Inalienable Rights, “Right” Vs. “Left, And More – On Foundations Of Freedom: Should the states have the option to disregard inalienable rights? Why do we use the terms “right” and “left” for political parties? Why do we need compassion AND discipline in our policies? Plus what is one 4 year-old asking about the White House? Tune in to hear the important answers to these questions and more on today’s Foundations of Freedom program!

Air Date: 06/23/2022

Guest: Rabbi Daniel Lapin

On-air Personalities: David Barton, Rick Green, and Tim Barton


Listen:

Download: Click Here

Transcription note:  As a courtesy for our listeners’ enjoyment, we are providing a transcription of this podcast. Transcription will be released shortly. However, as this is transcribed from a live talk show, words and sentence structure were not altered to fit grammatical, written norms in order to preserve the integrity of the actual dialogue between the speakers. Additionally, names may be misspelled or we might use an asterisk to indicate a missing word because of the difficulty in understanding the speaker at times. We apologize in advance.

Faith and the Culture

Rick:

This is the intersection of faith and the culture. It’s WallBuilders Live. Thanks so much for joining us today. My name is Rick Green. 

I’m a former Texas legislator and America’s Constitution coach. And I’m here with David Barton and Tim Barton. If you’re not familiar with WallBuilders, check it out at WallBuilders.com. David started WallBuilders years ago to rebuild the walls, literally right out of the scripture in Nehemiah, arise and rebuild the walls that we may no longer be a reproach.

Now the walls back then were literal physical walls that protected the city, that allowed you to be able to thrive and have freedom. The foundation is what needs to be rebuilt today. And that’s what WallBuilders does. We bring back the foundational principles that make a nation great. They’re biblical principles and if you apply them, if you’re truly salt and light, then everyone benefits the entire community, state and nation.

David Barton is America’s premier historian and we appreciate him as our founder here at WallBuilders. Tim Barton is a national speaker and pastor and president of WallBuilders. And we appreciate him too. I love both these guys. It’s a privilege to get to serve with both of you. It may sound a little different today. 

They’re actually at the American Journey Summer Institute. So people have come in from all over the nation. They’re getting a chance to learn right there with David and Tim at the American Journey Experience and getting to hold documents and see the museum and learn all day long. Phenomenal, phenomenal program.

Not too late for you to get there this week with David and Tim. But there’s another opportunity. Get this, July 18th-22nd, just imagine your chance to spend all week, all day, every day throughout that week with David and Tim and Glenn Beck and all these other people coming through to teach and train and just the experience with all these documents and everything. It’s amazing.

Enumerated Powers

So go to our website at wallbuilders.com today. If you go up under initiatives in the top right of the page, you can click on the American Journey Summer Institute, and it is a great opportunity for you. So check it out and you can learn more at our website today, wallbuilders.com.

Alright, David and Tim, let’s get into those questions, first one is coming out of Minnesota. I don’t know. I didn’t even say that close to, right. But out of Minnesota, Steve has sent in this question for us.

He said, “Thanks so much for what you do. I listen every day and I’m a Constitution coach and love the courses. I have a question about the upcoming Roe v. Wade decision. I keep hearing many conservative commentators were talking about what will happen if Roe v Wade is overturned.

Talk about how it will “go back to the states where it should be”, of course, they’re correct, it will return the decision back to the states. But I don’t necessarily agree with where it should be part. I understand it is not an enumerated power given to the federal government by the Constitution to specifically decide this issue. 

But it seems to me no different than an issue such as slavery. Most everyone would agree these days that slavery isn’t a states’ rights issue like they claimed in the Civil War era. Life is an inalienable right. So in my mind, man, government should have no authority over the right to it and should be protected by the Constitution. 

Would it take an amendment such as we did for slavery to actually define it and secure that protection for the unborn? I appreciate the step in the right direction. I feel like many conservatives are content with putting the decision back to the states and I don’t think that’s the end game. Am I off base? I appreciate your insight. Thanks for all you do.”

