Point of View July 28, 2026 – Hour 2 : Pray for Justices

[00:00:04] Across America, Live, this is Point of View. Kirby Anderson.

[00:00:19] Take an hour today, we're going to spend some time first of all talking about the need for protection for Supreme Court Justices and the need for us to pray about that. Liberty McCarter has already put together our Pray for America this week and you will be receiving that shortly which again encourage you to pray for the protection of the Supreme Court Justices.

[00:00:37] And we've talked about on this program how rare that has been in the past, but we did post a very good article that was in the Wall Street Journal which again has the title The Price of Politicizing the Supreme Court.

[00:00:53] It's got a picture of Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan and Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett who of course as we talked about she said how difficult it was to even try to explain to her son why she was wearing a bulletproof vest. And this is something that has never really existed before.

[00:01:13] So we thought it would be really good to come back to this conversation that we've had in the past with Philip Perreggie because he not only is an individual that understands the court. Last time we had him on back in May was to talk about his book The Parable of the Prodigal Court. Also there is a very good thing that the Judicial Action Group Foundation has produced on the Supreme Court. So lots of issues to talk about.

[00:01:41] Philip Perreggie again is a lawyer, a prayer leader, an individual who's been very much dedicated to this issue of judicial renewal, but also wanting to bring the court back to God as it was at one time. Something we've talked about in this 250th anniversary of America. So Philip, welcome back to Point of View. Yeah, thank you very much Kirby. It's an honor to be on with you. Let's if we can maybe set the scene.

[00:02:08] When we talked about this the other day in roundtable discussion, we had one person that was younger and two of us that are older and the older ones were saying, look, I cannot remember a time when we even thought that there would be a physical threat to a Supreme Court justice. He says, I remember seeing signs and impeach Earl Warren, things like that. But there was not so long ago, because I used to live in Washington, D.C. when I went to Georgetown University.

[00:02:37] There was not so long ago, really, I guess a few decades, but where you'd go into a restaurant, you could see a Supreme Court justice, you could see a U.S. Senator. There was never a sense that any of those individuals' lives would be threatened. And something has changed dramatically. Can you speak to that? Sure. And I don't know that I could pinpoint it. If you made me pick a day, I would say it was, you know, it was April and May of 2022

[00:03:06] when someone at the U.S. Supreme Court knowingly, intentionally leaked the draft opinion of the Dobbs case to reverse Roe. And but the day that I would say it turned, Kirby, was the day that these protesters, crazy people. I mean, they weren't protesters.

[00:03:26] I mean, the things they were doing were disgusting at the Supreme Court justices' homes with mock blood on their bodies and all sorts of just sick things. And then the attorney general of the United States had a federal law that he was due to enforce that barred protests like this at the homes of Supreme Court justices. Not the offices, the homes of Supreme Court justices.

[00:03:53] And Merrick Garland refused to enforce that law. Again, this was a law, a law that was already on the books. Yes. But that was the day that I think things turned, because what it what it said was the president of the United States and his attorney general was saying these folks are fair game. And following on that, you had the assassination attempt, which we can certainly talk about that as well, because that was significant.

[00:04:18] But I think that's when it turned, because it's when the public got the message from the president of the United States that they were not just OK. They wanted pressure to be brought on these Supreme Court justices at their homes. Well, again, we can in this particular article talk about the swatting attack on Justice Barrett. But let's go back to, of course, Corsage and an individual who was wanting to kill him.

[00:04:47] And of course, more recently, we talked about how there are other reports of an attempt on to assassinate the secretary of treasury and the press didn't cover it. And finally, that's when Scott Bessett said, look, if you even challenge that or question that, you can actually go to the hearing for the sentencing of the man who wanted to kill me. And of course, we've seen the attacks on the president, everything else. So we are dealing with something that is unprecedented.

