Point of View July 10, 2026 : Weekend Edition

[00:00:04] Across America, Live, this is Point of View, Kirby Anderson. Thank you for joining me, it is the Friday edition of Point of View and we're so grateful that you can join us. I might just mention that as you might imagine, especially since we have certain guests here today from First Liberty Institute,

[00:00:31] that we're going to spend some time talking about religious liberty issues. Then we will get into, of course, this war in Iran and the end of a ceasefire, what that might mean. A fairly significant amount of time about the issue of socialism and how the younger generation views that differently. And even a speech that was given last week, as you might remember when President Trump was standing before those individuals,

[00:00:57] former presidents there giving a speech that many people called an anti-communist manifesto. We'll get into some other topics as well. In studio with me, the Director of Development at First Liberty Institute, also Associate General Counsel and also the Director of the Institute's F3 Initiative, Nathan Shackleford. Always good to have you here. Thank you for having me. We also have by phone Jordan Lawrence and he is the Senior Counsel for First Liberty Institute,

[00:01:25] which is located in Washington, D.C. and their office there. And Jordan Lawrence, so once again, thank you for joining us here on Point of View. I'm glad to be here and it's always glad, I'm glad to be teamed up with Nathan. Well, I think it's going to be a good team here today. And I'm going to start with Nathan to talk about Maine. And the reason for that is if you go to our website, you scroll down, you'll see the show materials.

[00:01:50] The first one is a press release from our friends at First Liberty about a federal court upholding Maine laws, which are forcing religious schools to adopt the state's gender ideology. And Nathan, this week we've been talking about Maine, but mostly it's about Graham Plattner. But this is a story I waited till we could talk about today because we have listeners in Maine. We've talked about the case of Carson versus Macon and other things.

[00:02:17] Actually, three weeks from now, three and a half weeks from now, I'm going to be in Maine. I'm going to be in New Hampshire. I even go and see what's going on up there. But tell us the story, because it seems to me that this is another good example of people say, well, I believe in religious liberty unless it crosses gender ideology. And then you don't have any religious liberty. Is that fair? Yeah. And I think it goes beyond that to an issue that is on a lot of parents' minds right now, which is school choice.

[00:02:45] If you go to the original, the case of what happened in the first place here is that Maine had a school choice program. You can be you can go to any school you want, even across the border. But it can't be a religiously affiliated school. Supreme Court says you can't do that. You can't discriminate. We win. And then what? What do they do? Maine says, well, we're just going to say that, OK, we're going to include you, but only if you agree to teach these types of classes. So obviously that goes against our religious beliefs.

[00:03:14] And I think that's the fear for a lot of people, even in Texas, is that if we have school choice, that suddenly the government can control what curriculum we have to teach. And so this is a huge case because essentially Maine told the Supreme Court, we're going to try to work around you. So now the question is, as this will eventually probably have to go back to the Supreme Court is, is this something that the Supreme Court's ready to address? Or are they going to let Maine try to work, do a workaround?

[00:03:38] Jordan, let me come to you for just a minute, because it does seem to me, for those of us that aren't lawyers, that at first they seem like the Supreme Court ruled that no, you if you have school choice for non-religious schools, you can also and should have them for religious schools. And then they come back and say, well, yes, we'll even allow it for religious schools unless they teach something that we disagree with.

[00:04:01] And it almost as if they took the, if you will, the various kinds of ideas and curricula in some of these schools and said you can have it except for those. So if your doctrinal statement says this, then you're not qualified. I don't know how this stands the test of any kind of scrutiny. What are your thoughts? Well, I think that that is correct.

[00:04:24] And it might be helpful for people to realize that there are some states that like school choice. They see it as enhancing parental rights, and they basically give it out freely without ideological strings attached.

[00:04:43] There are other states that are basically, I think this used to be rooted more in the separation of church and state false notions that First Liberty was able to get rid of under the Coach Kennedy case and later the Carson case.

[00:05:01] But what they're trying to do is put a poison pill in so that it's basically distasteful for the groups, the schools that don't agree with the prevailing orthodoxy of the liberal states, that they're not going to be able to take the money. And I think this is basically unconstitutional.

[00:05:20] And one of the bright sides to these lower court decisions that Nathan was talking about is they did declare part of this unconstitutional that they said, for example, there was a provision in the main law that said a religious school that accepted money had to allow all religious views to be expressed. So a Christian school would have to allow an atheist or a Buddhist to express their ideas and things like that.

[00:05:47] So there was some ground gained, but we haven't heard the end of this. And I think this is going to be a continuing fight. You know, when you're talking about the fact that this is an ongoing fight, yesterday I spent some time talking about some votes that are going to take place in some of these midterm elections. Arizona's one, certainly one in Arkansas, actually one in Iowa as well, in which there are some issues related to school choice.

[00:06:14] So, Nathan, not only when we're talking about Maine, this whole school choice thing and religious freedom is going to be, I think, just an ongoing battle that you'll be addressing for some time there at First Liberty, don't you think? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, we have cases all across the country dealing with school choice of really what it comes down to is that parental right of I want to choose what is best for that bringing my children.

[00:06:36] And you see these states that want to weaponize education to control kids and to pull them away from their faith. And like our case in California, they want to indoctrinate children to believe that their gender is fluid. And that's what they're teaching at the public schools. And so they don't want you to have the choice to be able to go outside of that system. So it's a huge issue. Let me just before we take a break and then we'll get into another case that we've posted up here.

[00:07:03] But I thought it was interesting that for those listeners that get the First Liberty Insider, F-L-I, I just received my First Liberty Insider, talks about the fact that so far you have, if I've got this count right, four cases pending before the Supreme Court. See if they'll take them. They've all been filed. And then you have two more. And my goodness, Nathan, you guys are overachievers here. If you had six cases, you would really be exhausted, wouldn't you?

[00:07:33] Yeah, we've had 11 and been 11-0 in those. And this past term, the Supreme Court took two on religious freedom. So that's about the average if you look over the last 25 years. And so, yeah, I mean, these are huge opportunities to change the future of the country in all types of issues, ranging from vaccine mandates and opt-outs of those to a school choice type issue in California, where they're trying to tell parents that they can't homeschool their kids using a religious curriculum if they're at a charter school.

[00:08:03] So a lot of things going on. A lot of ones. We're going to take a break. Let me just mention, you know, I've known, of course, Kelly Shackelford for literally decades. And I remember one time when he was saying, you know, it would just be great if we'd get a case before the Supreme Court. I hadn't even thought about whether or not to win a case. And now you're 11-0. Just pretty amazing. But I really quickly wanted to, after the break, spend some time on this piece from Terrence Jeffrey. If for no other reason, then it goes back to a case which I know Jordan Lawrence is very familiar with.

[00:08:33] And that was the Hobby Lobby case. And you've had some individuals saying, I support religious liberty. But Terry Jeffries, who's been on the program with us before, reminds us that hasn't always been the case. So we'll come back and talk about that right after this.

[00:09:00] This is Viewpoints with Kirby Anderson. Is AI investing in a bubble? That's a question that Wall Street and Main Street are asking. Lots of money will be spent on AI. Analysts at J.P. Morgan estimate that up to $5 trillion will be spent by 2030 just on AI infrastructure. We've seen financial bubbles before with everything from trains to the Internet. Some see a significant comparison to the dot-com bubble that burst in the late 1990s.

[00:09:30] That depends on when you start. If you say that the Internet bubble began with the Netscape IPO and the AI bubble began with the release of ChatGBT, you see a similarity. But critics say that this time tech companies are generating profits. Another question is whether AI provides as much benefit as AI proponents claim. The National Bureau of Economic Research discovered that 90% of executives reported zero measurable impact on labor productivity and employment from AI over the previous three years.

[00:09:58] Public sentiment is another issue. Gen Z students use AI tools while in college. Yet those same Gen Z students have booed tech CEOs giving commencement speeches the minute they mention AI. These graduates most likely fear that AI will be used to justify mass layoffs and eliminate entry-level positions. Others fear that we might see something reminiscent of 2008 when the government backstopped banks through what came to be known as privatized profits and socialized losses.

[00:10:27] Government leaders from Bernie Sanders to Donald Trump have talked about the federal government taking a stake in AI companies. These will then be listed as too big to fail. Lots of money may be flowing into AI, but it may become a huge financial bubble. I'm Kirby Anderson, and that's my point of view. Go deeper on topics like you just heard by visiting pointofview.net.

