Infringe, Did The Founders Define Our 2 Amendment Right In Detail? Foundations Of Freedom Thursday!

Infringe, Did The Founders Define Our 2 Amendment Right In Detail:Â It’s Foundations of Freedom Thursday, a special day of the week where we get to answer questions from you, the listeners! Always answering your questions from constitutional principles! Tune in today as we answer your questions such as is it a wise idea to arm school teachers, install metal detectors, and have school administrators inform students that there are staff members in the school that are armed? If you’re not allowed to purchase a firearm at age 18 does that not infringe on your right to keep and bear arms? Who has done the most damage to the culture -Marx or Darwin? And so much more, right here on WallBuilders Live!

Air Date:Â 03/29/2018

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

WallBuilders | American historical events, founding fathers, historical documents, books, videos, CDs, tapes, David Barton’s speaking schedule.
Coupons: Use promo code WBL17 to receive 10% off your entire order on ALL WallBuilders Store Products!!
Helpful links:

Listen:

Download: Click Here

Transcription note: Â 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

Intro:

President Thomas Jefferson said, “I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves. And if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”

Rick:

You”ve found your way to the intersection of faith and the culture. Welcome to WallBuilders Live where we talk about today’s hottest topics on policy, faith, and the culture. Always from a biblical, historical, and constitutional, perspective.

Today is Foundations of Freedom Thursday. That’s the day of the week where we really dive into those foundational principles and we let your questions drive the conversation. So, if you’d like to send some of those, send them into [email protected], that”s Â [email protected].

We”re here with David Barton, America’s premier historian and the founder of WallBuilders. Also, Tim Barton national speaker and pastor and the president of WallBuilders. My name is Rick Green, I’m a former Texas state legislator.

You can find out more about us and the program at our websites. We have two of them, the first one is WallBuildersLive.com, that’s our radio site. And there you can actually get archives of these Thursday programs where we dive into those foundations of freedom. Or you can get archives of Good News Friday’s where we bring you good news from around the country and across the world. Or some of our interviews with the major players that are on the frontlines of the culture war. All of that’s available at WallBuildersLive.com.

Then at WallBuilders.com, a wealth of information and tools available to you. You can download articles, you can get DVDs, and books, and other programs, that will help equip and inspire you and your family. So, check that out at WallBuilders.com.

So, it’s Foundation of Freedom Thursday. We’re going to dive into some of your questions. We’re going to try to get to as many as we can. Today David and Tim, you guys ready?

David:

You bet let”s go for it.

Tim:

You bet.

School Shooting Deterrents

Rick:

Alright, guys, so first question today is going to come from Sebastian. “I have heard the ideas for good school shooting deterrents that advocate for arming school teachers, installing metal detectors, and having school administrators inform students that there are staff members in the school that are armed. Is it wise that our leaders seem to only be prioritizing these reforms over arming our security guards? And do you see a likelihood that all four reforms could be implemented across the country? Or for certain states and which states specifically?”

Alright, so, David, Tim, I actually I like these things that he’s proposing. I would say those are not the ones being most talked about. It seems like the ones being most talked about are put a bucket of rocks in the corner and hopefully you can stop them with that or other reforms that probably won’t work. These reforms–

David:

Now, wait a minute, Rick. I was going to bring up the rocks–

Rick:

Oh, you were?

David:

–because Pennsylvania is doing that. They’re putting a bucket of rocks in the classroom.

Rick:

I”m sure that will stop– what a great deterrent.

David:

Imagine that kid coming in with that gun and shooting the students and when he sees them go pick up rocks he’s going to drop his gun and run.

Rick:

Right.

David:

It”s just–

Tim:

Now, guys, I will point out certainly that’s not as effective as having someone there with a gun. But one of the things that they do teach you actually when they do executive or office security training, they say if someone comes into your conference room the best thing you can do is pick up whatever you have and start throwing it – do not be victims. So, there is some level of accuracy in saying that we do not want to be passive. If you are active, if you confront, and having rocks certainly something you can confront–

Rick:

True.

Rocks More Effective?

Tim:

But imagining that rocks are going to be more effective than arming a teacher or having armed security guards, that’s ludicrous. Although, I would say, hey, at least somebody’s taking a step in the right direction–

Rick:

You”re right.