[00:05:15] Sadly, sometimes there have been attacks on the president. But I really can't ever think of a time in which there was a physical attack on a Supreme Court justice. And we have now multiple examples, don't we? There are. Absolutely. And and by the way, you mentioned Gorsuch. It was Kavanaugh. I know that's who you meant. Oh, just a Kavanaugh. I'm sorry. Yeah, I know. I know.

[00:05:39] They but what was interesting, Kirby, is the guy Nicholas Roski, the assassin who went to Kavanaugh's home, he said he was he was going to kill three. Yes. And, you know, there were already five on record to reverse. And those would have been Thomas Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett. But knowing that he went after Kavanaugh first, my guess, if I had to guess, it would have been that he was going after Gorsuch and Barrett next because they were the three newest members of the court that came to the court. And they were just going to be the best.

[00:06:09] But I mean, I think, you know, the last thing he was going to do, you know, I mean, this is the president's very interesting. And I mean, you know, that's not what he was going after. But we know that's not what he was going to do with us, and I mean, as far as he was going to come.

[00:06:37] It's in all the justices for that matter. But the question of whether she's being threatened, the answer is yes. Because if we go back to, I think it was May. I forget when the assassins showed up at Kavanaugh's home. It was either April or May of 2022. But the very next morning, there was a post on social media by a group that was called, they called themselves Ruth Sentus. Yes.

[00:07:06] At that point, of course, they were referring to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who had passed away. But they said Ruth Sentus. Now, who was it that took Ruth's seat? That would be Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Well, the morning after the assassins showed up at Kavanaugh's home, this group, Ruth Sentus, posted on social media a picture of the school of Amy Coney Barrett's children.

[00:07:34] Now, a lot of people don't know that, but that's a fact. So when we talk about whether these justices are being threatened, the answer is absolutely they are. And there are other instances we could talk about, too, Kirby, just with Amy Coney Barrett. But she's been sent pizzas in the name of a dead federal judge's son who was killed. The same thing has happened to her family members. We talked about the vest.

[00:08:01] We talked recently within the last two months about a swatting that occurred at her home. And, Kirby, maybe you would want to explain that to your listeners, what that is, if they don't know. Well, again, I think that's a good point. And thank you for clarifying that.

[00:08:18] But, again, we think of, of course, one of the challenges that was given both to Kavanaugh and Gorsuch by, of course, the, at this time, minor Supreme Court justice and member of the United States Senate. But let's take a break. We'll come back and explain a little bit more about that as we are encouraging you to pray for the protection of the Supreme Court. Let's take a break. We'll come back with more right after this.

[00:09:00] This is Viewpoints with Kirby Anderson. Have we created life in the laboratory? That was the implication from some of the news stories that declared that scientists have built a cell from scratch. That might be overstating the case a bit, but what was accomplished is significant. A synthetic biologist and professor at the University of Minnesota said she and her team constructed a cell piece by piece from chemical components.

[00:09:27] This very primitive cell does feed and can only reproduce for about five generations. As one biochemist explained, this isn't life created in the lab, but acknowledged it is a genuine milestone on the road towards that question. This cell is quite primitive and merely composed of 150 to 200 molecules. The normal simple cell has millions of molecules. In a sense, it is a foundation for what one scientist called a chassis that future advances can build upon.

[00:09:55] Now, you might wonder if this synthetic cell poses any danger. It does not seem to pose any biosafety risk and could not be used in its current form to be used as a biological weapon. But further scrutiny is warranted given our history of what can escape from a biolab. You know, when I speak on intelligent design, I often show a cartoon of an Albert Einstein-looking scientist who proclaims, if I can just synthesize life in the laboratory, then I will have proven that no intelligence was necessary to form life in the beginning.

[00:10:25] My audience usually gets the joke. The fact that scientists have been working decades to eventually create even such a primitive cell provides proof that random chemicals in a prebiotic soup did not produce life. Rather, it provides compelling evidence for design and a designer. I'm Kirby Anderson, and that's my point of view.

