward, if we conclude that there is actually a chance to get an outcome or a result there, I'm open to do it. And I think all of our colleagues would be open to staying around here if that were true. But I think that we have to see first of all, that can be proven to be the case.

[A]

ICE is planning to mount a series of operations, including here in Ohio, to target arrest and ultimately deport some of the Haitian immigrants who are set to lose legal status here. What is your initial reaction to that?

[F]

Well, it's a mistake. It's not good for the United States and it's not good for the state of Ohio. These are people who have helped Springfield really come back. Springfield has been making a real, real comeback. The Haitians who are living there and employed there, they came there to work. And they came there because there were jobs that were not being filled by, by other people. And so if you've talked to the employers in Springfield who are employing nations, they will, they will tell you that these are people who have opened restaurants, they've opened other businesses, they've rehabbed houses, they've created jobs as well as filled jobs. And so to lose them and have them not be able to work anymore and possibly, you know, taken out of this country is, frankly, a blow to Springfield and it's a blow to the state of Ohio.

[A]

Todd, which of the Republicans that you just saw is most likely to cause Infertility by being subjected to even their mere virtual presence. Mike DeWine or Jon Theu.

[D]

Mike DeWine.

[A]

And I apologize to each of your wives, by the way.

[D]

I'm just gonna have to say it, though. But this. It dovetails with everything I've said so far about what John Thune is looking around the room, including at the President of the United States. How long have I been saying? It was like months ago on this very show where we talked about who's in charge of the Republican Party. That was one of the questions, right? Donald Trump or John Thune? I'm sorry. Like, John Thune was looking around like, I think it's me.

[C]

I.

[D]

What do you. I, I can't stand the guy. I loathe him way more than I loathe Mike DeWine. But he just. No one's stepping to Thune. No one. I mean, including in South Dakota. This is good enough for you. The. Every. Every Republican in South Dakota should be absolutely famous by going in front of every microphone and saying, we want to recall him. We. We can't stand this cuck. No. So I got it. I'm sorry. Dude's got more game. He just looks around. It's not a lot of game, but compared to the game everybody else has. Thune stepping up. He's owning that place.

[B]

Aaron, I can't answer. Yes. Can't go outside the box here. I'm going with John Thune. At least Mike DeWine kind of sort of maybe believes something now. That's something that he believes is incredibly destructive. Incredibly. Stabbing America in the back. Stabbing his own state in the back. You mean there's nobody in the state of Ohio with the proper wages? There's nobody who could maybe, you know, rebuild Springfield, Little Haiti? There's nobody. I'm sure there are some small business loans involved in the creation of said businesses and restaurants and things. What do they serve at those restaurants? I don't want to know. There's nobody. There's been absolutely no benefits. It's just all of these Haitians have come into Springfield and they have been a net contributor. Really? Really. I find that hard to believe because. Have you looked at Haiti, Steve, you've been to Haiti. You've mentioned that a few times.

[A]

I have.

[B]

Justin Bieber's father in law.

[A]

Yeah. Weirdly enough, but yes.

[B]

Yeah. You've been to Haiti. Lots of shops, productive people popping up around that establishment.

[A]

Not. Not so much, no. 50. I saw a stat yesterday. 15% of Haiti's population is now living in the United States.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

For what possible reason would that be? Any kind of net benefit to the people of America on any level whatsoever. For what possible reason would it be?

[B]

So that's, that's what Mike DeWine believes. He believes that 15% of Haiti living in the United States, living in Ohio, is a net positive for everybody involved. That's why I'm going with John Thuden, Bill Lumberg. Bill Lumberg on Capitol hill. Yeah, yeah. 50 votes. I'm going to need you to stick around through Aug, actually. Look at that. I don't think. Even if you stuck around through Christmas, I don't think we'd get.

[A]

I'm not gonna get. That is seared in my cerebellum.

[B]

I'm not gonna get 10 Democrats to cross.

[A]

Oh, no.

[B]

Ah, man. Peter just. It's just. And the guy's a good looking dude, but every time he opens his mouth, it's just I want to gouge my eyes out and stick my eyes that I've freshly gouged out of their sockets into my ears, right? So it's Jon Thune.

[A]

Thune is the political manifestation of the old Mel Kuiper line. Looks like Tarzan plays like Jane. That is Jon Thune is the political manifestation of that Oran. What say you?

[C]

Thoon is obviously evil, but he's like a banal evil, right? Like there's 10 more guys just like him behind him with exactly the same agenda, all the same excuses. There's nothing remarkable about that. I think Mike DeWine is the more insidious traitor to his people. You know, he's specifically planning the destruction of his own state, defending it, and of course, you know, by proxy, also planning the destruction of the wider American nation. I have plenty of experience with Haitians myself, having taught in a school that was majority minority in which Haitian Creole was a strong fixture. And I've met the parents, I've met the, the community. We don't need this. We don't need this here. This is insane. What are we doing? It's literally a culture where a guy named Barbecue ends up, you know, running a cannibal squad inside the country. Uh, it's, it's absolutely insane that the whole country of Haiti was founded on a blood ritual where they murdered all the white people on the island. Like, I really cannot express how. This is just basically straight up biological warfare against the American people. And anybody who can make excuses for this and say that it's somehow benefiting their state is really just the purest manifestation of evil I can imagine.

[A]

I think I'm going to Agree with Oran. Because I also go back to kind of you all's doctrine of subsidiarity, Todd, which is if it's true that the power most closely wielded to the people is likely to wield it the best, then the inverse has to be true. Right. That is the authority that would damage the people most closely to the people is the worst. You see what I'm saying? Doesn't the inverse have to be true too? Right. Because Oran is correct. John Thune is a hydra. We've seen John Thunes our entire career. But for Mike DeWine to be sitting there as the governor of a state and one of the, one of the handfuls of states, ours is another one where we've had plenty of more suburban driven states and technocratic driven states that used to lean red, that have leaned. That leaned, have learned to lean more blue in the Trump era. This is a state that has leaned more red in the Trump era. And for DeWine to turn around and betray the very issues that caused the state to lead more, to lean more red and to essentially say, you know, we need Haitian foreigners here, you know, because they're better people than many of my own. I think that's even more damaging than Thu, because I don't. Yeah, Thune is not a unique figure.