[00:10:55] That's pointofview.net. You're listening to Point of View, your listener-supported source for truth. Once again, we have in studio with us Nathan Shackelford and by phone Jordan Lawrence. And I thought for just a minute, before we move off of religious liberty into some other issues, saw a very good piece from Terry Jeffrey. He's been on the program with us before. We've known him for a long time as well.

[00:11:23] And he reminds us that just the other day, one of the speakers, and this would be Senator Chris Coons, who is the senator, Democratic senator from Delaware, made a big point about the fact that authoritarianism seeks to compel, seeks to repress, seeks to prevent free thought, free worship, free expression. I'm sure he was trying to suggest that is the attitude of the current president. But then goes on to talk about religious freedom as a fundamental threat to authoritarianism.

[00:11:51] And if nothing else, I agree with what he said. But Jordan Lawrence, I thought, just to get a little history here, Terry Jeffrey goes back to the fact that there was a time when President Barack Obama signed what was called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act oftentimes called Obamacare.

[00:12:11] And it required individuals that were receiving these insurance plans from private companies to cover all the FDA-approved contraceptive methods. Whether we talk about the Little Sisters of the Poor or, in this particular case, talking about the Green family who owned the Hobby Lobbies and Mardell, they said we cannot do that.

[00:12:34] And so just a little bit of history, there was a time in which, again, we are told that we believe in religious liberty, except in when it violates one of our beliefs about, in the case we talked about a minute ago, gender ideology, or in this case, abortion. And then religious liberty sort of went out the window, didn't it? Well, that's exactly right. So there were two cases. Everybody's familiar with Hobby Lobby.

[00:13:04] And I've worked on the second case that was also granted review, Conestoga Wood, which was a Mennonite-owned company. They made kitchen cabinets up in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Okay, just a couple of quick things about this stripped-down memory lane.

[00:13:23] The actual legislation passed by Congress to enact Obamacare did not have a contraception mandate. This was imposed by an administrative agency that just said, we think that this should be essential care offered by every plant.

[00:13:44] And what was interesting about this is that they exempted preexisting plans and any plan that a company didn't have to do it if they had 50 or fewer employees, which may not sound like a lot of employees, but most companies, most people employed in the United States are employed by companies of fewer than 50 people.

[00:14:13] So they had huge exemptions from this, and yet they, in my eye, just were kind of phonies in claiming that this was essential for women's reproductive health and all that kind of stuff that they were arguing. They were exempting huge swaths of people, including every religious church, synagogue, mosque.

[00:14:39] If you were an official house of worship, you didn't have to cover this at all. And that's why the Supreme Court said this thing is so ripe with exemptions that you cannot deny it to a religious-based employer like Hobby Lobby or Conestoga Wood. And one of the things that this article reminds you of is that this should have been sort of one of those 9-0, or at least you would hope 8-1, but it was 5-4.

[00:15:06] And that also shows the desire to push abortion because then it reminds you that right after that court decision, you had Bernie Sanders, and of course we just mentioned a minute ago Chris Coons and a variety of other individuals co-sponsoring a bill, the Protect Women's Health from Corporate Interference Act.

[00:15:28] And so it just illustrates again that we have people that will say they believe in religious freedom, they believe in religious liberty, but when push comes to shove, the first thing that seems to get jettisoned is this issue of religious liberty, don't you think? Oh, I think that that is right. And what I think also I would add to what you were saying, which I think is totally correct, is if the Obama administration, they could have done this different ways.

[00:15:58] They could have totally bypassed the corporations. They could have done this as a direct benefit provided by the federal government. Free contraception. Now we'd have to argue with Congress about that, but there was no need for them to drag in the employers into this situation. And they did this all on their own.

[00:16:20] And then the level of absurdity gets even greater when it's the employees of Little Sisters of the Poor are also required to be covered under this by the Catholic nuns. It's just ridiculous. Well, it was. And I just thought for a second, Nathan, I was going to bring that up because whether it's Conestoga, which is, again, in Lancaster County and primarily Mennonite,

[00:16:44] whether it's the Green family who are just as Christian as they can possibly be, or, again, the Little Sisters of the Poor who do not need contraception and abortion resources, it just shows the extreme that sometimes the left goes to fight against religious liberty. Yeah, and we saw a lot of this, too, during COVID where they tried to mandate to get rid of religious accommodations even for religious nonprofits.

[00:17:12] So we had to file suit for that. And our suit that we brought got merged into some other suits. But, yeah, they tried this again during COVID as well. Yeah, Jordan, you were talking about that. Let's talk about that for just a second since we're coming to a break anyway. If you were a big box store, that was okay. If you were a liquor store, that was okay.

[00:17:34] But if you were a church, even if you had the actual service in the parking lot, I'm thinking of one in Kentucky, that was not okay. And I think just is one thing that struck the American people as inherently unfair and hypocritical. Your thoughts? Oh, that's exactly right. I mean, I'll give you one very specific example before we go to the break here.

[00:17:58] Governor Walz of Minnesota issued one of these, and he said the Mall of America, the biggest indoor shopping mall, could be at 50% capacity. But the huge Catholic basilicas in downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul, I forget if it was 50 people. It may have been 100 people that they were limited. And they probably have capacity of 2,000 or 3,000. And he had some sort of explanation to explain this.

[00:18:27] I mean, it ended up getting repealed because it was so laughable. But it was like you saying, religious liberty is one of the first things to go. And I think to many, what Governor Walz was showing us, it's not important to me. But raising money, earning money, that's different at the Mall of America. People learning about Christ at church, well, that's a whole, you know, that's expendable. Well, we're going to take a break, and when we come back, we're going to spend some time obviously getting into some other issues.

[00:18:55] And I might just point you to the website, which is pointofview.net. You'll see, first of all, that we've kind of revamped our website in part because then that links up to this new resource that we're going to be making available to you very soon of what actually is on your phone. I think you'll appreciate the app, but we've already covered the one on Maine and gender ideology. We'll come back. We have material here about Trump tells the truth about Iran. That was a very good article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal.

[00:19:25] Then Donald Trump's anti-communist manifesto, one about socialists and a few other topics that we will get into along the way. If you find yourself saying, I'd like to know a little bit more about some of these religious liberty cases, because I am dealing with one of those myself, you can click on the button there for Nathan Shackelford or Jordan Lawrence, probably better for Nathan, and that will take you then to where you can follow them. You can view some of the other material.

[00:19:53] And there are some places where we have a link to the website. We have a link to, of course, Facebook and X. And most importantly, I mentioned just a few minutes ago, the, again, First Liberty Insider. If you haven't signed up for that, just simply go to their website, scroll to the bottom, and you will be able to then sign up for that. And, of course, I might also mention for those of you that are a little bit younger,

[00:20:20] we have what is called F3, the Future of Faith and Freedom. And I erroneously said that Nathan was heading that up, but he's passed that on, in part because he's now the Director of Development. So if you'd like to know more about that, maybe schedule some of those people to come and speak or like to have a contact with them, feel free to do so. Also, as you scroll down, you'll see a section where we give you a chance to actually give to Point of View. And as we mentioned just a few weeks ago,

[00:20:47] we had a need to raise enough funds to end our fiscal year on June 30th. And we were able to meet that match and exceed it just a little bit. So thank you for that. But as we are into the new fiscal year in July, your financial support will help us as well. I would encourage you to support First Liberty, especially if they have these six cases going for the Supreme Court. Maybe they'll get two out of the six, but we'll see. They're going to need your help, and so we encourage you to support them as well. Let's take a break.

[00:21:15] When we come back, though, it's time to talk about what's going on in Iran and also get into this whole issue of socialism, which is starting to take the nation by storm. We'll be back right after this. Who can you trust? Years ago, many of us could probably have provided a fairly long list,

[00:21:42] but today, well, today it seems we almost can't trust anyone. Educators don't even know what a woman is anymore. Many so-called public servants have shown all they care about is themselves. The FBI has been accused of bias, law-breaking, betrayal, and journalism. It's largely corrupt, with no Clark Kent standing up for truth, justice, and the American way.

[00:22:08] All of this is why Point of View Radio is more important than ever, and your part in supporting us is more needed than ever. Do your part today in supporting trustworthy truths. Stand with us and help push back the lies and the darkness. Visit pointofview.net. Don't put it off. Take a moment right now and click on that big blue button that says Donate Now

[00:22:35] or call to invest at 1-800-347-5151. Pointofview.net and 800-347-5151. Point of View will continue after this. You are listening to Point of View.