[00:10:49] Go deeper on topics like you just heard by visiting pointofview.net. That's pointofview.net. You're listening to Point of View, your listener-supported source for truth. Back once again with Phil Perigie, and let me again talk about the article that we've posted, because some of this may have come fast and furious,

[00:11:13] and you can read about the fact that the request that came from Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan was for additional funding for additional security agents. And then, one of the things that amazes me, they also were looking for 25 more officers for security at the court, and then even a command post to coordinate assignments and protection. You might say, why is that? Well, as we were talking about just a minute ago, there was a swatting attack.

[00:11:43] Now, what is that? Well, that's where there's a fake disturbance call that goes to the local police, usually District of Columbia or Virginia police, depending on where that might take place, or it could be in Maryland as well. And so then they send law enforcement there. Well, because we have individuals already protecting Amy Coney Barrett, they could at least say, no, that was a fake charge. That was a fake swatting attack. But then, as you also pointed out, Philip, just a minute ago,

[00:12:11] sometimes there were deliveries which would arrive in the name of the federal judge, Esther Salas' son, who was shot in 2020 by a gunman posing as a delivery driver. And, of course, we already mentioned the individual in 2022 wanting to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh. And if you tie that into the two that I pulled together,

[00:12:37] many of us remember a time when Chuck Schumer, Senate Minority Leader, declared that Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch had released the whirlwind and will pay the price. And so, in some respects, you can see what might have been in the mind of that individual that wanted to assassinate these individuals. And it just underscores the reason why, number one, they want more security. And also, number two, why I know, Philip, you and your organization and our organization

[00:13:07] are encouraging our listeners to pray for the protection of the Supreme Court justices. Absolutely. And I read recently an article from a site that I agree with them 95 percent of the time, but they were commenting on this and they were referring in particular to Justice Barrett. And they said, you know, they shouldn't have more security. They ought to just have to deal with the world that they're creating with their opinions.

[00:13:35] And I just completely disagree with that. I think there's frustration with some of Barrett's votes. And I would love Kirby to provide some context of the big picture on that. But it's not conservatives who are frustrated with Barrett and Gorsuch and Kavanaugh that are threatening to kill them. It's the left who's doing that. And so, if anything, as conservatives and constitutionalists, we should say, no,

[00:14:01] we want not just conservative justices protected, but all of them, you know. We don't need people showing up threatening to kill them. That's not how we operate. We're children of the Lord. That's not how Jesus would have us to go about this. And so, we want security for the justices to protect them. This weekend, since you wanted to give us some context, mentioned that this resource, which I just received, and I think it is just, again, outstanding.

[00:14:29] We have a couple of different links to JAGF, which is one of the links that we provide. We also provide a link to one of the other resources there as well. So, we give you a couple of different ways to look at the Supreme Court. But you've got this summary of the 2025-2026 Supreme Court cases. And these are 14 of them.

[00:14:55] And anybody that thinks that the court is always ruling in favor of Donald Trump just needs to look at the one loss ratio there. It is not what you would believe. And yet, at the same time, there have been some very significant cases before the Supreme Court. And it's another reason why you're challenging people through the organization, the Judicial Action Group, and the Judicial Action Foundation, to actually pray for the Supreme Court.

[00:15:26] Yes. And then for people also to be encouraged, because it may be that there are two cases that go the wrong way over a year's time, and people hear about those, and they get frustrated, and they should be concerned, rightly so, about losses that we have. But, guys, let me tell you, there was an era for about 60 years, from 1962 to 2022,

[00:15:53] where we were consistently not just losing, but it was getting worse and worse and worse and worse on social conservative cases. And now we're winning every one of those. There are some cases dealing with presidential power that I don't like how the rulings went. But there was a day when every case dealing with the LGBT agenda, we would lose it. And the left would come back two or three years later with even a crazier case, and we would lose it.

