Presidents Ranked Based On Their Faith In Christ: 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 how would you rank the presidents based off of their faith in Christ? With the First Amendment does it have to be a religious belief when it comes to constitutional protection? Should the government be involved in marriage at all? And so much more, right here on WallBuilders Live!

Air Date: 05/31/2018

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

Intro:

President Thomas Jefferson said, “€œI 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:

Welcome to the intersection of faith and the culture. This is WallBuilders Live where we’re talking about the day’s hottest topics on policy, faith, and culture. Always from a biblical, historical, and constitutional, perspective. But specifically today because every Thursday we do what we call Foundations of Freedom Thursday and it’s a chance for you to ask the questions and drive the conversation.

So, send in your questions to radio@WallBuilders.com, that’s radio@WallBuilders.com. It might be a question about the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, it may be about a particular policy, or something going on in government today and what the biblical, constitutional, and historical, perspective would be on that particular policy. Whatever you’re curious about, send those questions in radio@WallBuilders.com.

And then be sure and visit both our websites today that WallBuilders.com is our main website. That’s where you get all kinds of great tools to dive further into these issues and these questions. And then at WallBuildersLive.com you can get archives of the program, these Foundations of Freedom Thursday programs, Good News Friday, whatever you’re looking for, it”€™s right there at WallBuildersLive.com.

My name is Rick Green I’m a former Texas state legislator and I’m here with America’s premier historian, David Barton. He’s the founder of WallBuilders. And Tim Barton’s with us, national speaker and pastor, and president of WallBuilders. And we’re looking forward to diving into your questions. David, Tim, you guys ready to roll?

David:

You bet. Let’s go for it.

Relationship With God and a Biblical Worldview

Rick:

Alright, first one comes from– well, he doesn”€™t give us a name he just says a fellow Texan. And he said, “€œThe recent Foundation of Freedom Thursday in which you chose your top five presidents was an absolutely fascinating discussion. When reading through Second Chronicles I’m always struck by the way the Kings were distilled to their essence. Whether it was “€˜Asah did good and right on the side of the Lord his god”€™, or “€˜Aman did evil in the sight of the Lord”€™, or “€˜Amaziah did what was right in the sight of the Lord, yet not with his whole heart.”€™

The kings were judged upon how they followed the Lord their God. By this Biblical standard, how would you distill the presidents of the United States?”€™”€

Wow that’s a tough question guys. I love the concept. I don’t know how you can do it just off the top of your head.

David:

Well, know for me it’s kind of difficult in some ways. Because when I look at that, it’s hard for me to separate someone’s relationship with God apart from a biblical worldview. Because I think a biblical worldview is what God wants in every one of His children. I think He wants them to see the world the way He sees the world and to live according to what He has in His word.

And I fully understand and fully believe that you can absolutely have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, you can go to heaven, and you can be dead wrong on a lot of policies that the Bible takes a position on. And I don’t think you can be dead wrong on key policies that make the difference between heaven and hell, but I think you could be– for example, the Bible does not support the concept of a capital gains tax. I think you can support a capital gains tax and still go to heaven. But when it gets into things like abortion, and things like homosexuality, that’s a lot tougher line to say, “€œWell you can support that, and promote that, and still go to heaven.”€ That’s just tough.

Perception is Not Always an Accurate Assessment

Tim:

Well, and even the notion of, obviously, because we live in a fallen, broken, world where sin has entered the world. We understand, at least my starting place is nobody is ever going to be perfect, right?

David:

That”€™s right.

Tim:

So, it’s not easy to look at that.

David:

That’s right. It’s even interesting because from a human standpoint, if I lived in the era of King David and I knew what he did to Uriah. Where he has the affair with Uriah”€™s wife, Bathsheba–

David:

That”€™s right.

Tim:

But then he murders your Uriah. And I see what happens with David’s family where were the kids, and the rape, and the murder. There’s no way I would look at king David in that era and say, “€œThis was a godly King.”€ There’s no way I would come to that conclusion, although, the Bible seems to give the indication, right, when it says he was a man after God’s own heart. It just makes it interesting to me that sometimes the perception based on the information that we have is not always the most accurate assessment.

Because what the Bible does is it looks back historically. We’re looking back and taking the assessment of what they did as a whole and what their policies were. And sometimes you don’t even recognize fully what the policies were and how they were enacted until, potentially, many years later. And you can look back and go, “€œWow, that was a really good thing that person did.”€ Not to say that you couldn’t recognize some of that in the midst of it.