[D]

That's why I picked. That's why I picked the wine. Thune is, is looking around and he's like, I can own this place by just flexing a little muscle. And really, no one's going to push back other than with words. The wine is I am going to do the opposite. I'm not going to flex any muscle in reality because I know my people there and I know their standard is subterranean.

[A]

Or I'm going to flex my muscle to impose an agenda on you at the state level that you keep voting against at the federal level.

[D]

In presidential elections, it's very easy to impose an agenda on the right because they, again, their version is, I just want to be left alone. Just let it be. This Vivek is. That's why Vivek is running there, the whole state. It's not just a DeWine thing. He's reading the room. He knows exactly what he can get away with. I mean, really, it's. The people are the problem.

[A]

Let's get to the exit question. So remember, was it, was it last year or on. I think it was last year. The three of us did a power ranking of Republican senators and we asked. We're not giving a standalone endorsement of John Fetterman. Right. But just access, just assessing where he was at the time and where he would rank among the current members of the Republican Senate. Was it last year we did this?

[D]

Yeah.

[A]

And did we come up with 12th or 13th, something like that? It was either he was 12th or there were only 12 other Republican senators, something like that. That we were power rank ahead of John Fetterman. Again, we're just comparing Fetterman not, you know, to the, to, to the, the rest of the hundred person body known as the U.S. senate. If that's the, if that's the mold of clay, as analysts were being asked to assess, then we, we ranked John Fetterman, I think either 12th or 13th in there.

[D]

Okay.

[A]

Where would you rank him now? How many senators off the top of your head can you say for sure are, are better than John Fetterman?

[D]

Well, he wasn't in the top 10 before. I'll put him in the top 10 now.

[A]

Aaron, what do you think?

[B]

Other than not being a complete and total moron retard on Israel, he really doesn't vote in a, in a way I think that most of us would align with all that.

[D]

Often neither do Republicans.

[B]

But that's the problem.

[A]

That's the issue. We're not asking you to assess Fetterman by our belief system by, but, but against the rest of the people that he's in that August body serving alongside. That's what changes the ranking, correct? Yeah.

[B]

And then we get really depressed and probably drink ourselves into a stupor and then say see you again on Monday. No, I'd say he's probably comparable to like John Curtis in Utah. Probably comparable to that.

[A]

But because he's not wearing our uniform, it's not nearly as offensive as it is coming from Curtis, who is. And it's also doing so while in supposedly the red estate in the country, or at least one of them. Okay.

[C]

Or on.

[A]

Where do you come down on this?

[C]

I guess I don't really get the Fetterman thing, as you guys were kind of saying outside of votes on Israel that some people seem to like otherwise or words on Israel rather, that some people seem to like. He seems a pretty much bog standard Democrat. But as you guys were also pointing out, how would that differentiate him from the average GOP senator anyway? You know, the uniparty thing gets thrown around a little too much. I think there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans at some level, or at least some Republicans. You know, obviously I think our border looks very different under Donald Trump than it went under Kamala Harris. That said, when it comes to the Senate, it's almost impossible to tell the difference. So I, I guess Fetterman is at some point slightly more sane than a few guys out there. But I, I don't know. I, I don't see him as any kind of advantage. Ultimately, the entire GOP sent is a disaster. Out of a handful of people. I don't think we're going to start cloning Eric Schmidt anytime soon. So until we get that program up and running, I'm kind of concerned about what the GOP Senate could even look like if we got our wishes.

[A]

I think the fact that this is even a askable question, it's a problem.

[D]

It's not about Fetterman. It's about everybody.

[A]

Correct? Correct. Let's get to the, let's get to the kicker topic really quick. If you could forcibly retire one Republican office holder anywhere in America and pick his replacement, whom would it be and why? Aaron, go.

[B]

I'm going to say, I'm going to keep harping on this because my spidey senses are tingling about Mark Wayne Mullen now. I know dhs, whatever. I mean, he's a Republican in that office. I would force him to retire and I would pick somebody like, who would be the most. Absolutely, absolutely. No, no mitigation on the mass deportations. I'm trying to think of somebody who really fits the bill at a national level who could do that job, but

[A]

somebody like that, because. Somebody like that.

[D]

Okay.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Mark Twain Mullen, by the way, was kind of one of these empty suit Republicans, if we're being honest, as a senator. Todd, go ahead.

[D]

The governor of Texas and replace him with Chip Roy.

[A]

Oh, yeah, I like that one.

[B]

How about Chip Roy for DHS there?

[A]

Oh, I really like that one. Or on. Go ahead.

[C]

Aaron definitely took my top spot there. I'm gonna audible to Ron DeSantis. I, I, I, I failed in my attempt to get Ron DeSantis to be made king of Florida. That's unfortunately not, not, uh, a direction we went. Uh, so now we're going to be stuck with probably a terrible governor. Uh, but I, I would really like to see him placed into some really effective position where he cannot be easily removed, where he doesn't have to go through the electoral process. Ron is an absolute Terminator, but he's just not great in general elections. So something like Attorney General or even better, put the man on the Supreme Court. I hate to see Thomas or Alito go, but they're gonna go eventually. And I think someone like a young Desantis could sit in that seat and carry that torch for 30 plus years perhaps and do the job that he was meant to do where he doesn't have to worry about, you know, trying to eat corn dogs or wear cowboy boots. He can just, you know, destroy the libtards in the most efficient way possible.

[A]

He would be the Terminator as a Supreme Court justice, no doubt. Todd, predictions go. We've got two minutes.

[D]

I know we spent a lot of time talking about all our existential problems, but I have great news. They're all about to go away because football season's almost here.

[A]

Thank goodness. Aaron, go ahead.

[B]

I was not going to do it this year, but Todd got me. Todd got me in the mood. Okay, there it is, the hall of Fame game.

[D]

Yes.

[B]

Next Thursday. We're less than a week away. Cardinals, Carolina. I'm sorry, Cardinals, Panthers. Let's give it Cardinals 59 to 51 in the hall of Fame game.

[A]

Appropriately snotty. I liked it. Or on. Go ahead.

[C]

I have to learn more about sports so I can make lighter predictions when I come on.

[D]

Mine wasn't light at all.

[A]

No, I'm sorry.