[00:16:23] And this happened consistently. Well, that's not happening anymore. And so I think it's important that as we pray for the court that we not have a wrong perspective and just say, you know, all is lost, it's horrible, I don't even want to pray for them anymore. That's exactly what the enemy would like. We need to have the perspective of seeing the court like the prodigal son. He's done a lot that's wrong, but I think the boy is on his way home.

[00:16:50] And if we look at the court, they're not home yet, but they've made a lot of progress, guys. And we can't get frustrated when they take two steps forward and one back. We need to acknowledge the mistakes, but we need to keep praying because over the course of the last five years, it is absolutely miraculous what we've seen. Again, let me commend to everyone your book, The Parable of the Prodigal Court, your invitation to shift a nation back to God.

[00:17:19] Of course, you can also go back to the interview we did on the book for an entire hour in May. But I also might just say that if you get this Supreme Court summary, for those of you watching online, I'll hold it up here, and the green are agreeing with those particular decisions. You'll see that there are a number of Supreme Court justices that everything is in green, and then a couple where most of it is in green. And you can always depend on the fact that Kadanji Brown Jackson is always in the red.

[00:17:50] And most of the time, Sotomayor and Kagan are in the red, but even sometimes those are in the green. But this is a remarkable turnaround. And you and I are old enough to remember a time when we seem to be losing every single one of these key cases. And things have changed dramatically, including the conversation we're going to have this Friday when we talk with Kelly Shackelford about the whole issue of religious liberty. And we have the Religious Liberty Commission.

[00:18:17] We have all sorts of various edicts going down through the federal government. We have some of these very important cases that have been won. And that's why I just encourage people to find out a little bit more about the Judicial Action Group Foundation, which, again, Libby was the first one to kind of tell me about your organization. And then, of course, I read your excellent book. But talk for just a minute before we let you go about how people can join with you,

[00:18:44] because we have links on our website, and I would encourage people to do what they can to support your organization. Yeah, thank you very much, Kirby. And, yeah, we do thank Libby for making the introduction. And you mentioned Kelly Shackelford. He's a hero. I love Kelly. They have a great organization. But at Judicial Action Group, guys, we'd love to have your help. And one thing I would encourage you to do, there is a resource on there that Kirby just described. It's the graph showing Supreme Court cases.

[00:19:14] And the votes of the justices. You can find that by going to JAGF, or JAGFoundation.org, and then click on the News tab. And then the top story that you see will be that graph. It's just a great resource for folks to see it. Share it with your friends. Or if you have a prayer group, if you pray for our country, print that off and take it and show it to them. It's a great resource.

[00:19:41] So that's something we'd love to give to your listeners to check that out. And then when you go to the website, too, if you would, guys, just register your email. We're not going to sell it. It doesn't cost you anything. But we do have an insider report where we send out information. We tell you about our events. Oh, by the way, quick on that, Kirby. We're having a national consecration of our courts gathering on October 5th at the Museum of the Bible. Judge James Ho from Texas will be there.

[00:20:12] Dutch Sheets and some others. So that will be a great event. People ought to sign up for that and join us. Let me just mention again to go to JAGF.org. First of all, you'll see the consecration thing at the Museum of the Bible. Scroll down because I know some of you do scroll all the way down. You'll find one that says News. Hit Read More. Then you'll see the same chart I just held up. Scroll down a little bit further, and there's a place for you to sign up the newsletter.

[00:20:38] So as long as you make your way down the website, you'll find some of the things that Philip is talking about. Philip, I've always enjoyed our conversations. Look forward to the next opportunity, and thank you for joining us today here on Point of View. It's my honor. Thanks a ton, Kirby. Again, this can be found at the Judicial Action Group Foundation. And, again, as you go there, scroll down enough so that you can find the news section. That's where you'll see the graph.

[00:21:06] And I think it'll be really encouraging to you to see all the green that is there. And then, again, if you want to sign up for the newsletter for their organization, just scroll down a little bit further, and there you are. Well, we've got some Democratic Socialists. We need to talk about that, and we will do so right after this.