Well, Steve, thanks for sitting in. Very, very good question, guys. I think, man, this is a discussion around the dinner table for a lot of families and certainly a discussion around the fire on the porch for our family. I think it’s a legit conversation and lots of good stuff to get into. So what do you guys think? Well, assuming Roe v. Wade is overturned and it goes back to the states, should it stop there and just let the states decide?

Inalienable Rights

Tim:

Well, like I definitely agree with the premise that the Founding Fathers were very clear that the first of the inalienable rights were the right to right, that is literally verbiage from their writings of the first of the inalienable rights is a right to life. So the idea that a state could have the option to disregard someone’s inalienable right or the first inalienable right being the right to life seems ridiculous. We’ve talked about this before the idea that you could have a state say, well, we don’t think murder is illegal in our state.

Murder can be legal here in California or in New Mexico or in Colorado. It would be crazy. Murder is not a state’s rights issue, even though the Constitution doesn’t explicitly say thou shalt not murder. That was Ten Commandments, not the Constitution. However, I do think it probably would fall to the area of the Constitution Amendment. 

Because guys, at the time we’re recording this, when this comes out on Thursday morning to this point, we have not heard anything from the US Supreme Court dealing with Roe v. Wade, which really dealing with the Dobbs decision that we suspect will include something related to Roe v. Wade.

So as we’re having this conversation right now to this point, we don’t know anything from the Supreme Court about what direction it’s going to go. We largely suspect that it will have implications with Roe v. Wade, they probably will send things back to the states. But it really shouldn’t be, in my estimation, a state’s rights issue just like murder is not a state’s rights issue. However, to get the states on board, I think you do have some states that are so radical in their philosophy that it would take a constitutional amendment.

And so when there are some conservatives saying, yes, let’s get it back to the states, it should be a state’s rights issue. Fundamentally, it shouldn’t be a state’s rights issue. But what is clear is this, also is not something that the federal government or the US Supreme Court has power to say, what they did back in 1973 in Roe v. Wade that this is a constitutional issue. It’s clearly not a federal issue that they can control.

Like the Rebuilding of the Temple

But also, at the same time, these inalienable rights not to mention either, to get places like California or New York or some of these states in the right position, I do think it’s going to take a constitutional amendment and that is definitely going be an uphill battle.

David:

I think there’s a couple things go on here. I mean, number one, if we’ve had this discussion back in the 1940s, this wouldn’t have been a discussion. Everybody knew that life was inalienable right and we’re going to protect it. So there’s not a state’s rights kind of issue that would have been there in the 30s, 40s, whatever. 

But when you jump to 1973, in 1973, the Supreme Court says we’re going to take full control of this issue. We don’t care what the states say. We don’t care what anybody says. We don’t think there’s inalienable right to life for anybody, state or anybody else. So it has been a federal issue for now 50 years.

And in that 50 years, you’ve got a lot of people born. They’ve gone through what would be considered parts of three full generations, Gen X, Gen Y, Gen Z in that period of time and you’re thinking is very different. I think where we are now is when I look back in the Bible and they rebuilt the temple, the temple was there, got torn down by the Romans, they rebuilt it later. And it said that when the temple was rebuilt, all the old guys were crying and all the young guys were cheering and rejoicing they had a temple. I think that’s where it is now.

You know, somebody with my white hair is going to look back and say, I can’t believe the Supreme Court gave it back to the states. That means 23, 24 states that going to allow abortion. But then the younger guys are going to go, wow, we’ve had abortion in all 50 states for the last number of years, now it’s down to only 23 states. They’re going to see that as a real victory in the life that they’ve had because they know nothing about abortion on demand their whole lives. So I think it really has a generational perspective here.

The Right to Life

And I think that had it been back again in the 40s we wouldn’t be having this discussion because everybody knew that life was the first of the inalienable rights. So I think that where we are now is as good as you’re going to get. I think if the court came out and said we’re going back to inalienable right original intent, you literally would have a lot more than just the violence that we think is going to happen; you’d have an insurrection going on.