[00:23:07] The opinions expressed on Point of View do not necessarily reflect the views of the management or staff of this station. And now, here again, is Kirby Anderson. Back once again, let's see what we can for just a few minutes at least talk about what's going on in Iran. We will probably cover that in some detail next week. But this piece that comes from the Wall Street Journal, I thought it was very good because they said, maybe the age of innocence is over, you think?

[00:23:33] And the other day when President Trump was in Turkey and he was at a NATO summit, he was asked about this and he said, oh, these people, they're liars, they're cheats, they're sick people. I don't want to deal with them anymore. And, of course, as the editorial board said, the president is so mercurial, it's possible to know if he's serious that the ceasefire is over. I think we can all conclude that it was. And this is why they said that in June you heard, of course, Donald Trump saying that Iran's new leaders are very rational people.

[00:24:02] They were nice to deal with. Vice President J.D. Vance was one of the negotiators along with others and said that they were trying to turn over a new leaf. And the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, I think, with a smile on their face said, you know, this age of innocence lasted all but about three weeks. Perhaps Mr. Vance should tell us why he believed that at the time and whether he still does. Ask on Wednesday if he changed his view on the Iranian leaders.

[00:24:31] I've got to know them. But the bottom line is, let me come to you, Jordan, first. We have Jordan and Nathan with us today. There is a need sometime to have maybe what I call a biblical view of human nature and recognize that, indeed, when you're dealing with enemies, they may not be the most honest people. They may tell you what they think you want to hear.

[00:24:54] But I think we have found that trying to deal with the IRGC or trying to deal with the mullahs in Iran hasn't worked very well. And the ceasefire is essentially over. Yeah, I think that's right. And it's always dangerous for a religious liberty lawyer to be talking about foreign affairs, which is not my area of expertise. But as an American citizen, I have some opinions on this.

[00:25:20] And I think that the president is going to have to make a decision as to what are we going to do to eliminate the actual threat of the government there, the Iranian government. I have several friends whose families fled from Iran, and they view this regime as murderous, as evil, as repressive of freedom.

[00:25:47] They remember back their parents and grandparents remember back when the Shah was in control. And even though he had a few problems, the role of women, the economic prosperity was significantly greater. And that was all shut down by the Ayatollah Khomeini back in 1979 when he took over.

[00:26:11] And people, even though they had a lot of people turn out for that funeral this week, there are many, many, many Iranians who are praying for Israel and the United States to remove the regime.

[00:26:25] And I think that's the decision the president is going to have to wrestle with as to whether he's going to have to go farther than because they're not going to do an agreement that I think he was preferring the last few weeks of just some sort of basically moderate ceasefire. And, again, one of the concerns, and Nathan will talk about this, is the Strait of Hormuz is sometimes closed, sometimes open.

[00:26:54] The U.S. has been escorting some of the tankers, but there's the issue of the oil shocks. And, by the way, we might in just a few minutes get talking about the midterm elections, and that's on the horizon as well. So there aren't any easy choices right now for the president of the United States. Yeah, no, and this is also an issue that is very, very – we'll talk about it later today too, but it's something that comes up with my generation a lot with the younger people is foreign affairs.

[00:27:24] There's been a big shift among a lot of my peers of people that do not want us involved in anything overseas. And so as we're approaching midterms and you have something like this, I've heard from a lot of my friends that don't want us to be even touching any of this. They wonder why we're involved in the first place. So it's kind of an explosive issue right close to midterms. And we will get to that in terms of the generational divide on Israel, on foreign affairs and those kinds of things.

[00:27:52] Just one thing that I might just mention that also relates back to the religious liberty issue, there is pretty good estimate that the fastest growing church in terms of percentage is the Iranian church. And even though it's not a formal church structure, there are just a number of Muslims who become Christians, and that, of course, is risky for them.

[00:28:16] And, of course, there, as one of the things Jordan was talking about just a minute ago, as my wife and I walk every day, there are a couple of Persians I run into that are individuals who were in Iran and left after the Shah of Iran was deposed. And Ayyad al-Khameini took over, who are living in this country now. By the way, they sometimes make the best citizens because they really do value their freedom very much.

[00:28:41] But they are wondering what the world is going to be like for those people that they left behind. And I think that this is a matter of prayer and real concern, Jordan. No, I think that that's right. And I think it might take some significant military action, which I'm not sure the American people would support troops on the ground, that sort of thing.

[00:29:07] And the president needs some real wisdom here because it's like he's got the tiger with his thumbs in its mouth. And if he lets go, it attacks. But, you know, you can't – I don't know if there's the will in the American population to do what needs to be done to take out this regime, which is a great threat to world peace.

[00:29:36] And I might just mention, since you are in Washington, D.C., when I was there going to Georgetown and got to know a lot of people in the military, it is a military town. Of course, just down the road from where you are is, of course, the Pentagon. And not only pray for the president, but all our military people that are looking at these issues and behind the scenes, everything from national security, the CIA, and everything else. So it's a real definite prayer target. But I just thought I would mention that. We will probably get into that more next week.

[00:30:05] But one of the other topics I thought we might address is most of us probably watched President Trump standing there in front of Mount Rushmore on the eve of the 4th of July. And, of course, he gave what most people would have expected, a kind of traditional message about 250 years of celebration. And I'll hold up our particular July issue of Outlook, which talks about the understanding of America's Christian heritage.

[00:30:33] But then he began to pivot to the communist menace. And this is the August issue, which you can see there, Nathan, the rise of socialism. And it does seem to me right now that the president is making a real point about the fact that we once again have what he calls a communist menace.

[00:30:54] He says there's a resurgence of a communist menace in our land, including from newcomers to our country who embrace ideas totally opposed to our way of life and great success. Now, this is a little bit different. Those of us that are older, certainly Jordan and I can remember a time when we recognized fighting communism, the Cold War.

[00:31:14] But for a younger generation, they don't remember the stories and the lessons of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Soviet Union. And so right now you are seeing a lot of young people saying, ah, we've got some economic problems, so why not try democratic socialism? Yeah, and it's not only that they weren't there to see it, they were never taught it. Yes.

[00:31:38] If you asked how many people, how many students would know that there was even such a thing as a Berlin Wall and what it was and what it was doing and why it felt mattered, it's just not – we don't value history anymore. And when you don't look at your history, you're doomed to repeat it. And we have a demographic that's extremely – this generation is extremely passionate about justice. Yes.

[00:32:03] And when you combine that with a lack of historical knowledge and education becomes how do you pass this test versus how do you actually learn how to think, then you have a populace. It's very easy to sway. And then on social media, we'll just tell you what we want you to hear. We'll program the algorithm and tell you what you want you to hear. And so that's how we start drifting into a whole other direction.

[00:32:26] Well, Jordan, I'm coming to a break, so when we come back from the break, I thought I would talk about that in a little more detail because, as the president said, as you saw with the communists elected in New York City recently, and he could have also mentioned we have a mayor in, of course, as well in Seattle. And, of course, we're probably going to have a mayor in the District of Columbia. We also see that they have a very different viewpoint on a lot of issues.

[00:32:52] And so, again, you have some of the leaders in the Democratic Party, and here they mention one of those in this particular article, which I would encourage people to read. The former Democratic National Committee Chairwoman, Jamin Harrison, who's really just talking about the fact that if you are concerned about some of the things that are being said by some of these candidates that have won primaries in New York,

[00:33:18] of course, now in Colorado and in other places, I think even as recently as possibly next week in some of these other particular primaries, you would certainly want to begin to police some of that and maybe speak out against it. John Fetterman has done that, but not too many other people have. So when we come back from the break, I want to talk a little bit more about are we dealing with a communist menace? And what about this rise of the Democratic Socialist candidates?

[00:33:48] We'll talk about that right after this. Eleven years ago, the United States Supreme Court issued the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision that brought same-sex marriage to every state. This despite the fact that 31 states had specifically defined marriage in their laws and constitutions as being between one man and one woman.

[00:34:18] Many Americans still hold to that definition of marriage, especially people of faith. During oral arguments in Obergefell, Justice Antonin Scalia asked, Is it conceivable that a minister who is authorized by the state to conduct marriage can decline to marry two men if indeed this court holds that they have a constitutional right to marriage? Then he said, I don't see how. So far, the government has not forced churches and pastors to marry same-sex couples.