[00:21:33] Many years ago, they began saying that we live in the information age. Well, today, there is so much information coming at us from every direction. The hardest thing is to discern which issues are really important, and how can I make a positive impact without wasting my time trying to figure out accurate information. Let me give you a suggestion to help with that. Visit pointofview.net. Look at the tabs across the top.

[00:22:02] Find the one named Viewpoints. Kirby Anderson and others on our team are constantly watching for news to identify those issues that you really need to know about. They boil things down in a brief summary, and then you can decide if it's something on which you want to learn more and get involved. Again, when you go to pointofview.net, click on Viewpoints, you'll see exactly what I mean.

[00:22:26] You'll see the issues that we are covering right now, and when you like what you see, I honestly think you will, you can slide on over, enter your email, and get them automatically sent to your inbox each day. That's it. Take a minute now. Be informed. Pointofview.net. Click on Viewpoints. Point of View will continue after this.

[00:22:53] 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. This is where we can spend just a little bit more time talking about socialism. We'll get back into some of that again tomorrow.

[00:23:22] Some very good material that I've already decided to post for our conversation on Wednesday. And, by the way, I might just mention for tomorrow, we'll also get into this whole idea of digital surveillance. We have done a booklet on digital surveillance. We've also done a more recent one, which is actually entitled The Weaponization of Intelligence.

[00:23:43] And one of the members of Congress has actually written what's called the Privacy Act to begin to reevaluate and maybe even take down some of these flock cameras, some of the digital surveillance that is taking place. So we will get into one of the issues we've talked about here on Point of View over the years. So I hope you can tune in then. But let's, if we can, get back to socialism and what some people would say should be called communism.

[00:24:12] And I think this piece by Charles Cook is really helpful because Charles Cook, if you don't know, we've quoted him before, is from Great Britain. So he's got a little bit more of a British personality, maybe a little more hesitant. And you wouldn't pick that up necessarily by what he writes because he talks about the fact that some people are saying, you know, we need to avoid the Red Scare. Now, what do we mean the Red Scare? Well, from about 1947 to the 1950s, you had a man by the name of Joseph McCarthy.

[00:24:42] And I think on the one hand was legitimately talking about the influence of communism into various agendas and into different venues around the country. Many people argue that he went overboard. There are some others that have been trying to defend him. But the bottom line is, is that this has been used as a say, anytime you talk about somebody as a communist, well, we're back to the Red Scare. So Charles Cook, again, a student of history, understands that.

[00:25:12] And he says, OK, maybe we should be careful about that. But but he still says, and this is, again, surprising that the appropriate name for the Democratic Socialists of America, he says, is Red because he says they're communists. They are Jacobins, which goes back to the French Revolution. They are wreckers and despoilers and iconoclasts who, if left unchecked, would wipe the United States off the face of the earth.

[00:25:39] Now, he says, why do I say that? Because of the very honest statements by the co-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America, who is Megan Romer. And she was on television with Shannon Bream. Now, I've got a commentary coming out next week. I've already recorded it.

[00:25:58] And after I recorded it, and even as I was, I thought, OK, I did quote some of the articles that have come out, including one by Karl Rove. But I added to it a link to a piece that came out by Scott McClellan. I could even add this one that we're talking about today, because some people will argue.

[00:26:23] Well, yes, I know that the Democratic Socialists of America platform says this, but do they really mean that? Is that just maybe hyperbole? And this is where, again, kudos to the Fox News host Shannon Bream to go down the list and ask, do you agree with that? And so she asked, for example, abolish the Senate. Megan Romer says true.

[00:26:50] OK, replace the presidency and the Supreme Court as we know them. Romer. Yep. Shannon Bream, abolish ICE. Again, Romer. Absolutely. Shannon Bream, abolish borders and give amnesty to anyone currently in the United States illegally. Well, Megan Romer says, well, as a long-term plan. Yep. Defund the Pentagon. Romer, absolutely. Absolutely.