So, for having let the Pandora’s box be opened and let the stuff get out, this is probably as good as you’re going to get considering that you got a whole bunch of generations with different thinking and different generations.  

Rick:

Yeah. And you know, guys, we of course, we talk about this a little bit in our Constitution classes, but there’s the ideal where we’d like to be exactly as David saying if we could go back to the 40s and reframe this issue and really stand by the 14th Amendment that states can’t deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, and of course, life being that protection. But the ideal is almost impossible right now. It’s just not politically feasible.

And so, Steve, you’re thinking right in your question in terms of the principles and in terms of where we would like to be. But politically right now, it’d be virtually impossible to get a constitutional amendment on that. There was a little bit of a push on this from saying that a congressional act because that 14th Amendment clause says that you can enforce “by appropriate legislation” or something to that effect, that Congress can pass appropriate legislation to enforce the provisions of the article.

And so I think it was Jesse Helms maybe in the 80s that kind of pushed for that and then there were others that tossed it out a little bit in presidential races over the years. But I just can’t see that. I think you’re right, David. I think that creates a just mayhem honestly in the country. And some would say, well, but you need to do it anyway, maybe at some point in the future. But right now, I mean, this is a huge victory for now, a huge step in the right direction and then we’ll see where that next step should be down the road.

YouNeedA Rabbi.com

But, Steve, you’re thinking right, we just got to be strategic and tactical about how we get there from here. Quick break, we’ve got some more questions coming up for you. Actually, after we come back from the break, Rabbi Lapin is going to answer a question for us. So we’ve got a question. We’re bringing in the Rabbi. 

You know, everybody needs a rabbi. Youneedarabbi.com is the website, if you want to go learn about Rabbi Daniel Lapin. But this next question, we’re going to let the Rabbi answer. And then after the Rabbi’s done, we’ll get to some more of your questions for David and Tim. Stay with us, folks, you’re listening to WallBuilders Live. It’s Foundations of Freedom Thursday.

AMERICAN HISTORY

This is Tim Barton from WallBuilders with another moment from American history. Many today assert that religion is something private, that has no place in the public square and that it is incompatible with government. But the Founding Fathers believed exactly the opposite. They held that religion was absolutely necessary in order to maintain our free system of government.

For example, John Adams declared, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.” And signer of the Declaration, Benjamin Rush similarly affirmed “Without religion, there can be no virtue; and without virtue there can be no liberty; and liberty is the object and life of all Republican governments.” The Founding Fathers understood that limited government required public morality from the people and that public morality was produced by the Christian religion.

For more information about the Founding Fathers views on religion and public life, go to wallbuilders.com.

PATRIOT ACADEMY

Have you noticed the vacuum of leadership in America? We’re looking around for leaders of principle to step up and too often, no one is there. God is raising up a generation of young leaders with a passion for impacting the world around them. They’re crying out for the mentorship and leadership training they need.

Patriot Academy was created to meet that need. Patriot Academy graduates now serve in state capitals around America in the halls of Congress, in business, in the film industry, in the pulpit and every area of the culture. They’re leading effectively and impacting the world around them. Patriot Academy is now expanding across the nation and now’s your chance to experience this life changing week that trains champions to change the world.

Visit patriotacademy.com for dates and locations. Our core program is still for young leaders 16 to 25 years old, but we also now have a citizen track for adults, so visit the website today to learn more. Help us fill the void of leadership in America. Join us in training champions to change the world at patriotacademy.com

Rick:

Welcome back to WallBuilders Live. Always good to have Rabbi Daniel Lapin with us. And by the way, you need a Rabbi just like all of us do. Be sure and visit his website today. We will have links at wallbuilderlive.com. Rabbi, thank you so much for some time this afternoon.

Rabbi:

It’s great to be with you again.

“Right” Vs. “Left”

Rick:

Well, we got a question that immediately David said, we need the Rabbi for this question. Here’s the question. They said “Hi, WallBuilders, recently on a good news Friday program. You mentioned some former leftist are leaning right because the Left is leaning so far left these days. So I was wondering when and where and from whom did these terms, right and left, originate from? 