[D]

It was the opposite.

[A]

It was. Yes. Fair, fair, fair.

[C]

I think my easiest prediction is we're going to be stuck in Iran through the midterms, that the conflict's going to continue all the way to the midterms and the oil prices are going to have exactly the impact on the election and affordability that was predicted by people who opposed that incursion.

[A]

If that's true, we're going to lose. I don't care how many seats you redistricted to no longer be competitive. We'll lose every single one that remains that is competitive. If that's true, we'll lose them all, every last one of them. I think there's like 15 or 16. We'll lose them all.

[D]

It's football season, though, Steve,

[A]

and that means I'm going to need it more than ever before. That's what that means. My prediction is, I think the Kansas governor primary next week may see another upset of a Trump endorsed candidate. It with Philip Sarnicki, a well funded businessman, I think may pull the upset there in a crowded primary. So keep an eye on that. Good to see you there, Oron, as always. Thank you, brother. Appreciate it.

[C]

Thanks for having me, guys.

[A]

You bet. All right. Coming up next, it's your turn for feedback Friday. Stay tuned. All right, back here at hour two here on the Steve Day show on a Friday along with Todd erzin and Aaron McIntyre. I'm Steve Dase, let us know what you think about what we think via the stevedace.com inbox by emailing the show stevedaye.com D E A C E Like us on Facebook Me, we and Gab. Follow me at Steve Dacia on X Instagram and TikTok. Don't forget to subscribe to our Rumble channel at Steve Dace on Rumble. That's at Steve Dace on Rumble. And then you can also subscribe to the podcast by, well, at most places just hitting subscribe. But at Apple itunes these days, make sure to hit follow. That way you never miss an episode. It's for sure right there every time we do one of these right there in your podcast feed. And then finally, if you could be one of the tens of thousands to leave us a five star review, we would greatly appreciate it as we do appreciate all of you who already have. Thank you and thanks to our friends over at Chirp. My wife was watching me on our trip to the the Last Frontier. She was watching me use my rolling power mini massager. She's like, you really do take that thing with you everywhere. I was like, yep. So she's got this little area in her left shoulder for years. She's like, you know what? But that let me try this thing. So I tried it on her and she was like, holy cow. Huge difference. See, these are the kinds of things, as much preventative health as you can do do it particularly as we get older. All right. So that you want to stay more active, whether it's rollouts, trigger points, whether it's the rolling power mini massager, whether it's the Chirp contour, it's their decompression massage table that's there for you when you get home. That gives you professional grade relief right there. Including spinal decompression, soothing massage, relaxing heat and more. They've got that and more right now when you go to go chirp.com Steve that's go chirp.com Steve. Save 10 on your first order. You won't regret it. Check out what they have for [e-mail] Steve all right, are we ready for some feedback Friday?

[D]

Do it.

[A]

Okay, so we, we, I, we continue to get, I mean questions and feedback on the Alistair Beggy wedding story from last year. But I think this is a good clarifying question from somebody who clearly pays attention to the show. Right. And to the Roman study we just did. This is from Joseph. Joseph says your answer a couple of weeks ago when someone brought Alistair Beggs tranny wedding Position up again left me with one question I think needs to be answered first. Common ground. I agree with you that God defines marriage and two people of the of the same sex cannot therefore actually be married. I think that's also the distinction you would draw from other sinful weddings. Drunkenness at the reception or unbelievers. Going through the motions of a Christian ceremony may be sinful, but the marriage itself can be real. And yet a same sex marriage cannot be. But you brought up, you know, during Romans, meat sacrifice to idols and that's maybe where you guys lose me a little. Paul clearly says Christians cannot participate in idolatry. But he also tells Christians they can knowingly eat meat that came out of an idolatrous system. They know the pagan God isn't real, they reject the worship surrounding it, and yet they don't have to reject the meat merely because the godless culture has associated it with something false. So what is the meat sacrificed to idols here on this issue? If I know the marriage isn't real, everyone involved knows I believe it isn't real. And I can, and I can attend without saying otherwise, what specifically makes my presence affirmation or participation in the falsehood? More broadly, what is the thing our godless culture has associated with this falsehood that Christians still have liberty to accept without affirming the underlying lie? If the answer is nothing, I'm not sure we're actually considering what the example of meat sacrificed idols has to say about how to interact with a pagan culture. That's why I have a hard time with the default answer of there's no nuance to this. Paul gave us this teaching precisely because faithful Christians needed help determining where participation in sin ended and Christian liberty began. Thanks for all that you do. So this is actually an excellent follow up question, but the answer is more simple than I think you realize. Okay, the, the. The meat sacrifice to idols, was that a custom? Was that the corrupting of a, of a custom within the Christian church or was that a local religious or cultural custom? Which was it? It's the latter. You see what I'm asking, right? Would did they take something that was was representative of Christianity and attempt on purpose a a particular Christian right and on purpose attempt to subvert it and turn it to their own devices that would their intent of. We we can understand in a meta sense that that's essentially what any acknowledgment of any God other than the God of the Bible is. All right. But in a specific sense, what came first, Altars and, and events to Pagan idols or Christian religious come new. Let me put it more specifically, New Testament customs.

[D]

What came first alters to pagan.

[A]

Alters to pagan idols.

[C]

Right.

[A]

Okay. So in this case, now that you are that. That you are no longer part of that world and kingdom, you are in another kingdom and you recognize while you're in that kingdom that their powers and rituals have no power and aren't real. Right. Therefore, you know, if Timothy, if you're thirsty, drink the wine because the water's terrible and it's bad on your stomach. If you're hungry and the only meat is the meat sacrificed to Aphrodite or Artemis or BAAL or Zeus or Jupiter, eat the meat. Because these things either don't exist or they don't have real power up against your own God.

[D]

Right.

[A]

You would do this out of a material need, not a spiritual act of worship. Do you see where I'm going with this?

[D]

Okay.