[00:27:19] Shannon Bream, abolish prisons, at least in large part. Again, Megan Romer. Yeah, again, as part of a long-term program. OK, so no prisons, government, public ownership of most corporations. Again, Megan Romer, absolutely. OK, so this establishes for any fair-minded individual. This is the end game. This is the goal. You can look at the platform and say, yeah, well, they probably don't believe all that. These are like campaign promises.

[00:27:49] Sometimes used to say campaign promises are like a pie crust meant to be broken. OK. Nope. They're really committed to this. And that's where then Charles Cook goes on to say, one must award Megan Romer credit for her thoughtfulness, for despite her casual tone, she managed in a space of a minute to demand. Are you ready for this?

[00:28:13] The abolition of every load-bearing structure in America to abolish the Senate is not only, in effect, to abolish the states, but given the Senate is the only unamendable part of the contemporary Constitution, it is to abolish the Union, too. To abolish the Supreme Court is to abolish the rule of law. To abolish our borders and our military is to abolish our sovereignty.

[00:28:39] To abolish prisons is to abolish ordered liberty. And to abolish private property is to abolish our economy. That is at least an ethos. Are you with me on this? So, he goes on to say, the American system of government is built on top of the presupposition that the government exists to secure the national rights of the people and little else besides.

[00:29:06] The DSA, or the Democratic Socialists of America's vision, represents a perfect immersion of this premise. Romer and her friends want to shirk all the basic responsibilities of the state, national defense, territorial integrity, policing, protection of individual liberty, while micromanaging all the private tasks that have traditionally been the preserve of civil society.

[00:29:32] So, again, he goes into what that might mean, and we've talked about that before. But he then recognizes that if you want to put some of this in perspective, maybe you need to go back to our founding 250 years ago. And he says, interestingly enough, commenting on the American character a year before the revolution, Edmund Burke praised the colonists. And Edmund Burke, of course, wrote some very famous works, one of which, of course, we quote quite often.

[00:30:02] But praised the colonists for their foresight. In other words, he wrote, the people, more simple and of a less mercurial cask, judge of all ill principle of government only in actual grievance. But he says in America, he proposed, they anticipate the evil, judge the pressure of the grievance by the badness of the principle.

[00:30:25] And the result is they augur misgovernment at a distance and snuff the approach of tyranny at every tainted breeze. Okay, sometimes hard to read 18th century literature, but there you are. And what Charles Cook says in light of that is, Megan Romer, vice president of, vice chair, if you will, of the Democratic Socialist America, Megan Romer is a tyrant.

[00:30:52] And the ideas she is advancing are infinitely more tyrannical than anything King George III or his parliament could have concocted in a month of Sundays. It would indeed be preferable if we did not have to deal with communists in the United States. But we do not have the luxury at present. We need not wait for the change before objecting to the forge.

[00:31:18] It's a good piece, but it's just a reminder again that the Democratic Socialists of America want to abolish America. And so it's just a great reminder that, yes, this is what they say, and yes, this is what they mean. Well, we're going to take a break, but just before we do so, let me just mention that if you scroll down on our website, we've encouraged you to do so so that you can find out more about the Judicial Action Group and the Judicial Action Group Foundation.

[00:31:45] If you scroll down a little bit further, of course, you will see our action item. But just before we get there, the Viewpoints commentary today is on life in the lab. And I think it's a great opportunity to recognize that there has been a remarkable breakthrough at the University of Minnesota where a synthetic biologist and her team have been able to create a cell by taking various chemical components

[00:32:13] and actually getting it to reproduce itself. Now, it doesn't last very long. It can only reproduce itself after about five generations. But, hey, it's not exactly life created in the laboratory, but it's a significant milestone. It's only got 150, maybe 200 molecules. Simple cells usually have millions of molecules, so we are not anywhere close. But I think it does bring us back to something I mentioned in the first hour.