The King David Example

Tim:

But just, again, the King David example, if you lived under King David and you saw some of these things, I don’t know you would walk away thinking this is a man after God’s own heart, this is a great guy. Although when you look at the big body of his work you might come to a different conclusion. It just makes it very difficult. Certainly, we sometimes make that joke, “€œI’m glad that I’m not God on Judgment Day having to figure out some of these people and where they belong, and don’t belong, and the judgment coming against them.”€

But I think it even makes it hard to do a really good assessment sometimes–

David:

That”€™s right.

Tim:

–of the people that are in those government positions because you can only assess based on the information you have. And it’s not always the correct assessment because we don’t always have the best information.

David:

Yeah. And that’s part of the difficulty here. I mean, for me, I would still like, Tim, you mentioned King David. I mean King David was such a good guy overall despite the fact he couldn’t keep his own kids under control. Whether you look at Amnon, or Adonijah, or Absolam, he can’t control his kids. Yet God says, “€œDavid is such a good guy. I’m going to establish a covenant with him to keep his line on the throne forever.”€ And so that’s a big covenant that God makes despite the flaws there and that’s what really complicates this.

And so when you have Ezra who compiled the book of Chronicles who’s the one who looked back and said he did what was right in the eyes Lord, but not with this whole heart, or yet he didn’t tear down the idols. That’s kind of what complicates this.

The Standard of What Bad Really Is

David:

So, I fully understand that you can have a relationship with Christ and you’re going to make heaven although you don’t necessarily think biblically in certain areas. And so, for me, rather than looking at the presidents from the standpoint of the way that Ezra describes in the book of Chronicles, it’s a whole lot easier for me to look at the worst presidents and say, “€œAlright, these are the guys that don’t make the cut. They’re like Jeroboam.”€ Jeroboam was the king of Israel and ever after that– and the king of Israel, not the king of Judah– the king of the ten tribes was Jeroboam. And they compared all bad kings to Jeroboam. He was a standard for what bad really is.

So, it is easier for me to do that with presidents than the otherwise. Because I look at somebody like– let me take Harry Truman. We gave a shout out to Harry Truman as one of the top five because of the faith aspect. I mean he is so bold and open. There’s times when you read Harry Truman’s Christmas messages and they’re stronger than the Pope’s are and that’s a president of the United States.

And I look at what he did with desegregation. He took on his own political party, the Democrat Party, to say all men are created equal. I know my party doesn’t believe that. And so in taking them on that lead to all sorts of splits in his party. But he did the right thing there because that’s the God view of things.

But then I also look and say, you know, the Bible”€™s really clear that the free market system is what God wants in economics. And there’s no question that Harry Truman took over a lot of private segments of the business because he didn’t like what they were doing, or they weren’t doing what he wanted, and that’s not a good thing to do. To reach out and seize private businesses start regulating and controlling that. And where he was on government growth and spending. Hey, the Bible’s really clear that we need to take care of the poor, but it’s also really clear that the government doesn’t do that – it’s the church, and individuals, and family, and Harry Truman did it in a big way.

Making the Bottom Five

David:

So, Harry Truman’s a real problem for me because I can say there’s no question in my mind that I think this guy is a strong Christian, but I can say I don’t think he’s a strong biblical thinker. And so I can look at presidents like James Buchanan and say, alright, he goes in my bottom five, there’s not much trouble with putting him in the bottom five.  The same with Andrew Jackson, or Andrew Johnson, or Woodrow Wilson. It’s easy for me to create my bottom five, but it’s really hard for me to pick the top five because of the complexities that go– does that make sense, Rick?

Rick:

And certainly even if you could pick who you would rank as a top 5, to give them that short description in one or two sentences is very difficult.

David:

It would be really difficult, but I love that part of the book of Chronicles where that you read three or four chapters about a king and then it summarizes at the end with that little distilling statement that, “€œAmaziah did what was right in the sight of the Lord”€. Or you take Josiah, “€œJosiah did what was right in the sight of the Lord as long as the priest Jahoda was alive. When his godly counsel died, Josiah was one of the most wicked kings there was.”€ So, you”€™ve got a bipolar kind of, really, a monarchy there. Which is really, really, good and godly in the first part, but is really bad at the end.