[00:34:43] But public officials who perform marriages often experience opposition when they refuse to do so. One such official is Diane Hensley, a justice of the peace in McLennan County, Texas. She refused to perform same-sex weddings and thus received a reprimand from the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, citing a violation of judicial impartiality. So she began referring same-sex couples to nearby officiants. Because of the public warning, she stopped performing any weddings.

[00:35:10] But in order to serve her community, she would like to resume doing so. In Obergefell, all nine justices affirmed that religious liberty should be protected. Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO of First Liberty Institute, correctly predicted that post-Obergefell, religious liberty would come under attack. Seven years ago, First Liberty began representing Judge Hensley in her quest to win the right for any justice of the peace in Texas to opt out of same-sex weddings while still performing other weddings.

[00:35:37] The District Court of Travis County has now entered final judgment in favor of Judge Hensley, including compensatory damages and substantial attorney's fees. There's a pending class action lawsuit to protect other JPs. Thank you, Judge Hensley and First Liberty. For Point of View, I'm Penna Dexter.

[00:36:02] You're listening to Point of View, your listener-supported source for truth. Conversation about socialism on the table. Well, let me just mention that the booklet that I've made available to you in the past, which is a biblical view on socialism, and of course we have this August issue coming out. We give you some good talking points, and Jordan, one of those talking points is pretty straightforward, and that is if you look at the list, and Dinesh D'Souza has created that, so I quote back his book,

[00:36:29] and look at all the different countries around the world that have tried a socialist experiment, starting with the Soviet Union, going to Europe, Poland, Yugoslavia, Albania, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, East Germany.

[00:36:43] Then you go to Asia, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, North Korea, China, then countries in South America, Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Venezuela, and even in Africa, Angola, Ghana, Tanzania, Benin, Mali, Mozambique, Zambia, Zimbabwe. Just use that short list. That's 25 right there.

[00:37:04] Two dozen failed experiments, and you and I are old enough to remember when we've seen some of those failed experiments play out, haven't we? Yeah, and I think that it's good to think about this in two different ways, both the economic aspect of it and then just basically the oppression aspect of it. So economically, both socialism and communism want to take over the means of production.

[00:37:33] So you have people that have no personal stake in the success of the economic company or factory or restaurant or whatever it is. So they're just making these decisions that either waste resources or underfund resources, and you just get a lack.

[00:37:54] Now, one of the things that people are going to realize, in the last 30 years, the world has had about one point of one and a half billion people have gotten out of poverty, mainly because of capitalism, of businesses in India and China, factories, you know, making the Apple iPhones, et cetera, that sort of thing. It hasn't been done by some workers' paradise.

[00:38:22] And I also want to mention the oppression aspect. When I was 19 years old in 1974, I stood in West Berlin looking at the Berlin Wall. And you've got – this is something that people – you see people trying to get into the United States at the Rio Grande. And in the communist countries, they had to prevent them from leaving because it was so horrible. People were willing to risk their lives.

[00:38:49] As well as you don't see people clamoring to get into Russia, which is no longer communist. Or China, which has modified greatly its communist system because it was such an economic failure. And I think it is just very facile and superficial to think, hey, here's this rich guy and here's these poor people. We should force him to pay his fair share and to do that.

[00:39:13] Now, if we were talking about something less insignificant like, you know, having heavy taxation like the Scandinavian countries do for more social benefits, that's not really socialism, I don't think. And it's not the government taking over the means of production. But if the government is in charge, the government is going to use coercion to force people and we're all better off. The only equal thing we'll have is equal loss of rights and equal poverty.

[00:39:44] Well, Nathan, let me come to you for just a minute because I think one of the questions that I'm getting more often is from some of our listeners say, look, I've got a child or a grandchild that's been in the schools and is just absolutely convinced that socialism is the answer. And first of all, we do have a section here pointing out that Sweden really is not a model for socialism. But the other ones that we talk about are that young people sort of have this idea of a fixed pie.

[00:40:10] In other words, if we go into the kitchen we have right here and somebody had a pie, if you take a bigger piece, then there's less for you. But the economy, first of all, is not a fixed pie. It's an expanding pie, especially when you have a free market. You can actually see the increase of the GDP in that. And the other argument that I found is very helpful with the younger generation is, do you really like having people tell you what to do all the time? And they'll go, no, I don't want that.

[00:40:37] Well, why would you want a bureaucrat who you might not even know, who you've never elected, making a decision in Washington, D.C., or maybe a bureaucrat in the European Union, making a decision about what things are produced, how many are produced, and what quality they're produced? Most of the time, if you can get those conversations down to their own personal experience, they begin to recognize, oh, maybe socialism isn't the answer I thought it was.

[00:41:07] Yeah, and I think a lot of that goes back to an education of we're not trained how to think, we're trained what to think, which is to do well in this exam, you need to remember these facts. Not, can I logically think through things? Can I debate both points of something? Right. You know, I think that's a big deal with our education and why you see a lot of these younger people that are just going with these things that they see because they're not trained.

[00:41:36] And then, again, social media points you towards what you want to see, what they believe you want to see. So we're going to point you towards this. And so that's how you end up with people are going down this. And, yeah, when you can challenge the things in a way that will relate to them, they'll see, oh, well, maybe this isn't really the best idea. You know, Jordan, one of the things that Nathan and I are dealing with right now is we have a U.S. Senate race here. And one of the Senate candidates has even suggested that Jesus was a socialist and an anarchist.

[00:42:03] And that's one of the reasons why in the little booklet here we say, no, the Bible does not teach socialism. And I might just for a minute try to explain that because they'll look at Acts 4 and it shows how in Jerusalem there were some people that were believers that held things in common. But if you go to even Acts 5, when Peter is actually beginning to call out Ananias and Sapphira, he says, when you owned it, was it not yours?

[00:42:32] And the implication there is is that even there you had private property. You were willing to voluntarily go and give to the common pot. But it only happened in Jerusalem. It also wasn't exactly the greatest economic dynamism during the time. And, Jordan, maybe you can help us since you're not necessarily going to be voting for a U.S. senator in Texas.

[00:42:57] It seems to me that some of the things being said right now that are being given a Christian veneer really aren't Christian, are they? That's exactly right. I'll just say this, put it a plug, probably for the documents you have on socialism. Thomas Sowell, basic economics is a better source on economics than the Bible. And the thing people have to remember is you're right. Those were all voluntary situations.

[00:43:25] I want people to give of their resources because they've been motivated by the love of Christ to others. We just had some people from our church whose home got destroyed when lightning hit it, and they came and stayed with us for a little bit. Okay, that's one thing. But it's different. The government operates by coercion. It's not by compassion and, you know, out of the goodness of your heart.

[00:43:51] If the government is doing compassion, it becomes coercive because that's the nature of government. We want them to arrest bank robbers and drunk drivers. But if they're basically saying you can only buy a car, but it can't have an air conditioner because that's going to, you know, cause global warming or something like that, you say, well, no, I'm willing to pay for it. I got the resources. Those are the kinds of choices they're going to eliminate.

[00:44:16] And I think what you're bringing up is really good, that they don't realize what the government does these one size fits all, and they're both at the same time very inefficient by overproducing stuff that nobody wants and underproducing what they really want. Because they don't have the profit motive of the private owners motivating people to switch what they're making, what they're manufacturing, that sort of thing, to maximize profits.

[00:44:44] And, you know, if we didn't have Steve Jobs motivated by profit motive, we wouldn't have iPhones and iPads and et cetera, et cetera. There's so much of this that the government will never produce. Are we going to have innovations in drugs if pharmacies are owned by the government? Probably not. We'll talk about some more of that in the second hour.

[00:45:11] But, again, if you'd like to find some of the things we've talked about, we will be back right after this. Where does moral truth come from? According to 58% of Americans, individuals determine moral truth. A quarter of Generation Z says society determines moral truth, and morality can even change over time. Only 42% of Americans believe that truth comes from God.

[00:45:37] I don't know about you, but I find these numbers extremely troubling. It really is a crisis of truth, and that crisis has consequences. Look at society. Evil is called good. Good called evil. People with biblical beliefs are called bigots. Or worse, they're canceled. But there is hope. The Bible promises the truth will set us free. And that's why Point of View is relentless in our commitment to the ultimate source of moral truth, God's Word.