Tim:

–instead of just saying, hey, let’s just lock doors and close windows. Although, Â Â obviously, anything we can do to go in the right direction is great. And so, yeah, let’s give the kids slingshots, right, that’s fine. But if we’re really worried about kids being destructive I would point out a bad kid in the class could pick up a rock and kill another student in the class with a rock. If we’re saying this is going to solve all the problems that’s very foolish. Again, we’re not teaching morality, we’re not giving boundaries, but–

David:

I think that that premise has more validity if every kid had rocks at their desk. But they’re talking about a bucket of rocks at the front of the classroom. And the chances that you get kids to run into a blazing gun at the front of a classroom and pick up rocks is slim to none.

Tim:

Although, I can’t say, again, kind of the other side– had those * , these junior officers students, had buckets of rocks, I imagine some of these kids– Some of them laid down their life anyway in Florida, right–

Rick:

Yeah.

Tim:

–trying to save other students. So, again, there’s some level that you could say this is better than no plan at all and going the right direction.

Fight Back

Rick:

No, I understand. I think my sarcasm was probably in the wrong direction on this because you’re exactly right. At least the mindset here is fight back, don’t just hide under the desk and allow a shooter to walk from desk to desk, and room to room, without any opposition. So, you’re exactly right – it’s headed in the right direction. And then, of course, further down that correct direction is arming teachers arming–

Tim:

Well– Â Â

Rick:

–school resource officers and that sort of thing.

Tim:

Well, right–

David:

Before you get there, let me offer one other alternative. And as Tom spoke that we have in the collection here *, let’s just bring back that public school textbook from the 1970s that teaches P.E.

Tim:

Well, yeah. One of the things that we teach in public schools, as my dad mentioned, we have a textbook in our library that was used up to the 1970s. It was actually a 1960s textbook is the reprinting we have of it, I think it was even used before that, but it was used through the 1970s. And one of the courses that you learned in PE was riflery. And by the way, there was archery, there was a lot of things that today would be considered too violent, too dangerous. But every student in these schools that were using this curriculum were learning riflery.

They had rifle ranges in school buildings, they actually had instructions you could turn a gymnasium or cafeteria into an indoor shooting range that could handle 22 caliber long guns, so you could practice with 22s. And in these situations, right, they did not have school shootings like we have today and so it’s something more than just guns that’s the problem. Which, of course, we’ve talked about so many times before. So, guns are not the problem.

The Best Way To Stop a Bad Guy With a Gun

Tim:

And even, let me backup, because one of the points I wanted to make looking at these rocks even though we’re going the right direction saying, “Let’s not teach our students to be passive. Let’s teach them to actually–“ If you confront the bad guy one of the things that, almost without exception, every mass shooting ends not just when a good guy with a gun takes them out.

More times than not when the shooter is confronted the shooter actually commits suicide because they’re not trying to be a hero, they’re actually oftentimes cowards and they go off and kill themselves or they’ll do a death by cop situation where– But ultimately they’re not heroes, right. These aren’t Navy SEALs that are trained, and they’re going to take on, and so you come against them or they’re going to engage these officers. And so when someone confronts them they generally back down.

But again, I would back up and say one of the things that Wayne LaPierre said after a shooting a couple of years ago where he says, “The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” So, if we’re saying how do we really stop these bad guys with guns, it’s not rocks, right. Rocks are not the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun. It is having a good guy with a gun.

And I don’t know anybody that’s arguing that we should not– Well, I’m saying I don’t know anybody. I’m sure people out there make this argument, but I don’t know people that are saying we should not arm our security officers at schools. No, I think what’s the point of having a security officer at a school if they don’t have the means and ability to take down a bad guy with a gun. Yes, if you don’t have an armed security guard at school, for sure, that’s a great place to start. Arm your security guard and then obviously make sure they’ve gone to the training so they have the confidence, the understanding, that when something happens they engage the situation. That they don’t do what some of these sheriffs deputies did at Parkland and stand outside, and wait for backup, and wait for SWAT. No, we’re going to engage the situation.

Looking For Every Option and Opportunity

Tim:

So, absolutely we should consider arming security guards. But why not, if teachers are saying, “Hey, I want to go through training. I want to make sure that every student under my tutelage is safe.” Well, why wouldn’t we say, you know what, if this teacher wants to go through this 80 hour training or 100 hour training and do– whether it’s training during the summer, or training during Christmas break, whatever it is. If a teacher wants to be trained, I think as a principal, as an administrator, as a superintendent, you have to be looking for every option an opportunity of how can we keep these kids safe.