[A]

And you're welcome to do that out of material need, though Paul puts a qualifier on that, does he not? You're welcome to meet that material need with things of pagan or foreign origin. Regard. Provided you don't do what cause the lesser brother to stumble. So there's a disclaimer on it. It's not an absolute. Right. There's our. You can use your Christian liberty to go ahead and drink their wine and eat their food when you're thirsty and hungry. Right. But there is still a higher spiritual principle at stake here that, that comes before your material thirst and hunger. You still can't do that. If there's. If you're going to do that in the presence of a. Of a lesser brother that doesn't realize that yet, and it might cause a thorn in their faith, you might be a stumbling block to their sanctification. Right? Yeah. Okay. What came first? Now let's reverse the premise. And Aaron, you probably guessed where I'm going with this. What came first? The trune wedding, or for this reason, a man will leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife and the two will become one. What came first?

[B]

The latter.

[A]

The latter. So therefore, is the. Is the true wedding an intentional subversion of something that directly comes from our practices? Yes. Yes, because the institution of marriage itself comes from where? From our Lord. From our worldview. He introduced it to the world. Therefore, anything that calls itself a marriage that isn't one man and one woman is a subversion of what he created. You see where I'm getting at here? There's. There's the trune wedding is a Direct. If would. Do you believe Paul would say, take part in the ritual of people who blaspheme the name of Jesus directly, make sure to share a dinner table with them and eat their food. You think Paul would say that?

[F]

No.

[A]

No. Because Paul wrote a letter to a place called Corinth, right?

[D]

Yes.

[A]

And they had pagan women coming from other. From the pagan religious community. Right. Believing that they were going to be able to infiltrate now the Christian community and preach the same trash that they were preaching down the street. They were not going to preach in the church of Corinth. Correct. What did Paul say to do with such women?

[D]

Be gone.

[A]

Be gone. Throw them out. Silence them.

[G]

Yeah.

[A]

Not to happen. So, yeah, in, in, in one case, you're being asked to participate in a forum custom that may or may not be a violation of someone. A believer's conscience may not knowingly be an attempt to subvert what what you are trying to advance. But in the case of the trun wedding or the homosexual wedding, that's exactly what it's intended to do. It's an intentional degradation of something God specifically and uniquely created. It's intentional. In the case of we have meat sacrifice to idols, and in the middle of the meat sacrifice to idols, we blaspheme the Trinity. Do you believe reading the New Testament, Paul would say eat up and enjoy at that point?

[C]

No,

[A]

because that is an attempt to specifically rebuke what you're attempt the kingdom that you represent. That's what the true wedding is. Does that make sense, what I'm trying to say?

[B]

Yes.

[A]

Any thoughts on that answer?

[D]

Well, it's very up here and it's not wrong, but I've got a much simpler answer that actually has nothing to do with whether Christianity came first or last year. Everybody, you're acting like I am with this issue, like I am with how a lot of you guys treat Romans 13. Like what. What are you all doing here? This is really simple. The ceremony you're going to, you can't participate as a Christian. But if after that churn wedding, somebody who happens to know or that or, or down at the homeless shelter, the buffet food that happened to be there ends up there. No, you're not guilty of anything. If you eat that food from the true wedding, if it ends up in your life, somebody brings out, that's fine. But you can't participate in the wedding. No matter. I, I don't know why we're up here in this. What kind of excuse are you all looking for to go to this damn ceremony?

[A]

Now see this is a very good question. Why in the world would you want to negotiate this out? First of all, this isn't the first century. Wine and meat are plentiful. Correct? How often were you going to acquire wine and meat? You know, go back to what I said yesterday on Theology Thursday. See, again, think of the culture, not that you live in, but the culture that the Bible was written in and by and for. We have, in a post Darwinian world, bought the lie that there is a neutral secular realm that only human beings of various beliefs have access to and the creator God of the universe has allowed us and voluntarily stayed out. Such a realm does not actually exist, does it? Complete Xanadu, Shangri La, make believe, okay? A place where the hot chick thinks. Thinks you're attractive. None of this, none of this is true. None of it is just all made up in our own minds. The depravity of our own minds. And the, in the, in the world that the Bible wrote its words, there was. Everybody knew this, pagan or otherwise. See, that's why there was a dilemma. The reason why there was a dilemma about eating meat given to idols is there was no neutral space. The chances that you were in the first century going to partake of meat at a high level that didn't involve some religious ritual of the, of the community was very low. There wasn't Ancient Rome, Golden Corral, Ponderosa, Flemings, Ruth, Chris, some neutral space where you could just come in and order a steak and not be asked to declare an allegiance. These, these worlds were interwoven. This was the world of dualism. The Greek gods cavorted lasciviously, just like the people. So did the Roman gods. Every ancient God had a male lord and a female consort that, that essentially created culture. They were jealous, they were capricious, they changed their minds.

[C]

They.

[A]

No one knew where they stood. Why do you think the creeds of the Bible are. God is one, all right? God is incontrovert. Incontrovertible. He doesn't change his mind like we do. His ways are not our ways. Why did the ancient Israelites that those words were written to? Why they have to be told this? Because the, the gods of the rest of the world were not like that, but were like them because they were fake. Either demons manifesting in ways that pleased human desires, or human beings in their own depravity just making them up. Like when Isaiah mocks, which end of the wood do you worship? In which end do you burn? How do you know since you forged them both with your own Hands. You cut the firewood and you forge the idol with your own hands. Which one do you know to burn? Which one do you know to worship? He's mocking them. So we cannot therefore transpose the. The.

[D]

The.

[A]

The. The. The. The prejudices and biases of our time onto the Bible. You're looking for a world that the Bible says and acknowledges does not exist. There are no neutral spaces. There may be spaces where in the ancient world, you need wine to drink because the water's bad. You need meat to eat because it wasn't plentiful. Paul is not saying, go to the orgy. Just don't indulge. That's not what he is saying. But we're acting as if these neutral spaces exist because we bought into a lie that they do. But someone will always rule, and something will always be worshiped. The Trun wedding is not a neutral space. It's not even trying to be. It doesn't want to be. It's an invasive space. It's an invasion of something sacred. It's invading the sacred realm, which is

[D]

why every time this comes up, nobody's asking the real question that this should really be about, which is why would

[A]

you want to go at all?

[D]

If my roommate. If I didn't want to go, but my roommate's a big lib, and they went and they brought back a doggy bag of delicious barbecue. Can I eat it? That is the actual application, honestly. You. What do you. You. If you guys want me to get closer on Sola Scriptura, I'm gonna need more, because this is ridiculous.