[00:32:43] And that is, when you think about this, this is a great argument for intelligent design. Because I oftentimes, when I speak on the subject of intelligent design, have this cartoon character on this screen that looks sort of like Albert Einstein. But this Albert Einstein-looking scientist says, if I can just synthesize life in the laboratory, then I've proven that no intelligence was necessary to form it in the beginning.

[00:33:12] Well, most people get the joke. And the fact that scientists have been working decades upon decades upon decades to create even a primitive cell that actually does not reproduce after five generations and really is pretty puny indeed, it illustrates, again, a powerful argument, I think, for intelligent design. Let's take a break. We'll come back and talk about the subject of Islam.

[00:33:40] That's something John Stonestreet and Glenn Sunshine have written about. We'll be right back. You're listening to Point of View. Your listener-supported source for truth. Back for a few more minutes, if I could, for just a few minutes, talk about the subject of Islam.

[00:34:09] And it is always difficult to kind of sort through because if you talk about, as I do in one of the books that I published years ago on Islam and what it believes and how we can witness to it, it looks like we're maybe minimizing the danger of Islam. And sometimes if somebody says, well, you're minimizing the danger, I point them to my book on Islam and terrorism. Or in some of the booklets, we have a booklet on, again, witnessing to Muslims,

[00:34:38] but also have a booklet on Sharia law. So there are extremes that people fall into. But one of the extremes that John Stonestreet and Glenn Sunshine are addressing is this. Recently, they say a handful of popular podcasters, some of the people we've quoted even on this program before, have claimed that the Islamic regimes are historically very kind towards Christians.

[00:35:02] And they point out that those who make this claim are either willfully ignorant or advancing an agenda because they say the historic record is not ambiguous. Just in case you're not familiar, John Stonestreet is, of course, the voice of Breakpoint. He's with, of course, the Colson Center. He is an individual that worked with Chuck Colson until Chuck Colson passed on.

[00:35:26] Glenn Sunshine, Dr. Glenn Sunshine, is a professor of a university in Connecticut. I've actually interacted with him many times. I've actually preached in his church. He has been very associated with the Colson Center. As a matter of fact, one of our booklets is, in a sense, just kind of a summary of his book on history and worldview, kind of like what I sometimes say, some of our booklets are like the Cliff Notes version of some of these books.

[00:35:54] So these are two individuals that know a lot about the topic, and they give us the facts. So what are the facts? They said, for example, the claims that relations between Islam and the Christian world were peaceful for 500 years until the First Crusade, 1099, for example, are false. Muhammad died in 632, and by 732, that's 100 years later,

[00:36:21] Islam had taken the Holy Land, North Africa, from the Christian Byzantine Empire. They had conquered Spain, advanced into France, just a few hundred miles from Paris. If you ever heard me speak on the subject of Islam, I've got the map, and I show the Muslim army going to the east, but especially the Muslim army coming out of the Arabian Peninsula, taking all of North Africa, all of Spain, which becomes Moorish Spain.

[00:36:50] And if we were not the defeat of the Muslim army at the hands of Charles Martel, probably would have taken all of Europe. So that's 100 years of an incredible jihad against the West, okay, against Christianity. After taking additional land in southern France and establishing bases in the Alps, then Muslims launched raids into Germany.

[00:37:15] They also sacked the outskirts of Rome, took control of Sicily. And so really, by 1071, they had defeated the Byzantines and took control of most modern Turkey. 24 years later, that's when the Byzantine Empire asked the Pope for what essentially was the First Crusade. By the way, in both my books, I have a chapter on the Crusades. You ask people, sometimes they'll say, well, what about the Crusades? They go, what about them?

[00:37:43] You know, the first or the second, which one are you talking about? And they go, well, no, I'm just, it's just a line, you know, the Crusades. They have never even studied that. But if you'd like to know that, that's the case. Okay, what happens in those countries? And what happened when those countries and those territories were actually managed by Muslims? Well, Christians in these conquered territories were treated as dimmies.