And if you have someone that’s gone through 80, or 100, or 120, hours of training, they’re going to be pretty stinking proficient with their firearms and especially training in these scenarios. There’s a lot of things we ought to look at, not the least of which is arming teachers. But certainly at least having armed security guards on campus.

Rick:

Yeah, no doubt, no doubt. Alright, guys, quick, quick, break. We’ll come back to our next question. David, did you have more on that particular question?

David:

There’s so many other things we could talk about, Rick, but I think what we’ve covered right there really gets a whole lot of the heart and essence.

Rick:

Alright. We’re going to come back and get the next one then. Stay with us, folks, you’re listening to WallBuildersLive.

Outro:

Abraham Lincoln said, “We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts. Not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”

Moment From American History

This is TimBarton from WallBuilders with another moment from American history. In the early seventeen hundreds the Reverend John Wise preached that all men were created equal, that taxation without representation was tyranny, and that God’s preferred form of government was the consent of the governed.

All of which is language recognizable in the Declaration of Independence. Why? Because in 1772 the So,ns of Liberty led by Founders Sam Adams and John Hancock reprinted and distributed the Reverend Wise’s sermons.

Four years later, much of the Declaration reflected the language of those sermons by John Wise. Â In 1926 on the 150th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, President Calvin Coolidge affirmed, “The thoughts in the Declaration can very largely be traced back to what John Wise was saying.”

Few today know that the Declaration was so strongly influenced by the Rev. John Wise. For more information on this and other stories go to WallBuilders.com.

Intro:

Thomas Jefferson said, “The constitutions of most of our states, and of the United States, assert that all power is inherent in the people that they may exercise it by themselves that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed. That they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press.”

Rick:

Welcome back to WallBuilders Live. Thanks for staying with us on this Foundations of Freedom Thursday. We’re getting into your questions and if you’d like to send some, send them to [email protected], that” s [email protected].

Next question comes from, let’s see, Eli and he says, “Did the Founding Fathers address the definition of, “infringe” in detail?” He’s talking about out of the Second Amendment that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

“If you’re not allowed he said to purchase a firearm at age 18 does that not infringe the right of the 18 year old from keeping and bearing arms? If the age were raised to 65 or lowered to 13 would that change the answer?” Great question, Eli. Appreciate you sending that in. David, Tim, what say you?

21 Or Older

David:

There’s really about three things here, Rick, that are key. One deals with age, but let’s just let’s go to the motive of why the president might have said raise the age limit from 18 to 21. That’s to make it harder to get guns for shooters. But my question would be, how many of the mass shooters have been under 21? If we raised it from 18 to 21 how many shootings does that actually knock out?

Tim:

Yeah, I think we’ve talked about on the program before it’s only like one or two–

David:

Yeah.

Tim:

–that were 19 or 20. All the rest have been 21 or older. So, even if you raise the age to 21 it does not impact what the gun control push is trying to impact of reducing mass shootings. At least in the sense of, historically, there have not been hardly any mass shooters that were younger than 21. And the second thing on this is Eli asked, is this infringe concept. And infringe, you have to see the infringe thing in terms of “inalienable”.

Tim:

And by the way, let me point out I think it’s a great question.

David:

Yeah.

Tim:

Everything you said when you were reading that I thought, “Oh, that’s an interesting thought.”

Rick:

Yeah.

Tim:

Because then I thought, “Now wait a second we do put limitations on voting even though we believe that’s a God given right.” We have the right to be able to speak up and let our voice be heard, and our government is run by We the people. But I started thinking about it based on his question, that really is a good question.

Age Was Not the Factor

David:

Well, in the Constitution itself as it was written when they wrote the inalienable rights which is particularly the Bill of Rights. There is others incorporated in the Constitution, but the Bill of Rights has absolutely nothing about age anywhere in it. If it’s an inalienable right it’s a right of every human being. And human being is a human being. And you’re not a human being when you’re 18, or when you’re 21, or you’re 15, or when you’re 33, and I would argue there are people who are 65 who are much more immature than people who are 15. So–

Rick:

And we don”t take away your due process rights–

David:

That”s right.