[B]

How do you subvert the subversion? I. I'm not sure if there's a way, at least in this scenario, to do that, because it is a subversion. That is the. The main presence. That. That's the main point. You know, Christianity has actually done some subversion itself with some of the holidays that are now associated more and hopefully stays that way with Christian holidays, holy days, than the pagan ones that it took over. But I just. Can we back up to even a lower level than even what Todd was getting at? These are people who are not perverting reality. They are rejecting reality. They are saying to God, the way you knit me together in my mother's womb was wrong. That in and of itself is a middle finger stuck straight up to the sky.

[A]

It's the highest form of blasphemy.

[B]

Then, as if they were not satisfied with that, they go find another person who is in the middle of sticking their middle finger up to the sky, and they say, hey, let's actually bastardize Bury solely do our best to subvert the institution that the creator of whom we're flipping off right now invented and instituted and let's together come together and put both of our fingers to the sky. Now we've got four middle fingers to the sky. That's what we're talking about. Why is this so hard? I. We didn't con. I want to say this again because I think we've been pretty consistent about this. If this is about Alistair Beg, I don't think anybody here. I'll just speak for myself. We're not condemning him to hell. He's got a great track record the rest of his ministry which is why we talked about it really wrong on this.

[A]

If there was some blue haired tranny heretic that said this, we wouldn't even done a show on it. It only came up because it came from somebody we deeply respect.

[B]

Correct.

[D]

And this was years ago now.

[B]

Yeah.

[D]

What are we doing?

[A]

Here's the thing. I think you also have to understand one last thing on this. Christianity was the invasive force of 1st century Rome. When Paul is writing these words it was attempting to invade the spaces of a pre existing religious culture and subvert them. We're the ones being invaded now. And no, you don't look at your invaders and say gee I wonder how much of your invasion I should let in. That's a good way to just end up being invaded. All right. Paul writes this is a question based on your statement that if someone rejected a message from Jesus that Jesus never asked them to reconsider, never tried to be more sensitive or friendly, so accept the message. Yet when I say I have no idea what that means, I just wanted to read that like you wrote that. I. I don't. I'm sorry, Paul, I don't know what that means but the rest of what you have here I think is.

[D]

I think he means you never go chase after he, Jesus, never chased after

[A]

based on what he writes the rest of the way. I think so too. Which is why I left this in there. Yeah. Yeah. When I say no to Christianity or reject the church, Christians immediately debate me, try to invalidate my beliefs, use manipulative appeals about forgiveness and peace instead of respecting my refusal and treat my refusal as an obstacle for them to overcome in manner of them forcing themselves onto me. Compare this to Judaism of someone rejecting the law God gave to Moses. Jews will just say okay then don't be Jewish. There's no attempt to pressure or convert someone. Why aren't Christians more Accepting of a no and leave people alone instead of treating a boundary as an invitation to press further. Well, because these are the differences between Christianity and Judaism. Judaism is primarily fed through a line of ascension and an ethnicity and a culture. It was primarily as a religion, a nationalistic identity until the nation of Israel was lost to history through the temple and the sacking of Jerusalem first in 70 AD and then completed in 110 AD. And then from that time forward, Judaism as it was dispersed throughout the world was largely relegated to a cultural status. Which is why frankly, most Christians know more, most spirit filled Christians know more about Judaism than most Jews do. Frankly, because most spirit filled Christians are spirit filled Christians are way more likely to read the Old Testament and take it at face value as the literal word of God than most Jews are. Because most Jews aren't religious. That's why they tend mostly to vote Democrats, because they non religious people tend to vote for the less religious people, typically. Now in the case of Christianity, however, Christians don't believe that being born into any family line is what saves you from your sins, accomplishing any kind of social status, being tied to any particular homeland does it? But that that era now is finished now and completed now that we are now in the church age. And so therefore God is not just confining his covenant to a unique people in a unique time in a unique land. But then now we are in the period of time that Jesus speaks about when he ransacks the money changers and he quotes from the prophet Isaiah and he says, my house will be a house of prayer for all nations and the veil is torn when Christ is crucified. Meaning that now all of us, regardless of an intermediary, all of us can now boldly approach the throne of grace, as Paul writes. And so therefore all of us as individuals now have an individual accountability to God to determine whether our sins will be sufficiently forgiven through Christ in order to escape the justifiable wrath of God we all deserve for the sins against him we have committed. And so that's why the Christians are more pushy and more pressing. Because their belief is if you're on the wrong side of that decision, you'll be on the wrong side of God for all of eternity in a place called hell. And a lot of Jews today don't even believe in a resurrection any longer and in many cases have largely forsaken their religion. And you can always tell which ones are which. The ones who take the religion seriously tend to vote Republican. The ones who don't almost always vote Democrat. Anybody have any thoughts on that?

[D]

Well, Christians should shake the dust from their feet if. And you have to take these Christians one to one because it's every Penn and Teller. Penn famously said he was approached after a comedy club and he's a notorious.

[A]

Oh yeah, I've seen this clip.

[D]

But somebody came up very sheepishly said, I love your comedy, I'm a Christian. I just felt called, I had to do this. And Penn was very nice, said thank you very much. And in the interview he said, like, I know what these guys believe. I don't believe it quite. And I make a lot of fun of it. But like, if I believed what they believe, why wouldn't I tell people about it? So you have to expect that on some level, one to one. But if you've heard them out and then. And then it's just done and then a Christian, it's coming on them to know when to shake the dust from the feet. But it's different if in this one to one conversation you. And I'm not saying this is you, but I'm. It's likely that in a lot of cases the person like you feels that they can bring up their worldview and anytime they want to. And then when the Christian says, well, I got a worldview too, let's Then they're suddenly being the Christian busybodies. No, no, no, no, no, no. If you're going to enter worldview into a conversation and always go on offense, the Christian isn't being the busybody by saying, hey, you know what? You're playing with tiddlywinks here. I got the real thing.

[A]

That's well said.

[D]

Yep.

[B]

Would you rather live in rural Alabama? Christianity, evangelical Christianity, population 100% or rural Morocco, Nigeria or anywhere.

[A]

Or really anywhere.

[B]

Algeria, Morocco or Algeria.

[A]

Right.