[00:46:06] At Point of View, we know that God's truth is eternal. And if we stand together, we can help more Americans apply His truth in their daily life. Help Americans find truth again by giving at pointofview.net. Or call 1-800-347-5151. That's pointofview.net. And 800-347-5151.

[00:46:35] Point of View will continue after this. Across America, live, this is Point of View. And now, Kirby Anderson.

[00:47:04] Second hour today, we're going to spend some time in the first half hour here really just talking about a generational divide. We'll talk about that as it relates to socialism, which we've sort of already opened as a conversation. And then a generational divide over Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, and all sorts of other issues as well. That's why I think it is perfect that we've got Jordan Lawrence by phone, Nathan Shackelford in studio.

[00:47:29] And our next article is one that John Stossel referred to as Spoiled Socialist. And many times we post the article by John Stossel, which accompanies the video. Now, in this particular case, the video is done by one of his fellow interns, Leila Tagahivia. And she is originally from Azerbaijan, which I think is kind of helpful because here she's grown up around socialism.

[00:47:57] But Nathan here is a video in which he meets with individuals and tries to understand why your younger generation, some of her generation, although she didn't grow up in the United States, actually supports socialism and talks with a psychologist. And the argument is oftentimes, well, if you want to help the poor, the psychologist points out, yep, you look at all the signs here.

[00:48:24] They don't say feed the poor, help the needy. They talk about soaking the rich. And they point out something here, which others have pointed out and other commentators have pointed out, that oftentimes the people that are most likely to be promoting socialism are those that are pretty well off. And they've come from nice homes.

[00:48:48] And, of course, we've talked in the past about the background of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Hassan Piker or a variety of others even goes into what you sometimes found in some of these communist countries. So if the justification for supporting socialism is I'm concerned about the wage gap or I'm concerned about the poor, that doesn't necessarily seem to be the case.

[00:49:14] Many of these young people actually want to tear down the system, but they haven't really told us what the next one is going to look like. Yeah. I mean, I think going back to kind of what you were saying is when you view it as, oh, well, these people are only rich at the expense of the poor. Yeah. That's how it's framed a lot of times is this zero-sum game of if there are rich people, it means that they are intentionally making people poor to become more rich.

[00:49:42] And so then if, as you were saying, it's the richer kids that are the ones that are acting out, it's the reason is is because they feel guilty because they feel like, oh, I'm – you know, my parents have been oppressing people. Or, you know, I'm doing well. I'm part of the problem. And that's what you're told, which then makes you feel guilty, the sense of guilt of I've been a part of this problem.

[00:50:05] And so that's why I think you see a lot of those upper-class kids that feel that way is because that's what they've been told. And it kind of goes back to that almost some of the white fragility things of saying if you're a straight white man, you're at fault for a lot of things. And so you see people feel guilty and then want to go the other way to try to make it right. You know, let me come to you, Jordan, because you mentioned a minute ago Thomas Sowell. I could also mention Walter Williams.

[00:50:33] Of course, we more recently have even had some quotes from Friedrich Hayek. As a matter of fact, I have this booklet which is kind of on the road to serfdom because I recognize most people would never read The Road to Serfdom. As a matter of fact, if you say Friedrich Hayek, they probably think he's the father of Selma Hayek or something like that. But there are some people that have addressed these very important issues. And again, some of the flaws, and we do talk about that in our upcoming issue that many people are going to be receiving in just a week or two.

[00:51:03] It's a fixed ply model or a zero-sum game, all sorts of other arguments. And if you really just know basic economics, you know that most of those assumptions are incorrect. And that's why we need to do a better job of education, don't we? No, I think that that's exactly right. And I agree with you.

[00:51:26] I think the concept that people have to understand is that wealth can be created, and it's not a zero-sum game. And so that Elon Musk, Steve Jobs created wealth and lifted people out of poverty by what they did, by taking existing resources and say, hey, let's make this into an iPhone. Let's make this into a Tesla.

[00:51:51] And those are things when there is a restaurant or some small business, it's creating wealth. It is not just giving up wealth that's already existed. It's not a fixed amount. And when things don't work, that's when the government's running things. The one tool that the government has is coercion.

[00:52:15] And that's why these communist countries and socialistic countries over the years always resort to coercion to make things work. And I would just say, talk about fragility. If socialism is so fragile that nobody can seem to get it right, you know, tuned the right way, maybe it's a system that doesn't really work at all.

[00:52:39] You know, and when I hear people say, well, socialism has never really been tried the right way, that excuse has been used hundreds of times by many, many different governments. One of the other things I thought was very interesting in this piece that, again, the Stossel fellow actually did, was there was a quote or two from the psychologist that said people, back to Nathan's, your point,

[00:53:06] have not been thoroughly educated in some of these catastrophes. In American high schools, you get 155 hours of Hitler, three minutes on Stalin, zero on Pol Pot, Mao Zedong. It's not that people have been trained into liking socialism. They have to be educated out of liking it. And if you are historically ignorant of the very sad, bloody history of communism

[00:53:34] and the fact that these ideas have consequences and have given us words like gulag and purging and things of that nature, then you're going to think that, well, democratic socialism sounds like a good idea. Yeah, I mean, I think going back, I mean, education is just a huge point of all of this. We don't teach history well. We don't do debate like we did anymore. We don't teach people how to rationally think through things.

[00:54:02] I remember the school that I went to, we would watch different movies and look at different perspectives and say what type of worldview is this person approaching this from? Yeah. And then, okay, where are they getting this ideology for? You know, the force is an Eastern mysticism type thing. And when you can point those things out, you can really ask yourself questions. And when we don't educate people to think that this is what we get to. And, again, this one is called The Spoiled Socialist.

[00:54:29] We'll probably change topics after the break, but I thought I'd just mention that on Monday, we've got a very good piece, which is responding to how the White House press secretary, Caroline Levitt, when she was asked about why are young people flocking to socialism, she said maybe it's a collective focus on entitlement. She says this generation, my generation, hate to say it, Gen Z and those younger have been raised with silver spoons in their mouth and feel like, indeed, they should be entitled to this.

[00:54:58] And America was built on meritocracy and hard work. Of course, she was criticized then by saying, well, you were married into money. Well, yes, but she understands this idea of entitlement, and I think we will cover that again on Monday because there is a very definite difference between the older generation of Americans and younger generation. And so this one on socialism is one that we're going to be talking about for some time.

[00:55:23] When we come back, though, there's another generation gap, and it has to do with the issue of Israel, the Middle East, foreign policy. We'll talk about that right after this. This is Viewpoints with Kirby Anderson. Is AI investing in a bubble?

[00:55:52] That's a question that Wall Street and Main Street are asking. Lots of money will be spent on AI. Analysts at J.P. Morgan estimate that up to $5 trillion will be spent by 2030 just on AI infrastructure. We've seen financial bubbles before with everything from trains to the Internet. Some see a significant comparison to the dot-com bubble that burst in the late 1990s. That depends on when you start. If you say that the Internet bubble began with the Netscape IPO and the AI bubble began with the release of ChatGBT,

[00:56:21] you see a similarity. But critics say that this time tech companies are generating profits. Another question is whether AI provides as much benefit as AI proponents claim. The National Bureau of Economic Research discovered that 90% of executives reported zero measurable impact on labor productivity and employment from AI over the previous three years. Public sentiment is another issue.

[00:56:44] Gen Z students use AI tools while in college, yet those same Gen Z students have booed tech CEOs giving commencement speeches the minute they mention AI. These graduates most likely fear that AI will be used to justify mass layoffs and eliminate entry-level positions. Others fear that we might see something reminiscent of 2008 when the government backstopped banks through what came to be known as privatized profits and socialized losses.

[00:57:10] Government leaders from Bernie Sanders to Donald Trump have talked about the federal government taking a stake in AI companies. These would then be listed as too big to fail. Lots of money may be flowing into AI, but it may become a huge financial bubble. I'm Kirby Anderson, and that's my point of view. Go deeper on topics like you just heard by visiting pointofview.net.

[00:57:39] That's pointofview.net. You're listening to Point of View, your listener-supported source for truth. In fact, once again, the theme that we've been talking about just a minute ago was a generational divide on the issue of socialism. One of the other articles I wanted to post comes from our friends at Christian Post, and that is a generational divide when it comes to Israel and comes to the Middle East and things of that nature.