Rick:

–because you”re 15, right? If you’re charged you get all those same due process rights in the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment.

David:

That’s right. And so from the standpoint of those who wrote the Constitution, age was not the factor. The factor was whether you are human or not. If you were a human you got the rights. And that was regardless of gender, that was regardless of color, regardless of anything else.

So, from that standpoint it’s the later amendment that say “Well, 18 years old you can vote.” And so that becomes more like a statutory aspect rather than a human aspect. So, within that framework you get a certain set of rights as a human and one is the right to self defense, or the right to keep and bear arms, and militia. And really, when you look at militia, you should look at militia more as a standpoint of, “I have the right to self-defence individually” and “I have the right to self-defence collectively.”

Individual and Collective Defense

David:

In other words, a whole bunch of individuals can get together and say, “Let’s defend ourselves” and that’s the militia. That’s what a militia really was – it was citizens of the state. And as you look at the early laws of those colonies it was anyone who was 18 and over was part of the militia. When you turned 18 you’re part of the collective defense body. So, it’s an individual right that is exercised in a corporate manner, if that makes sense. But you still get the individual right if you’re under 18.

That’s why when you have Thomas Jefferson telling his 10 year old nephew to take the gun with you wherever you go. And you have the same thing with John Quincy Adams to his son telling his brother, “Make sure you train my son on the use of guns.” So, they’re talking 10 year olds. And so they understood that it”s when you’re responsible, but that’s nothing to do with age. Literally, there are kids who are going to be 4, 5, 6, that will be more mature than kids 16, 18, 19. So, it was a maturity thing, but it’s human right that you have.

So, going back to, what does it mean to infringe? It’s more of a human thing that is any other thing.

Tim:

And let me point out one of the things the Founding Fathers also talked about and one of the things you’ve even mentioned that Rabbi Lapin has taught us is that in Hebrew there’s certain things you can say and can’t say and it makes it different even in understanding of the Bible. In the Bible, you can’t say the word “right”. You say the word “responsibility”. And so even when the founding fathers talked about our God given rights they understood that with every right there was a corresponding responsibility.

And so one of the things we could say, “You know what? Yes, you have a right to this, but you have a responsibility that accompanies, for example, your Second Amendment right.” You have the right to defend yourself, you have the right to protect yourself, your property, your family, your loved ones. You have a right to do that which is why the Second Amendment comes in and that’s how we defend that right. Or we can use that right to defend ourselves.

A Responsibility to Handle the Right

Tim:

But you also have the responsibility to be able to handle that right that you were given. And this is one of the things where I think age becomes a factor is not only do you have a right you don’t lose the right just because you’re younger. But maybe if you’re not able to handle the responsibility, then that might be the only limitation of the right–

David:

Agreed.

Tim:

–Because again if you look at someone who there’s some kind of mental handicap we would not argue the same level for them–

David:

That”s right.

Tim:

–of being able to have an AR 15 or– Well, because they’re not able to handle the responsibility–

David:

That’s right.

Tim:

–that associates with the right. So, I think more than just looking at an infringement on the right, it’s really if you have the ability to be responsible then you should be able to access that right. And then if someone doesn’t let you access the right even though you have the ability to be responsible then we can say you’re infringing on that right.

David:

And see, this is where the progressive approach breaks down because they base everything on the number of years you have – not on your responsibility level. We just did a teachers training conference where we bring teachers in from all over the country, had a great time here for the days they were here. But part of what we show them is when education changed and what the progressives did to change it.

Moving the Age of Adolescence

David:

And one of the things they did to change that was they took you away from being individually centered on how much maturity you have and just saying, “Oh, you’re 18, well, you’re mature.” No you’re not. That doesn’t guarantee anything. An 18 year old is not necessarily mature. You might be mature at 15, you might be at mature 33. As a matter of fact, we talked about how the U.S. government now has moved the age of adolescence up to about 35 years old – for a long time it was 18.

So, it’s not a superficial number. Tim, you’ve hit it exactly right – it”s the ability to handle responsibility and that’s different from individual to individual. But when that time comes that you can handle responsibility, then you can handle rights.

And so when you look at infringing the rights, what does that mean? Well, let’s go back to what an inalienable right is because they did define that and they did define infringe. And so let me just lay out what the founders said about inalienable rights. John Dickinson, signer of the Constitution, he said, “An inalienable right is a right which God gave to you and which no inferior power has a right to take away.” In other words, if God said you can do it, no power below God can take it away from you. So, you have a right to self-defence individually and collectively and nobody below God can take that right from you.