[B]

I would much be much rather be surrounded by people who are continually, peacefully, peaceably, being a busybody or whatever you want to call it, but just trying to convert me to their religion peaceably rather than those other places where they're probably not going to be peaceable if they try to get you to convert at all.

[A]

That's good. And I love the Penn and Teller example that you cited there as well. Yeah, I think we got time for this. Micah says, I appreciate you guys in your show. I studied logic in philosophy in college and have no problem arguing with people who disagree with me. I've debated atheists, I've debated Mormons, Muslims, secularists, etc. However, when it comes to the Jews, I'm at a loss. I believe in Covenant theology, and I'm not even necessarily for the Jews. Yeah, many people in my. So what does he mean by this? So again, before there was dispensationalism, the dominant theology, a theological understanding in the church, was called covenantal theology. In other words, that instead of working through a series of dispensations, all right, throughout prophetic history, God works through a series of covenants, beginning with the Adamic covenant, then the Noah covenant, the Abrahamic covenant, the mosaic covenant, etc. Okay. And now that we. And now we're in a new covenant. All right, or sometimes a dispensationalist will call the church age. All right, so this is what he means. All right. And so typically covenant theology theology, people are going to be. Are going to be less inclined to believe that this nation of Israel is prophetic because that they believe that they believe that Mosaic covenant has been fulfilled through Christ and we're in the church age now. What the dispensationalist will say is the Mosaic covenant was fulfilled. Christ was fulfilling the Mosaic covenant, but he wasn't fulfilling the Abrahamic covenant. And that covenant is still to be fulfilled at the end of the age in Romans 9:11 as what Paul talks about. So that's kind of the debate between the two. Is that a fair Reader's Digest description for now? Is that. Are we okay with that? For now?

[D]

I don't know anymore.

[A]

I just wanted to explain what, what Micah meant by that in case it went over people's head.

[F]

Okay.

[C]

All right.

[A]

So what he is saying is I'm not. I'm not part of the camp that's prone to. To automatically believe that the nation of Israel and Jews walk tiptoe between the raindrops. That's what he's saying. And I think that's important to note because of what he's going to say next. Okay. Yet many people in my social group blame the Jews for everything and view them as worse than Islam or communism. They seem to deny any form of logic or reasoning. And I can defend myself against anyone who believes contrary to Christian worldview except these people. I legitimately don't know how to argue from logic or philosophy why they're wrong, specifically the claim that the Jews control everything. I often find myself just listening because I have no idea how to respond. Any advice? One you're gonna need, new friends is my first piece of advice. This stuff is supernatural. Once somebody. It's, it's, it's why. It's why My late friend called it brain rot when someone latches it, this is low iq, knuckle dragger stuff. Okay. Once someone latches on to this, it will, it's. Once they. You, you supernaturally latch on, you will have to be supernaturally latched off. Let me put it in another context. If you had a friend, Micah, that said, you know what? I'm not so sure that we shouldn't take another look at minor attracted persons and you could do nothing to deter them from the argument, we would you feel any internal pressure to cut those people off? What do you think Micah's answer would be? No. So you would realize this is just a supernatural degradation. I just, I can't be a part of this. I'm out. You're just going to have to do more of that. I'm getting this question a lot.

[B]

You just had a similar question last week.

[A]

Yeah, and I hate to give you that answer, but I mean, that's because I can promise you once someone latches on to the Jewish brain rot, they're going to latch on to virtually every other brain rot at that point. And they're three seconds away from maybe Candace is right. I can promise you not everybody who is disdainful of the nation of Israel or skeptical of our current alliance with Israel has been tormenting Charlie's widow for the last year. Our friend and colleague, or on McIntyre that we just had on last hour would be among them.

[G]

Right.

[A]

He's looked at the evidence. He thinks the evidence shows we are too tightly aligned with Israel and shouldn't be. He also looked at the evidence and he's pretty confident Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk. So not everybody who has Oran's views of Israel is tormenting Charlie's widow. But everybody who is tormenting Charlie's widow has those views of Israel. You see what I'm saying?

[D]

Yeah.

[A]

So you may. You know, I don't think Oron has Jewish brain rot. If he did, I wouldn't have him on the show. He has some challenging views, views I may or may not share in total, but views that I think are worthy of being heard, which is why we have him on. If I thought he had brain rot, I wouldn't. But what you're describing is a form of brain rot. And I'm just going to tell you right now, unless the Holy Spirit has given you a specific anointing to address that crowd, you'll be kicking the dust off your sandals or you'll succumb to it. Those are your choices, correct?

[B]

Yeah. And I think the difference between at least what I'm understanding from this question and the one that we took last week, last week, it was not maybe the dominant topic of conversation amongst the friend group. It sounds like maybe this is even a majority or at least this is brought up frequently enough to where it's just a little bit over the top or maybe definitely over the top in that situation where you maybe can't even get a word in edgewise, then, yeah, that might be time to find a different friend group.

[A]

Back with more of your feedback in a minute.

[C]

The steve day show.

[A]

All right, back here on the Steve Day show, powered by our friends at realestate Agents. I trust dot com. That's the website you want to go to if you're like, you know what, man, I've, I've held out long enough, man. We just have to get to the next house or we got to sell this place. I'm seeing evidence of that at least anecdotally in my neighborhood. What about you guys? Suburbs and exurbs? Have you guys seen more for sale signs this year? Because I've seen a ton more in mine. What about you guys, Todd?

[D]

Marginal, but a few more.

[G]

Yeah.