[00:58:08] Again, we've posted in the past some booklets on anti-Semitism. Here's one on Israel, even one on the issue of Zionism. But these are resources that, again, we make available to you because that is the case. But, Nathan, again, I want to speak to that issue because in the past I published a little booklet on anti-Semitism.

[00:58:29] But after the invasion of, again, Hamas into Israel, October 7, 2023, I began to notice that the arguments were different. They weren't the kind of classical anti-Semitism arguments. They were this idea of critical theory that you have an oppressor and the oppressed.

[00:58:51] And so the oppressor in this case was Israel, supposedly, and the oppressed or the victims were the individuals that were in Gaza. And I just began to see that this was changing dramatically because then you had all sorts of individuals, oftentimes young people, many of these democratic socialist candidates now who were marching in the streets supporting Hamas, which is a terrorist organization.

[00:59:16] Speak to that because your generation and the generation younger than you perceive Israel very different than an older generation, don't they? Yeah, I think, again, it goes back to that sense of justice and what you're saying with the oppressor and the oppressed. There's a huge sense in our generation and people around my age of we want equality, we want things to be fair. And when we see someone that's being oppressed, we want to stand up and do something about it.

[00:59:44] And so I think we're in a system now that a lot of people get their news from social media. And, again, social media will feed into what you want. So if it knows that you want to see these things of standing up to oppression and it makes you angry when you see people oppressed,

[01:00:01] well, you're not getting videos of the attacks that happened in October of 23 because those weren't really filmed and videoed the same way that we have video and everything of the counterattacks to that. So we lose track of, well, this was started by terrorists that came over into Israel. This wasn't Israel doing this unprovoked. And so I think we lose sight of that.

[01:00:29] But I think there's that side. And then what you were saying about anti-Semitism is now almost a thing of if you question what the U.S.'s response should be to Israel, and if it's anything other than unequivocal support, you're called an anti-Semite. And that's an issue as well of not being able to have that discussion of just because you are not for supporting a nation, does that mean that you are suddenly against a people group?

[01:00:57] And, again, we have to warn against people over arguing a case or wat-washing or missing, if you will, the nuance and the rest. But I thought, Jordan, I'd come to you for just a minute because one of the reasons we produce this whole booklet on Israel is you're having all sorts of young people saying, well, Israel has no right to be there. And, like, okay, do you not know anything about biblical archaeology history, the Bible, and how all of the nations were there,

[01:01:23] how Israel was there before, the Balfour Declaration, what even happened after World War II, the recognition by America, Israel, and all those kinds of things, again, some of that gets back to historical illiteracy, doesn't it? Oh, it certainly does. In fact, I think every time I hear in the United States at, like, some college campus, somebody gives a stolen land acknowledgement for the Native Americans, and I think, well, does Israel get that?

[01:01:53] You know, the Jews, you know, the Palestinians have to leave because they're on stolen land, and they're very, very inconsistent. And, you know, it is – I don't endorse everything that Netanyahu and the others have done in Israel. But I think what I find is helpful – I don't know, this is bigger than just one conversation with somebody – is that what is the end result here?

[01:02:23] Are we looking for peaceful coexistence between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs so that they get along with one another? Or is it – like, even if you think Israel is doing genocide, isn't that what Hamas wants to do as well? Or to send them back to their homelands? Their homelands are not Poland and Germany.

[01:02:47] They were evicted from Iraq and Syria and Egypt, and they're not going to take them back. And what I fear is from the river to the sea means total annihilation of all the Israeli Jews. And that cannot be a solution. You know, it's genocide on both sides then, if that's the way they want to think about it.

[01:03:13] And again, that's the historical issues because we've posted some commentaries where when they went out into the street and asked, when you say from the river to the sea, what river? And you've gotten some very interesting answers, which illustrates again the historical illiteracy. But I wanted to broaden this for just a minute because I've got two individuals here working with religious liberty. And, Nathan, a lot of people forget that not only do you defend Christians, but you have spent a lot of time,

[01:03:42] and it seems to be an increasing amount of time, defending Jewish synagogues, Jewish individuals, and the rest. And because of this almost now respectable, and I put this in air quotes, respectable anti-Semitism, there are more and more of these jurisdictions that are feeling quite free to say that you cannot have a meeting in this home for those Orthodox Jews. You can't allow a synagogue.

[01:04:10] You can't, in some cases, let those people into the community. I'm quoting from some of your cases. It does seem to me that anti-Semitism in the courts have increased rather dramatically, and you've had to deal with some of those, haven't you? Yeah. I would say that if I had to guess, I would guess that 30% of our cases probably have to do with Jewish cases. Wow. I have no idea. If I'm just taking a guess. It seems like, and the core issue is always just the right to exist, it feels like, if you break it down.

[01:04:39] It's not a, oh, we don't like this practice. It's just we don't want you to exist. We don't want you to be here. We don't think that you should have the right to be here. And it's specifically targeting Jewish people versus other religious groups. I mean, you quoted the one on Aramont that we had in the past of not being able to exist within the charter of the town.

[01:05:00] And then a case that we just had a few weeks ago that was out of California where they were trying to find someone for holding prayer meetings and dinners in their home, Shabbat meals in their home. And we had to get involved in that. And so we've definitely seen an uptick in those. And it's just a hostility towards a particular group just not even wanting them to exist.

[01:05:24] Jordan, let me come to you because one of the ones that I still remember the most is that the argument against having a Jewish celebration or even a synagogue service in a home was, well, this would cause a parking problem. And these are Orthodox Jews who don't drive. They don't work on the Sabbath. They walk to the home.

[01:05:46] And yet one of the arguments against having even a religious service in the home was, well, it would cause a parking problem when nobody was actually driving a car. Yeah. Oy vey is my response to that. Yes. That has been a very frequent excuse used.

[01:06:07] And it just shows a total lack of understanding of what the limitations are for a Sabbath service of, you know, like you say, not operating machines and that sort of thing. I do find this very alarming.

[01:06:25] And I realize there is a difference between the nation of Israel and Jewish people, but it seems like it kind of bleeds into each other and that the anti-Israeli sentiments end up sounding very anti-Semitic.

[01:06:41] And when we saw last spring these anti-Israeli, campus demonstrations, it seemed like they were directed at Jewish people in a way that I just think is very chilling, especially that we're old enough to remember.

[01:07:02] And if you've been over to Europe and toured some of the concentration camps from the Nazi era, I really thought never again meant like we are beyond that. And it is very sad to see no or really not. Well, we're going to take a break. And when we come back, I thought it would be good just for a few minutes to return back to this idea of gender ideology. And I've posted one article which was talking about the long march out of the gender clinics.

[01:07:29] But I'll also put that together with one we've talked about before in which the argument being made that you have to provide gender-affirming care for minors. Otherwise, they will commit suicide. There is a real flaw. Well, there are many flaws with that study and many others. And so this whole idea of a transgender issue is one that, of course, we just talked about at the very beginning up there in the state of Maine.

[01:07:54] It also relates to our conversation we had yesterday about the way in which churches and others can interact on this issue of homosexuality. And it's, again, not only an issue of gender ideology. It once again comes back to this issue of religious liberty. And so we'll talk about that right after these important messages. At Point of View, we believe there is power in prayer.

[01:08:21] And that is why we have relaunched our Pray for America campaign. A series of weekly emails to unite Americans in prayer for our nation. Imagine if hundreds of thousands of Americans started praying intentionally together on a weekly basis. You can help make that a reality by subscribing to our Pray for America emails.

[01:08:47] Just go to pointofview.net and click on the Pray for America banner that's right there on the homepage. Each week you'll receive a brief news update, a specific prayer guide, and a free resource to equip you in further action. We encourage you to not only pray with us each week, but to share these prayers and the resources with others in your life. Join the movement today.

[01:09:15] Visit pointofview.net and click on the banner Pray for America right there at the top. That's pointofview.net. Let's pray together for God to make a difference in our land. Point of View will continue after this.

[01:09:38] You are listening to Point of View. The opinions expressed on Point of View do not necessarily reflect the views of the management or staff of this station. And now, here again, is Kirby Anderson. Back once again, we started the program by talking about this issue of gender ideology in Maine.