The same thing with Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton very similar kind of statement, he said, “Inalienable rights are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records–“ You don’t go to government documents. He says, “Inalienable writes are written as with a sunbeam in the whole volume of human nature by the hand of divinity itself and can never be erased or obscured by any mortal power.” Again, God gave it to you, no human power can say otherwise.

Infringing By Positive or Negative Action

David:

So, if you get that self-defence or this right to a militia, or the right to have guns, is more based on the fact that you’re are human and that when you’re responsible it can handle that you can do that, then what does infringe mean? Because that was another question Eli asked. And when you look at the definition of infringe, I love the way the founders defined it. They said there’s two aspects to this. There’s a positive side and there’s a negative side. In other words, you can infringe someone’s rights by directly interfering with their rights. I can walk into Tim”s house and take all of his guns out, I have directly interfered with this right.

Tim:

You could try.

Rick:

I love it.

David:

Good answer, bro. Good answer. The other side is a negative – that someone’s coming after Tim”s guns and I don’t do anything to stop them. I’m a government official, and someone is coming to take stuff from him, and I don’t step in to protect his rights. And so they said either one of those is to infringe. It could be about positive action or by lack of action. So, the government has a responsibility not to infringe which means not only can they not take positive action against your guns, they can’t be neutral and be negative when someone is coming after them. They have to be affirmatively assertive for it.

Tim:

Which one of the things the Declaration points out when they talk about that we’ve all been created, we were given inalienable rights from our Creator, and “that to secure these rights Governments are instituted among men.” The reason government exists is to protect our inalienable rights. So, government can’t take our rights away and government has to make sure that somebody else isn’t taking our rights away, these God given rights. In the sense of, as you’re saying, they can’t just– it’s not just an active thing for the government, they can’t be passive in watching some agency or somebody come and take these rights away. But that is protecting what’s recognized as our God given rights.

A Level of Responsibility

Tim:

And certainly there’s a level of responsibility we have to have or we could essentially put ourselves in a position where we avoided our opportunity to enjoy these rights because we didn’t show responsibility with those.

David:

Yeah, and that’s a great question by Eli.

Rick:

Yeah. Let”s take a quick break, guys. We’ll get to another question when we come back. Stay with us. You’re listening to WallBuilders Live.

Outro:

Calvin Coolidge said, “The more I study the Constitution, the more I realize that no other document devised by the hand of man has brought so much progress and happiness to humanity. To live under the American Constitution is the greatest political privilege that was ever accorded to the human race.”

Front Sight Handgun Training and Constitution Crash Course

Hey friends, this is Rick Green from WallBuilders Live. Just imagine being able to attend a live class where you learn about the original intent of the Second Amendment, and the rest of the Constitution, while also getting world class training on how to defend yourself and your family with a handgun. I want to personally invite you to come spend the weekend with our family as we get expert handgun defensive training from Front Sight.

We’ll do that during the day and then at night we’re going to provide you with a Constitution Crash Course. Visit RickGreen.com today to learn more about this unique opportunity. It’s happening April 13th and 14th and you can attend for free. No kidding. No exaggeration. We’re giving away this one thousand dollar course for free to the first 100 listeners on WallBuilders Live that register for the course at RickGreen.com.

You’ll learn the real purpose of the Second Amendment and why the founders believed it was so important for we citizens to be armed. I don’t care if you’re marksman or you’ve never held a gun in your life, I can promise you that you will leave this training with improved skills and the confidence to protect your family.

It’s going to be a great weekend a fun, fellowship, learning, and sending a lot of lead downrange. And that one thousand dollar course registration, again, completely waived for the first 100 WallBuilders Live listeners to register. You”ve got to pay for your own travel and ammo, but we’re giving you the course for free as a gift to our listeners. I look forward to seeing you on the range April 13th. For all the details visit RickGreen.com today.

Intro:

Thomas Jefferson said, “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

Rick:

We’re back on WallBuilders Live. Thanks for staying with us on this Foundations of Freedom Thursday. And, again, don’t forget WallBuildersLive.com if you’d like to get more of these questions that we’ve answered on these Thursday programs.