[00:38:08] This was called dimitude, and they were second-class citizens who were required to pay a tax called the jizra. The jizra was a special tax, but it was also a sign of submission, which was accompanied with certain kinds of humiliations. If you failed to pay that tax, it could mean death or enslavement, maybe even the destruction of a church building.

[00:38:35] Yes, some churches were allowed to stand, but they could not ring the bells. You could not even be praying aloud in your own home if it was in the earsaut of a Muslim. There was all sorts of threats there as well, but they then go on to explain something else.

[00:38:55] Because then the claim is oftentimes made that Muslim rulers protected the holy sites of Christians and repaired them when they were damaged. Well, again, John Stone Street and Glenn Sunshine say nothing could be further from the truth. Typically, important Christian holy sites were converted to mosques to show the victory of Islam. You can think of, of course, Istanbul as a great example.

[00:39:24] The largest church in Christendom fell to the Turks, and it, of course, has been a mosque ever since. Now, some might point to, if you've ever been to Israel, well, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, and that is one of the exceptions, but there's a very good reason for that. The Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem actually was allowed to stand because it was a major site for pilgrims going to the Holy Land,

[00:39:52] and thus it generated revenue for the Caliph. But eventually, in 1009-1009, Caliph Hakim destroyed it, and it lay in ruins until the Byzantines were able to actually rebuild it years later. Even in the Ottoman Empire, there are some that claim that they were kind to Christian boys, but many of those were taken from the homes.

[00:40:20] And then sometimes you have, of course, the slave markets. Girls were oftentimes taken as slaves or in harems. Of course, some of the greatest Muslim violence was against the Armenians, the Assyrians, the Greek genocides, all of that, which took place under the Ottoman Empire. And as we, I think, have pointed out on this program many times before, this same kind of violence continues to this day.

[00:40:48] You can think of the abductions, the forced marriages, the murders, arson of churches, the oppression of Christians in places like Pakistan and Egypt, increasingly in Europe. There is a prohibition of churches in many Muslim countries, Saudi Arabia, many other Muslim countries. And then one of the things we've talked about so often is just this horrific slaughter of Christians

[00:41:17] by the Muslims in Nigeria and in other places in Africa. So, nothing else. John Stone Street and Glenn Sunshine end with this. No, Islam has not been kind to Christians. The only reason to make this claim is to make the occasional anti-Christian acts of Israelis look worse. But there's no comparison. Christians in Israel have more rights and freedoms than any other Muslim country,

[00:41:45] and especially in history, to claim otherwise is to ignore reality. So, if you've heard some of these statements, some of these conspiracy theories and the rest, this is a very good antidote to that. It's one of the articles we've posted for you to read. But, of course, you can also go to Breakpoint and find it there as well. A great resource as well. Simply go to thecolsoncenter.org for some of that information. And, again, had John Stone Street on many times.

[00:42:15] As a matter of fact, I'm just thinking next time we have one of our Truth Team weeks, we need to get him on again just to have him talk about the impact that Point of View is making and how we have always worked with the Colson Center all these years to advance the gospel and to make sure that people are thinking biblically about every area of life. First hour today, we've talked about how to defend a biblical worldview. Second hour, we've talked about the importance of knowing how to articulate a biblical worldview.

[00:42:44] So I hope you'll go to the website, pointofview.net, and find some of that information, which we make available to you every single day. As always, I want to thank Megan for her help engineering the program. Derek, thank you for producing the program. And I look forward to seeing you tomorrow on our Wednesday program of Point of View. We're going to be covering some really important topics. We'll see you then right here on Point of View.

[00:43:13] 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. 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.

[00:43:41] 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. 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.

[00:44:07] But together, with God's help, we will overcome the darkness. Invest in biblical clarity today at pointofview.net or call 1-800-347-5151. Point of View.net and 800-347-5151. Point of View is produced by Point of View Ministries.