[01:10:06] I want to bring it to a story out of Michigan in just a minute. But let's give you some background. A while back, we pointed out that one of the ways in which oftentimes gender-affirming care was pushed upon children, and especially parents, was arguing either you have to transition this child or that child will actually commit suicide. And one of the articles that I have in front of me here, we didn't post this because it actually came out a couple weeks ago,

[01:10:35] but I wanted to pull it out of the file once again to point out that the study that that was based on is flawed in many different ways. But it was used to justify pushing gender-affirming care, which, of course, involves everything from surgery to all sorts of hormones, and it was flawed at its very beginning. Well, that case that we talked about a few weeks ago is then illustrated by the fact that,

[01:11:05] especially if you go to England, because they've had what is called the CAS study or the CAS review, they have backed away from these gender clinics. But I show you an interview that was done with the Labor Member of Parliament and Health Secretary James Murray, in which he sort of changed his mind, not because of the data, but because the political winds were blowing the other direction.

[01:11:31] And I pull this out because, again, most of our listeners are not in England, obviously, but it, I think, was a great illustration of something that has now gone viral, of the individuals that were pushing this in a very overt way, who are now starting to back off because there is pretty good evidence that what they were saying was not true. But let me just use a good example. Nathan, you had a case, Valerie I'm thinking of, in Michigan,

[01:12:00] in which she had, I think, impeccable credentials as an individual, had a very good record, but the clinic was taken over by individuals that were pushing this gender ideology, and they fired her, right? Yeah. Valerie Klostermann out of Caledonia, Michigan. Yeah. Her mom had worked at that same clinic, so it ran in their family, and she had been there for a long time, and they wanted her to have to sign as a condition of continued employment.

[01:12:30] Iowa Firm, all these things, including gender affirmative care, and she said, I can't do that. It goes against my beliefs, and they called her evil and all kinds of things. Mistreated her terribly, yes. Absolutely. She's just genuinely a nice person, from what I've understood. Yes. Yes. And we just won a part of that case at the court to be able to, they were trying to prevent the case from even being able to be heard, and the court just said, no, we're going to go to court on this one.

[01:12:59] So we'll see if they actually want to do that. But yeah, I mean, you see a lot of times where we want to enforce, we want to force employees and people to do things that go against their beliefs, and in this case, hopefully that doesn't stand the test of time. Well, and you also have a case, which we just saw some announcements from you, and of all places from the Ninth Circuit, but nevertheless, this had to do with two individuals that were flight attendants for Alaska Airlines, who made some comments about the Equality Act,

[01:13:29] which gets us into homosexuality and transgender issues. And just by asking a question or making a statement, they both got fired. So you're dealing with a number of cases where this issue of gender ideology and this issue of homosexuality is pushed so hard that if you don't really knuckle under, you get fired, right? Yeah, it's the idea of cancel culture. It's fall in line with what we want you to do, or you're canceled, or you're done. Well, again, Jordan,

[01:13:57] this is one of the cases I wanted to bring up because we have been following. As a matter of fact, we did a program yesterday on homosexuality, and we will do some more in the future. But this piece on the long march out of the gender clinics shows that even in England, and even in a place where oftentimes they are looking at these issues from a more secular, progressive point of view, they're backing off. And you're starting to see even some of the people that were pushing these are starting to maybe change what they are talking about.

[01:14:27] And this relates back to a lot of these religious liberty cases you have there at First Liberty. Well, yeah, and I think that it shows that people need to persevere with the truth because I think what's winning out is that it is so contrary to common sense. It's not like there's some crazy religious belief that people are made intrinsically male and female, and it's permanent and unchangeable,

[01:14:56] that that's what common sense shows that that's reality. And people were basically intimidated, as you were saying, with this, well, would you rather have a dead son or a live daughter? And they said, well, I'd rather my kid be alive. And now they're realizing that all this mutilation, surgery,

[01:15:22] the permanent sterilization by these hormone treatments is basically not help people. And it has ruined many, many lives as the X trans people who are transitioning, detransitioning are demonstrating. And I think we're seeing this now at the Supreme Court within the last 12 months,

[01:15:46] they've had at least four major decisions where they have are rejecting main pillars of the transgender ideology and legal philosophy. But unfortunately, I was at two days ago, I was at a conference where the legal director, the one who control or directs all the litigation of the ACLU is this, Cecilia Wang. And she said, she was bemoaning the loss of the girls athletics case at the Supreme Court,

[01:16:14] saying that the trans girls are now going to be denied the ability to play sports. And I wanted to stand up and say, no, they have to, they're boys. They play on the boys team. They don't play on the girls team. They're not being denied anything at all. They're just, it's where, what's the proper team for them to sort on? It's a sort out to get them on the right team. But I feel that they are so beholden to this wrong theology,

[01:16:44] this wrong worldview that, but there, I think as this British guy that you said the article about, they're beginning to realize we are losing the argument and we're looking kind of crazy. And they're beginning to back off, but it's more because the popularity, the pop, the populace is not with them as opposed to they've been actually persuaded that reality is reality. Glad you brought up the case out of the Supreme Court,

[01:17:13] because these were two cases, one out of Idaho, one out of West Virginia. And at least the decision was made properly, but we do have at least one member of the Supreme Court that still can't tell us what a woman is. So you kind of knew where she was going to vote on this, but it, I think illustrates again, Nathan, that you've got to be front and center on some of these cases. We've just talked about some of these other cases related to everything from abortion to gender ideology,

[01:17:43] or even anti-Semitism. You would wish you had fewer cases, but the sad reality is every time we turn around, one of these issues, whether it's anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish issues, whether it's gender ideology, or even back in the history, the whole issue of contraceptions and abortion, these issues will continue to be front and center. And it's one of the reasons why I appreciate the fact that this president, whatever you might think about him,

[01:18:12] pulled together a national religious liberty commission, and they actually gave that report to him. And if they go to First Liberty, can they not read that report as well? It should be on there. It's pretty easy to find if you just Google it as well, but I believe it should be on our website. And I just think it illustrates that these are really big issues. And Jordan, just for a second, you mentioned common sense. I know that this Sunday in my own Sunday school class, I'm talking about the death of common sense,

[01:18:40] because it's based upon a very interesting story in 2 Kings 7. You don't have to go to that. But the bottom line is, we really have a lot of Americans that have said, common sense, boys should play in boys sports, girls should play in girls sports. A boy cannot be a girl. A girl cannot be a boy. If they're dealing with some issues of gender dysfunction, we understand that. But to actually promote these kinds of ideas that go against common sense are really of concern.

[01:19:08] So that's one of the reasons I brought this up. This long march out of the gender clinics illustrate that there are more and more individuals and more companies and countries that are starting to say, okay, this went overboard and maybe we're going to see some sanity in this regard. So we come back from the break. Just one other case that I thought would be kind of helpful. And that one comes from Penna Dexter. She, of course, does her commentary.

[01:19:36] And we have a chance to play that at just before the top of the hour, both hours. And if you are listening online, you can actually listen to her commentary. But we're going to talk about another one of these cases, which is very significant because we're talking about a justice of the peace, Diane Hensley, who said, look, I'm a Christian and I really do not feel right performing same sex weddings. But again,

[01:20:04] I'll give you a link to a person that would do so. Well, that was not good enough. But we bring you again, a good story at the end of this illustrating once again, how religious liberty seemingly is always under attack. And that's why eternal vigilance is what we need for our religious rights. So we'll come back and talk about that right after this.

[01:20:28] 11 years ago, the United States Supreme Court issued the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision that brought same sex marriage to every state. This despite the fact that 31 states had specifically defined marriage in their laws

[01:20:57] and constitutions as being between one man and one woman. Many Americans still hold to that definition of marriage, especially people of faith. During oral arguments in Obergefell, Justice Antonin Scalia asked, Is it conceivable that a minister who is authorized by the state to conduct marriage can decline to marry two men if indeed this court holds that they have a constitutional right to marriage? Then he said, I don't see how. So far, the government has not forced churches and pastors to marry same sex couples.

[01:21:26] But public officials who perform marriages often experience opposition when they refuse to do so. One such official is Diane Hensley, a justice of the peace in McLennan County, Texas. She refused to perform same sex weddings and thus received a reprimand from the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, citing a violation of judicial impartiality. So she began referring same-sex couples to nearby officiants. Because of the public warning, she stopped performing any weddings. But in order to serve her community,

[01:21:55] she would like to resume doing so. In Obergefell, all nine justices affirmed that religious liberty should be protected. Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO of First Liberty Institute, correctly predicted that post-Obergefell, religious liberty would come under attack. Seven years ago, First Liberty began representing Judge Hensley in her quest to win the right for any justice of the peace in Texas to opt out of same-sex weddings while still performing other weddings.