[A]

All right. So, you know, we're living in the same city, but different sides of that, you know, different suburbs within that city. So we're kind of seeing a tick in an uptick in activity. So if you are too, maybe you're one of those people. Make sure, man, that you've got an agent that you can trust. All right? Whether you're buying your first home, selling your current one, maybe you're buying on one end and selling on the other, that's double the stress. You need to make sure you've got an agent you can trust that can help save you time, money and, yes, stress. All right, so go to real estate agents, iTrust.com regardless of where you're moving from, or to, we'll hook you up with an agent there that can make sure that, that you get the, the desired outcome and [e-mail] Again, that's realestateagentsitrust.com all right, let's continue on. This is from Eric, who had a lot of kind words about our show. But let's get to the meat of his note. Okay. He says, I've invested a lot in my sister spiritually over the last 15 plus years at best. I've known she was potentially a believer on milk but not showing true growth. Previously, she was eager to be married and trying to follow God's ways through dating. But now she's engaged to a man who claimed to be a Christian to her but convinced her to move in with him. For several months they've been shacking up. At the time I discussed with her every reason it was unwise and would be living in rebellion to God. All of it was ignored. On top of that, the guy is apparently a full fledged creeper and my sister is now drinking the poison kool aid. Also, we'll be going what if it's almost like I scheduled these emails to go back to back because I did and we'll be going to their wedding next month but have absolutely no desire for relationship beyond that, especially with this guy. I recognize now that she appears to be the seed that's been snatched up from the soil and never took root. But what most angers my spirit is that she seems to believe they're living rightly, meanwhile making a mockery mockery of God. I know she wants me to comment or to comment or to comment affirmation on group text about their wedding plans and get to know the fiance. I want no part of it. But honestly, having difficulty discerning what's wisdom and what's pride on my part and the best way to approach things, both short and long term. Thanks so much for taking the time to read this and appreciate the Lord's work you guys do daily in Christ. Eric so I'm going to have the opposite perspective. I'll be curious to see what you guys think. I will have the opposite perspective on this than I would the trune wedding. All right. Because in this case, all right. They are aspiring. They are aspiring here in a way they don't. Let me rephrase that. There's ways that this event could be aspirational and inspire them to be better than they currently are. Amy and I shacked up together before we were married. We were not believers. On the other hand, what be what came of that wedding, and particularly the first child that came of that is ultimately what God used to to woo us to becoming believers. In other words, this is the opposite circumstance in my view of the trune wedding. The trune wedding is an attempt to desecrate something that is holy. This wedding is an attempt for unholy people to access something that is holy. For example, do they intend to use the wedding? Is. Is there. Is there a swastika on the wedding cake? Then I might not go. Right?

[D]

Right.

[A]

Might not go. Then okay. But if they're not attempting to sully the the sacredness of this occasion with their own sinfulness like for Example, Amy and I at our wedding did not have the. The priest. We did not ask the minister to give an outstanding reason why fornication is. God was wrong on fornication. We didn't. We didn't ask the minister to do that. In other words, in order to partake of this event, Amy and I had to raise our standards or go beyond the standards that we were willing or capable of living at that time. You see what I'm trying to say?

[D]

Yeah.

[A]

Okay, so even your sister here and her greiper boyfriend, her fiance, are they attempting to fuse this event with. Is this event going to be a celebration of fornication? I mean, I kind of feel like if it was going to be, they just wouldn't. Why get married then? Right? If. Because once you're married, it. It's kind of to celebrate fornication after you're married because you can't fornicate anymore. You're married.

[D]

Yes.

[C]

Right.

[A]

So the only thing left to do is either, you know, mar marital sex or be an adulterer. Right?

[D]

Yeah.

[A]

Your fornification days end when you get married. Fornication is having sex, consexual sex with a member of the opposite sex. Okay. When neither of you are married. If you have consensual sex with a member of the opposite sex after you're married, that's not called fornication. That's called adultery.

[C]

Right.

[A]

So they're already ending their fornicating days by getting married. Right. Is the trun saying, I'm gonna get. I'm gonna have my gender reassignment reverse? Is that what they're doing? No, no, they're gender reassigning the marriage covenant itself. In this case, your sister and her griper boyfriend are ending the fornication era that you rightly don't approve of. But they're. They're ending it, are they not? By getting married? Correct. Right. So they're. Can. They're aiming higher? Can they aim high enough to reach salvation by doing this? No, because otherwise we would need Christ in the cross. Right?

[D]

Sure.

[A]

But are they attempting to aim higher than they currently are?

[D]

Yeah.

[A]

Then why would you discourage this right now? As to his griperism? If. If. If they want to make the wedding a symbol of. Of. Of, you know, you know, our first kid will be Adolf, middle name Hitler. And here's the swastika on the wedding cake. I'm probably not going fair.

[D]

Right, Right.

[A]

But if they're not doing that, then, to be honest with you, there's every bit as much of A chance that in five years this guy's going to look back on, man, that groiper crap was really, now that I have kids myself as it is that he becomes a full fledged Nazi. You don't know. Right, Right. So since you don't know, and based on what you're telling me, the intent of this event is to honor the marriage covenant in their own imperfect, sinful way. I would absolutely encourage this. And if anything, I would take. Instead of shunning them, I would try to take the high ground on. On the institution of marriage and why you love it, why you're glad they're joining it. You should be talking about how getting married helped you better understand the sanctification process because nothing will more. Boy, there is. There are a few things more on this earth that God has permits us to, that will more sanctify you in the image of his son than getting married and trying with another sinner and then being married to you as a sinner and then trying to raise little sinners together is. Gentlemen, can I get a witness on that? Are there any. Are there few things on life more sanct, more sanctifying than those experiences are? Can I get a witness?

[C]

Right.

[A]

So I would be encouraging this. I would be wanting to participate in this again, provided they're not attempting to say fornication's better than marriage. If they thought that, then why would they get married? Right. Or they're trying to make it, you know, a marriage brought to you by Nick Fuentes. Then I probably wouldn't participate because now they're. They're taking something sacred and they're attending. They're intentionally and malevolently desecrating it. Right?

[D]

Yeah.

[A]

But provided there's playing within the boundaries of the institution, by all means, it sounds like you should be encouraging them to, hey, great job playing within those boundaries. I'd be happy to reward you for doing so. That's how I play it. Thoughts?

[D]

I. I may have missed something in the letter, but I. I get the impression that you are. You have a lot to say and you don't know how to say it because you didn't. I didn't. Did I miss something about him actually really confronting about his concerns. I don't. I don't think that happened. I. Which doesn't surprise me. Everybody's so conflict averse. I think more than the wedding day itself, you're just this. He's not right. I don't like him. But you also like. You don't have that Frank Costanza in you. You know, it's Festivus and it's time for the airing of grievances. I've got a lot of problems with you people. I mean, if you're a brother in the name of things that you believe to be good, true and beautiful, you should absolutely say them. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. But I think because you've got so much bottled up, it doesn't seem like you're willing to say. Well then really, if you're not willing to say before the ceremony day, I don't know what ground you really have to stand on for not going.