I’ve heard these terms for years in U.S. politics, and it’s like a light bulb turned on that it sounds familiar. But did they come from the Bible? When God separates the sheep from goats to His right hand and His left hand? Where did this stuff come from? Great question. Rabbi, what say you?

Rabbi:

Yeah. Well, in conventional politics, the term came from the French National Assembly. And the French National Assembly after the French Revolution, and actually in the time leading up to it as well, tended to seat people so that the aristocracy, the traditionalists and the church clerics all sat on their rights and then, if you like, the socialists sat on the left.

Rick:

So they literally sat right or left depending on?

Rabbi:

Exactly. It was a duel house set up. And you had both the two warring factions which sort of resulted in many, many, many years of suffering for France was essentially the old traditional church based system and then the revolutionaries who literally dismantled everything just as they always do. So from then onwards, we’ve sort of said, okay, the conservative people are on the right and the people who are socialist-like, liberals, progressives, whatever you can name them, whatever you like, all the way to communists are on the left. That’s how it was done.

The French National Assembly

And the reason you could ask, well, where did the French National Assembly get it from? And the answer is very simple. They got it from the Book of Ecclesiastes is by Solomon The Wise at chapter 10 verse 1: the heart of the wise inclines towards the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.

Rick:

Wow, that’s pretty clear.

Rabbi:

And so it’s really it’s really very, very clear indeed. And all we’ve got to do is just take a look and see what the Left is doing to the United States of America right now to see that they are fools. You know, there’s no question about it. And they’re not mad because they are following a system that is coherent in its own right. They’re following a system that is rooted in the fundamental principle that the reason human beings are on this remote planet, at the edge of a far off galaxy, is because of a lengthy process of unaided materialistic evolution.

And everything in left-ward thinking, whether it’s the shutting down of the Keystone pipeline or eroding distinctions between men and women, all of that flows from that fundamental belief system as to how human beings originated on this planet. And then the heart of the Wise inclines to the right. And the Wise is the person who says that the reason people are on this planet is because the good Lord created us in His image and He put us here. And those, of course, are the only two possible ways of answering the question how did human beings arrive on this planet?

The Wise and The Fools

Rick:

I’m wondering, Rabbi, does the language there, for fool and wise, does it have anything at all to do with logic or emotion or any of that? Because it seems like when you do lean to the left and you’re foolish, it’s all emotion and you don’t think consequences through and you don’t see the unintended consequences of your policy. When you’re on the right and you’re being wise, those policies are usually, the reason they’re better is because you’re thinking it through and you’re using logic and it’s not emotion driven. And is that just an outcome or is that somewhat on the meaning of those words by any chance?

Rabbi:

No, you’re exactly right. It is part of it. And it also ties into the phrase and numbers, “do not turn astray off to your eyes and off to your heart.” And that, again, is the emotional. And, of course, what those whose hearts are inclined to the right understand is that life means walking a tightrope, a delicate balance between discipline, structure and order on the one hand, and compassion and softness on the other.

And one of the things that liberalism does is throws discipline, structure and order out of the window and they cling just to compassion. So this is one of the reasons, of course, that the Left hates men. The Left boosts women and women thinking. Anything men do is toxic. And that’s because what men bring to the family is the order, the structure and the discipline. And what mom brings to the family is the gentleness and compassion, which is why every kid since the beginning of time, when they stumble and graze their knee call out mommy, not daddy.

Rick:

That’s right.

Rabbi:

I used to give my children mild punishments when they had accidents because I said it means you’re not being careful. So obviously, they didn’t call for me. They tried to stop me finding out that they’d had an accident. They’d go straight to Susan, understandably, because at times you want compassion. But without the structure and the discipline, the system breaks down eventually.

Look at the Education System

The educational system today, right now we’re watching that essentially merit-based education is collapsing and being stripped away. And it seems very competitive because now nobody fails: everybody gets a good grade. And everybody’s going to be pushed up to the college secondary system and leave them to deal with it.