Who Has Most Negatively Affected the Culture – Marx or Darwin?

Rick:

The next one comes from Brandon. He says, “I am from Long Island, New York. I am an everyday listener WallBuilders Live. It’s a wonderful, inspiring, resource for faith, history, the Constitution, and Biblical principles. Thank you and keep fighting the good fight.

“I’ve heard you all on multiple occasions talk in depth about Karl Marx and Charles Darwin individually and how they both have affected Western civilization, if not the world. My question to you is – who, in your opinion, has done the most damage to the culture – Marx or Darwin? Has the Darwinian approach seeped into the psyche of the people more. Or is it the Marxist angle? What has been most crippling and why? Thanks again, love all you do. I cannot wait for my 11 year old son to turn 15 so we can go to Patriot Academy together. God bless.” That’s from Brandon.

Brandon, great question!

Tim:

Very cool.

Rick:

That”s like a contest. So, which one has most negatively affected the culture and had the most impact – not good impact, but bad impact – Marx or Darwin?

David:

Given the choice of A or B, I choose C. And C is Christians who don’t know the Bible, and don’t live out their faith, and don’t believe what the Bible says.

Rick:

Wow.

David:

Because the Bible contradicts both of those people, both of those teachings are very clear the Bible is on the opposite side of both of them.

Rick:

And so we should have stopped their influence.

Tim:

Well, and I was even thinking you were going to choose like an E, all of the above. But Â Â with this you’re saying it”s Christians who have not– they”ve neglected their responsibility, they haven’t studied the Bible, they have lived out the Bible. We can point to pastors and churches, but ultimately that would be the reason that Christians embraced those bad concepts, right?

Evolution/Creation Debates in the Founding Era

David:

And would point out that in the founding era they had big debates over Evolution and Creation back then. The reason they did not win was we taught Evolution as a science. We taught it from a– really a scientific standpoint and a biblical standpoint, we gave the apologetics of it. We know that Daniel Webster in his 1801 senior address, senior address or freshmen address, anyway. When he was at Dartmouth, his whole thesis was on Evolution/Creation. So, we taught it at a degree back then were that when Evolution came up we weren’t swayed by it because we knew there was a Creator and we knew exactly what that meant.

Tim:

But let me go maybe– to me, what’s an interesting thought of his question is if you have people who are not grounded in the Bible, if they are gullible, which lie is more appealing?

David:

I think Darwin’s more appealing because I think you can say that, “Hey, we’re moving on, making progress, we shouldn’t be bound by the old.” I think that’s more appealing than saying government should own all property.

Tim:

But I think it’s an interesting concept because both of them, you are removing all personal responsibility.

David:

That”s right. Now that’s true.

No Responsibility Either Way

Tim:

Because in Evolution, “Well, there’s no God I’m accountable to.” But in communism, “Well, the government takes care of me.” So, either way I don’t have any responsibility. And so in both of these it is the appeal and for very different reasons–

David:

Good point.

Tim:

Because there’s a very kind of humanistic human nature appeal of, “I can do my own thing” and either, a) I’m not responsible to God or B) I don’t have to worry about being provided for. Now, ultimately, obviously both of those fail in reality. When you start judging a tree by its fruits you realize that neither one of those is going to work. They’re both going to bring devastating consequences in your life. But it’s an interesting thought because they both appeal to the flash, so which one is more appealing on which level. And now his question was really which one’s been more detrimental or had more of a negative impact. But ultimately they both bring you to the same conclusion.

David:

I think Marxism gives you big government and Darwinism gives you no morals, no values, no religion, and that both them are bad.

The Two Have Built on Each Other

Rick:

Yeah, and you don’t really get the Marxism without the Darwinism, right? It was Darwin’s philosophy that Marx and other communists based their whole economic system on.

Tim:

Yeah, I don’t think they can be mutually exclusive because you’re not going to get to a big government if you have a big God. But if you don’t have a big God you can embrace a big government. And if you believe there is a God, which is contrary to the Darwin notion, than you’re going to think you need a big government. So, the two definitely have built on each other to lead to a place where now most people that believe in Evolution believe in some form of socialism or communism. Those two things have built together. That’s a very interesting question and kind of fun to think through.

David:

Yeah, that’s a good question.

Tim:

But it’s almost like the chicken or the egg because they both are kind of one in the same in a lot of ways.