[B]

Here's. I, I, I was, I agree with your analysis because I was a little taken aback while you were reading that, that story. My sister dated a few guys before she met Dave, who was an outstanding individual. I remember one of the guys she dated I hated so much. 3. The three of us, her, him, myself, were out in this little boat out on a pond and I hated him so much I threw the oar into the water and made him go get it. I just, I hated him so much and he was not a good person. Not a good person. I'd say for something like this, I wouldn't say it's a bad idea for this future brother in law to know that, you know, his wife's brother might be a little bit crazy. But at the same time on the things that are aspirational, like aspiring to live up to the standards, the design that God has given us, you're going to be, you're going to be as supportive as the day is long. But if it's true that he truly is a full on groiper, I would be a little, I would be sensitive to the way he speaks about women in general and your sister in particular.

[A]

That's a good angle I had not thought about.

[B]

So that's one thing. So absolutely do not shun them at all. All because the more you shun them, guys, life happens. It happens a lot. There's going to be some sort of crisis where she's going to ask her brother to come help and you're going to show up and you're going to model. Whatever you're trying to model, you do not shun them at all. But I would be a little bit sensitive to how he speaks of women.

[A]

I think that's a great point. Yeah.

[D]

Also, where is your and her dad, by the way?

[A]

That's a good question too. As a general rule, we encourage people when they are seeking to rise above their base natures and we oppose people when they seek to get us to lower our standards for them as a general rule. As a general rule, let me say that again. When those around us who are not believers are attempting to raise their own standards, we encourage that. When they demand we lower our standards for them is when we say no. That makes sense as a general rule.

[C]

Okay.

[A]

Daniel writes, my wife and I have led a children's program at our church for the last five years. By numbers and by fruits, the ministry has been successful. But recently the children's pastor decided to take it away from us and take over without explanation and no cause given. We are completely out. Our hearts were in this ministry and it feels like they have been ripped out. We are hurt and angry. We've been asked to hand over all of the documents we used in the ministry that we developed. My first reaction is to say, you can't have them. It feels like going along with it and playing that everything is fine. Playing like everything is fine is just being a doormat as well as a lie. I want to respond correctly, in a Christlike manner and with meekness, or as I like to define it, power under control. What does that look like?

[C]

You're.

[A]

Let's say you're in my man's group and I bring this to you guys. What would you say? Well, the first thing I would say to you, Daniel, is, all right, put the. Put the cause of Christ and the cause of the kids ahead of your feelings. That doesn't mean, by the way, that it's not wrong to feel hurt based on what you just told me. Okay. Now, I'm assuming you know, because the proverb says to assume this, that they would have another side of the story. And I don't know what that is, but I can't deal with that because I don't know. I can only deal with your side of it. Okay, so and so precisely because I don't know their side, it is. My first two pieces of advice are to put the cause of Christ and what's best for those kids first. Okay. And everything else I would do would go from there. And for now, I'll just leave it there because I don't know much more. But how would you. What would you guys say?

[D]

Well, considering this is a volunteer ministry and you're being told to stop but not given it, per your words, not no explanation whatsoever.

[A]

The church just that overloaded with volunteers.

[D]

Well, that's what I'm saying.

[A]

I doubt we can put volunteers on layaway. We've got so many volunteers I would

[D]

meekly insist on an explanation. If this is a church, you are owed that level of dignity, Christian brother to Christian brother. I think that's undeniable. Then whatever is rendered after that, you might just have to accept a difference of opinion that you don't like. But that's his prerogative as a pastor. I mean, you have no right to volunteer in perpetuity in that particular ministry. But to just say, I owe you nothing, that's not being a pastor.

[A]

Completely agree. But I think it's important that you ask that question, starting by what's best for the cause of Christ and those kids and not your own feelings that. Because that's could have probably determined how productive that revealing that conversation becomes.

[G]

Yeah.

[B]

Don't make the mistake that I made many years ago.

[D]

Did you throw your pastor's ore in a pond, too?

[B]

I was out on this boat with my past. Now, it was a big deal. It's one of those things. We're looking back at it as an adult. You look, look, and it's really not that big of a deal. But at the time, as a kid, it did feel like a big deal. And that was, you know, I was a grade ahead of age and it was time, I think, for graduation Sunday. And I was looking forward going from sixth to seventh grade. I could hang out with kind of some of the high schoolers and the older kids. And, you know, that that day came, everybody got graduated up to their next classes in church, and somebody's name wasn't called, and that was mine. And they had changed the guidelines for who could actually go into, like, the high schooler or the. I can't remember, the youth group is what they called it. They changed the guidelines pretty much specifically to target me because they didn't think I was old enough to be in youth group. Didn't tell my parents, didn't tell me. Just let it come up on Sunday. Here's what I did. I let that resentment fester quite a little bit. And I use that as an excuse in some ways to rebel when I was in high school. Do not do that. Don't do that. That's one thing you don't do. Now, the pastor at that time, it wasn't until years later he was at a different church, he did apologize to me personally. And so that's all water under the bridge. But you can allow these types of things if you don't address them. I agree. Put the cause of Christ what's best for the kids first. That is the first thing you can do. Secondly, do not allow any resentment to creep in whatsoever, because Satan will use that and he's going to. If you allow that to happen, that's just. That's going to be his playground. In his playground.

[C]

Right on.

[B]

Thirdly, I do think Todd is absolutely right, and I don't think that's up for debate, not even knowing the details of what's going on here. I think you need to proactively go to the pastors or an elder and just say what's going on here. See if there's a good explanation and if it's rooted in something that is, you know, based out of church's bylaws or scripture or a good explanation, then that's good. They probably should have given you some sort of an explanation from the outset, though. That's what I. That's what I would have said. But there's no reason you can't be proactive.

[A]

100%. Get answers from both of you, unsurprisingly. That's why I pay you. All right, we're off to the weekend. Well, at least in a little bit. First, we got to record overtime for Blaze TV subscribers. You'll watch that [e-mail] dace that's blazetv.com dace. That's where you can become a BlazeTV subscriber as well, for a discount. For the rest of you, off to the weekend, enjoy it. See you again on Monday. Until then, go hard. Romans 8, 28 SA.