And again, everyone’s going to cry racism because only one group of people primarily are disproportionately dropping out of college. Everybody knows that painful sad fact. And it’s the fault of the schools that are simply not requiring that people learn. They just exert compassion instead of discipline.

Rick:

It’s interesting, even the words you used, the balance of those two and that the wise person finds that balance. We think of Solomon always as the wisest man ever and he found a way to find that balance. Being a good judge requires that balance. That’s just a part of the formula.

Rabbi:

Yeah. And so when it comes to public policy, when it comes to shaping the overall strategy for a family or for a business, you can’t operate on compassion. It’s not going to work. You know, Starbucks tried this. I don’t know if you follow this. It’s a fabulous example. It’s just, just happened. So this is hot off the press.

But what happened is that there was some minority people in a Starbucks a little while back. And apparently, it wasn’t clear if they were customers or they were just sitting there and using the bathroom and the manager asked them to leave. Well, it turned out that the color of the manager’s skin and the color of these people’s skin was different and so turned into a huge issue.

And Howard Schultz, the CEO of Starbucks, announced that from now on was there will be no such thing. Anybody can come in and use the bathroom in Starbucks; anybody, it’s not just people. And they said never again will a Starbucks manager decide who can and who can’t. Well, it just reversed that because it sounded very nice, very compassionate. Hey, look, how my Starbucks says everybody can come in.

Starbucks

Well, it got to the point where you and I and our wives cannot any longer use the bathroom in Starbucks. I don’t go to Starbucks anymore because the bathroom in every Starbucks I go to has now got drug paraphernalia in it. And so they reversed that policy. They’re going back to the discipline and strength rather than compassion. Guess what? Starbucks is discovering that the heart of the wise inclines to the right.

Rick:

I love it. I love it. Well, I know where the heart of Daniel Lapin inclines to the right because you always bring wisdom.

Rabbi:

Well, thank you, Rick. I always appreciate the opportunity to chat with you.

Rick:

Yeah, well, it’s great stuff. And there’s a wealth more of it. Youneedarabbi.com or is a great place to go and get more of that wisdom. Make sure your heart’s inclining to the right. Rabbi, thank you for coming on today. Appreciate it.

Rabbi:

Good talking with you, Rick.

Rick:

Stay with us, folks, we’ll be right back with David and Tim Barton.

SUMMER INSTITUTE

Hey, guys, this is Tim Barton, I am interrupting the normal broadcast to bring you something pretty special. This summer, we are doing a special program for college aged students 18-25 year olds. And it’s something that is becoming more and more special based on where the climate is.

In the middle of a crazy culture, in the middle of a nation going in crazy directions and right now we’re seeing in academia where even Christian universities are promoting critical race theory, teaching the 1619 project, we want to do something to help equip young people the next generation, to know the truth, the truth of the Word of God, the truth of America, the truth of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the free market, we want to get into a lot of this.

And this is something that if you are an 18-25 year old, or if you are a parent or grandparent, if you have an 18 or 25 year old, if you’re in church 18-25 year olds, this program is something that can be life-changing for them, you want them to be a part. Go to wallbuilders.com and look for the summer institute to be part of this program.

Rick:

We’re back here on WallBuilders Live. Thanks for staying with us on this Foundations of Freedom Thursday. And thanks to Rabbi Daniel Lapin for joining us for that last question. Back with David and Tim. Now, guys, I love being able to call on the rabbi. You know, it’s like a phone a friend thing. I feel like I’ve got the phone a friend thing always available and Rabbi Lapin, always available to us.

Ecclesiastes 10:2

David:

You know, it is such a good question because I have somewhat laugh. But I’ve also thought how true it is the verse in Ecclesiastes 10:2, and this is what we asked him about, but it says “The heart of the wise inclines to the right, that the heart of the fool to the left.” And you thought, wow, that’s pretty politically apropos.