[01:22:20] The District Court of Travis County has now entered final judgment in favor of Judge Hensley, including compensatory damages and substantial attorney's fees. There's a pending class action lawsuit to protect other JPs. Thank you, Judge Hensley and First Liberty. For Point of View, I'm Penna Dexter. You're listening to Point of View,

[01:22:49] your listener-supported source for truth. Back for a few more minutes, and in studio with me, Nathan Shackelford, and by phone, Jordan Lawrence. And again, if you would like to know more about some of these issues, you can go to our website, pointofview.net, and click on show materials. Scroll down a little bit further, you'll see viewpoints, and mine, of course, is about the AI bubble, and whether or not we are maybe investing too much money into AI, and of course, we even have a booklet,

[01:23:19] as well as an outlook on that subject. And of course, then we also have Penna Dexter's piece on Judge Hensley's win, and I thought we'd bring this up, Nathan, for just a minute, to talk about that one case, and then I wanted to come to Jordan, because he can also say, this has happened to people other than an individual who's a justice of the piece. It's happened to bakers, and you've had one like that, photographers, florists, web designers, and the rest. But we know the story, and that is,

[01:23:48] ever since the Obergefell decision, we've redefined marriage. And so we've had a situation in which sometimes individuals would want to go to the justice of the piece and have a same-sex wedding. And instead, Diane Hensley said, look, I really just don't feel comfortable about that, but I'll tell you what, I will provide an opportunity for you to have somebody else to perform that wedding. And that was not sufficient enough, was it? Yeah, no,

[01:24:18] it was not enough for them, apparently. And the crazy fact about this, too, is it was the exact same cost as the justice of the piece wedding. So it was no greater cost. Yes. It was just, we want to force you to do it versus allowing you to have someone else do it. And so, yeah, it would create a very dangerous precedent of telling judges that they have to violate their beliefs and perform weddings that they go against their belief. And, you know, luckily that's been stopped, and it's taken seven years to get here.

[01:24:48] But here we are, and finally now there's a ruling that protects her and the rights of other judges as well. Yeah, the district court of Travis County has entered into a final judgment. It took seven years. I mentioned to Baker, you've got a case out of Oregon. They're now living in Montana, I know, and that one's been going for a long period of time as well. Yeah, it's been almost 12 years, I think, on that one. It's been up to the Supreme Court twice, back down twice, and now Oregon's been sitting on it since, I think, over a year and a half now. The wheels of justice move slowly,

[01:25:17] but Jordan, I want to come to you for just a minute, because many of the cases I mentioned were with our good friends, Alliance Defending Freedom, and whether it's a baker, a florist, a web designer, a photographer, whatever, it seems like these cases are all over the country, and in every case, instead of saying, well, I will just let you use a different photographer, a different baker, or something like that, in every case,

[01:25:45] especially out of the state of Colorado, and we've even had Lathan Watts on here saying, Colorado probably just needs to have an express lane to go to the Supreme Court, because these cases all the time are going to the Supreme Court, because of the animosity there in the state of Colorado. What's your thoughts? Well, I think that that is all correct, and that I just want to point out just a couple of big picture things.

[01:26:12] You never know when the providence of God is going to select someone, like it could be you, it could be me, it could be any of the listeners, to stand up for God's truth, and you never know what the ramifications will be when somebody does the right thing. So Jack Phillips, the cake baker that people are familiar with, his story, I think it came right after Obergefell,

[01:26:38] and those who supported same-sex marriage wanted to do mop-up and crush the opposition. So they were going after these merchants. I think they wanted to repeal the tax-exempt status of churches, of Christian colleges that adhered to a biblical view of marriage. And what Jack Phillips' case did is, you know, he's just a little family operation in Littleton,

[01:27:07] Colorado. It caused the Supreme Court to slam the brakes on this runaway train that had happened with Obergefell, and that even Kennedy, who written Obergefell, thought it went too far, that they had to give space to the dissenters. So you never know. And now that has been able to expand. I think it has also helped with, put, you know,

[01:27:34] basically to help us refute the lies of transgenderism, that sort of thing. But it started with a faithful Christian man and others, some of these other people that were, that ran the flower shops, that were the photographers, et cetera, the wedding photographers, that basically said, I cannot in good conscience violate what the Bible says,

[01:28:01] and be against the truth that my Lord says. It is important for people to internalize that, and be ready to do the right thing, no matter what the cost, because you never know how many people are going to benefit because of your stand for God's truth. So well said. Let me just mention that one of the things we have, and you can find this both in the picture of Nathan Shackelford and Jordan Lawrence, is a link to, of course,

[01:28:31] firstliberty.org. But one of the things that pops up is defending the freedom that defines America, defending religious liberty for 250 years of our history and 30 years of first liberty. There's a video there. It's about two minutes long, and I would encourage you maybe over the weekend to watch that. But I also thought I would mention the fact that you have, for example, what's called the Founders Trilogy. Now, again, it shows my age.

[01:28:58] I've known Howard Goldthwait for decades, too. He used to be in a Bible study with me long before he joined First Liberty, and has put together these wonderful books that if you wanted to teach your children or grandchildren some of the great history, those are available. They also have the protection kits. And, of course, I was also mentioning to you, Nathan, that even our latest issue here of Understanding America's Christian Heritage,

[01:29:24] we have a section in there by our friend Mark David Hall, who, of course, is associated with you indirectly. So, there are some great ways during this 250th celebration, even though the 4th of July is in the rearview mirror. We'll be talking about it all year. And I would encourage you to go to that website and find out a little bit more about what has been happening.

[01:29:47] There's a place where it also has a link to the report that came down from the National Religious Liberty Commission. So, all of it there at First Liberty, or you can go to freedom.firstliberty.org slash 250, but I think you can just simply follow the links and you'll find everything there. And I was just thinking, if nothing else, as I started the program, basically, Nathan, we need to be in prayer.

[01:30:14] You've got four cases that the Supreme Court could take, and two others you're going to apply. So, we'll see if, how many of those six make their way there. And with about an average of 11 and zero, you're doing pretty good. Yeah, I think it's really just God's favor. It's the odds of going to the Supreme Court, taking a case there, and getting it, it's less than 1%. And these cases don't just impact one person, it impacts generations. And so, every time we can get a case to the Supreme Court,

[01:30:44] it's an ability to not only protect this client, but to protect your kids, your grandkids, and generations to come. Sure. Jordan Lawrence, as always, of course, your great reputation precedes you, and it's just an honor that you could be on the program with us today by phone. Well, it's an honor to be on the show with you, and to talk about these very important things. Just before we run out of time, let me mention, first of all, that next week we have Stephen Meyer with us, we have Curtis Chang,

[01:31:13] we have just an incredible lineup of various guests that we'll be talking about, and talking with, and so that is certainly the case. But most importantly, we have had both of our Megans out on vacation right now, and so that has allowed me to have Doug actually engineering the program. So, Doug, thank you for stepping in and helping us out, and Steve, thank you for producing the program. If you find yourself saying, well, I'd like to read some of the articles you've been quoting, simply go to the website, pointofview.net.

[01:31:42] If you'd like to learn a little bit more about First Liberty, click on that button. It takes you to firstliberty.org, and you can learn out more, and as Wayne mentioned before, you might want to sign up for the First Liberty Insider, then you get the kind of information we talk about every day here on Point of View. Have a great weekend. See you back here on Monday, right here on Point of View. It almost seems like we live in a different world from many people in positions of authority. They say men can be women, and women men.

[01:32:11] People are prosecuted differently, or not at all, depending on their politics. Criminals are more valued and rewarded than law-abiding citizens. It's so overwhelming, so demoralizing. You feel like giving up, but we can't. We shouldn't. We must not. As Winston Churchill said to Britain in the darkest days of World War II, never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never. Never yield to force.

[01:32:39] Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. And that's what we say to you today. This is not a time to give in, but to step up and join Point of View in providing clarity in the chaos. We can't do it alone, but together, with God's help, we will overcome the darkness. Invest in biblical clarity today at pointofview.net,

[01:33:05] or call 1-800-347-5151. Pointofview.net, and 800-347-5151. Point of View is produced by Point of View Ministries.