But it was really interesting to hear the rest of the perspective. I had no clue that in French politics, the Conservative sat on the right and the Revolutionary sat on the left. And then he made all these other kind of iconic comparisons, the secular abolitionists on the left and these guys on the right, and you’ve got the discipline and strength guys on the left and the compassion and emotion guys on the right.

And I thought was really interesting what he said out of numbers where God says, hey, don’t turn your eyes and your heart, don’t let that go after the stuff. Because if you let your eyes and your heart, your emotions and your so-called compassion, you will get away from justice in doing what’s right. And so I thought that was really an insightful perspective that he had. And like you said, it’s really nice to have a Rabbi to be able to answer these questions and especially a Rabbi like Daniel Lapin that has such a good historical perspective along with that biblical perspective.

Rick:

Yeah. That would be great instruction for legislators at every level federal, state, local, not to let your emotions make the decisions for you. I think this may be my favorite question ever on Foundations of Freedom Thursday. Guys, are you ready for this? This is Ellis from Pennsylvania, four-years-old, guys.

We got a question from a four-year-old. And listen how good this is. “Dear Rick, David and Tim, my name is Ellis and I’m four-years-old. Why is the president’s house white? My favorite color is blue. Did George Washington get to choose the color?”

A 4 Year-Old’s Question

Now, here’s the best part. “We listen to you every morning. My little sister and I dance to the music at the end of your show. I look forward to your response. Thank you, Ellis.” 

It’s so good, Ellis. Thank you for listening. And we are excited that you dance to the music at the end of our show and thank you for the question. And my favorite color, Ellis, is green. I think green house would look great in Washington, D.C. I don’t know why it’s not green. I don’t know the answer to the question either. How did we end up with the president’s house being white?  

David:

They started building the person’s house back in 1793. And by 1798, they were trying to preserve the house. It is made of marble and marble has a lot of pores in it. And what happens with marble, because it has pores in it, when water gets in there and it freezes, they start chipping away the marble and it makes the marble deteriorate and you see old buildings over time look really rough on the outside.

And so what they did was they took a whitewash made with a lime compound, and they whitewashed the outside of the building and said, well, what happened is it’d be turn white, but the whitewash had this lime in it, and the lime would go in and all these little cracks and pores and kind of seal it off. And so they would have to really whitewash it periodically. They had to keep refilling that pore so it would last longer.

And so by the time Congress moves there in 1800, and that’s when John Adams moved into the White House in 1800, they’d already been treating it this way, and some of the congressmen started calling it that White House. And it was really known as the president’s house. The congressman called it the White House. And so it didn’t officially become that until 1891 when Teddy Roosevelt officially named it the White House, not the president’s house.

Inalienable Rights, “Right” Vs. “Left, And More – On Foundations Of Freedom

Tim:

Well, and to a point that if you’re talking about this, because they were having to put paint on it, there’s not a reason they couldn’t have used a blue paint instead of a white, that’s [inaudible 25:11]. Where do you make sense? So I actually support Ellis’s decision. Blue is my favorite color. I support a blue house.

With that being said, it’s also worth noting raised the question did the George Washington live there? John Adams was actually the first one to live in the president’s house in Washington, DC, which became known as the White House. But all that to be said, there’s no reason they couldn’t have chosen a different color paint to mix it with a lime to paint the marble with, they chose white.

But Ellis, I support the decision. I think it should be blue. And just so you know, periodically, I dance to the music as well. So I support everything about this question.

David:

Hey, well, little piece of trivia, they did not paint the White House until 1818. So everything was whitewashed until 1818, that’s the first time they used paint on the White House. So, I don’t know. I guess you could probably put dye and whitewash. I mean, lime is white, but I guess you could put dye color in it that you maybe could have done it, but they didn’t plan it at 1818. So it was about two decades later before it got its first paint job.

Rick:

Now, Ellis, I just want you to know, we would much rather you be dancing with your sister to the music than Tim. It’s painful for us to watch Tim dance. It’s not pretty. I’m just telling you, it’s not pretty. Alright, folks, we’re out of time for today’s Foundations of Freedom Thursday. Thanks for listening today. You’ve been listening to WallBuilders Live.