And I was even reading with Manasseh the other day because Manasseh was such a bad king. But we know that Manasseh at the end of his life repented and came back to God. But Chronicles still says that despite him having come back to God at the end of his life God refused to forgive Manasseh for all the innocent blood he’d shed across Jerusalem. And I found that to be a fascinating statement that even though Manasseh repented and came back in life, and in the Apocrypha there’s a book Manasseh, which is Manasseh prayer of repentance. Even with Manasseh repenting late in life God still said, “€œNo, you walked way too far crossed the line for Me to take the curse off the nation that you brought on it by shedding so much innocent blood.”€

It really is a complex thing and as Tim mentioned, I’m glad I’m not in the position of being there on judgment day to decide all of these things because it’s really complex, it is above my pay grade. My pay grade is I’m going to do the best I can to live by the biblical teachings I understand. So, not only will I have a relationship with Christ, but hopefully I will think biblically and can put Bible verses to most of my thoughts on why I think the way I do and why I take the positions I do.

Rick:

Quick break, guys. We have more questions to get to. Stay with us, folks. It”€™s Foundations of Freedom Thursday right here on WallBuilders Live.

Outro:

Abraham Lincoln said, “€œWe 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.”€

Pastors Only Briefing Trip

Tim:

Hi, this is Tim Barton with WallBuilders and I want to encourage all the pastors out there with a unique opportunity that we’re presenting it WallBuilders. We’re doing a special tour just for pastors that you can come and learn more about the spiritual heritage of our nation. Not just seeing the sights but understanding the significance of what they are and what they represent.

We get to go to the Capitol at night.  And we get to see the spiritual heritage of our Founding Fathers, of who we are as a nation, where we came from. We bring in congressman that will tell you about current legislation, about our religious liberties  and freedom, and what’s going on in Washington, D.C.

If you’re a pastor or if you want to recommend your pastor for this trip, you can go to our website at www.WallBuilders.com. And there’s a link that’s for scheduling.  If you click on that link there’s a section for pastor”€™s briefing. There’s more information about the dates, when it’s going, and how it’s going to happen. If you want to know more about our nation, our religious liberties, our freedom, our spiritual heritage, this is a trip you want to be a part of.

Intro:

Thomas Jefferson said, “€œThe 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.”€

Strong Held Religious Beliefs?

Rick:

Welcome back to WallBuilders Live. Thanks for staying with us on this Foundations of Freedom Thursday. Next question comes from Joe. He said, “€œI was listening to your podcast where at one point Rick said something about it being against your strongly held Christian beliefs. I’ve heard this phrase used several times in your program. My question is why does it have to be a strongly held “€˜Christian or religious belief?”€™ Can it just be a strongly held belief or does it have to be a religious conviction or it doesn’t count?”€

And of course, guys, I think Joe’s referring to our– often when we talk about the First Amendment and us having to act in a way that violates our rights of conscious or what we strongly believe. We often say that it’s a strongly held religious belief to emphasize that that’s where that core belief comes from.

David:

Yeah. This is a great question and there is a difference in a strongly held belief and a strongly held religious belief when it comes to constitutional protection. The Constitution was created in such a way and the Declaration made clear that God is the first priority. What you do to God is more important than what you do to government. And so if you’re conviction of your belief to God is that if I don’t do this God will hold me accountable and punish me, the government cannot force you to do that.

And so that’s where you get the Quakers in there. Their religious belief is God will punish me severely if I raise my hand in violence against anyone – even those that deserve it. So, there is no just war for a Quaker. Any kind of war is a sin.

Without God – No Conviction, Just Preference

Tim:

Well,  it’s interesting thought as you’re unfolding, obviously, the God aspect which of course I completely agree with. But I would even go so far as to say if there is no God you cannot have a conviction, you can only have a preference.

David:

And see, this is where it gets interesting because if you take the God factor out of it– for example, I can say I have a really strongly held belief about Democrats or Republicans. Does that get special constitutional protection? Or I have a strongly held belief about the Dallas Cowboys or the Philadelphia Eagles, does that get–? No, that’s not it. It has to be something that government says, “€œThe most important thing is that which occurs with God and an individual. And we’re not going to get in the way of God and an individual.”€

And I had a judge yesterday ask me a question and I have to admit I’ve never, ever, before thought of this. He said, “€œIn the Constitution, where is the first time that it guarantees religious liberty and the rights of conscience and the U.S. Constitution?”€ You guys got an idea?

Rick:

First time in the Constitution?

David:

In the constitution what is the first guarantee for the rights of religious conscience?

Tim:

I’ve never read the Constitution that way because I’ve always looked at the First Amendment.

David:

Right. Me too.

Tim:

So, that’s interesting because it makes me think I need to go back and read the Constitution because this question would lead me to believe it’s in there somewhere. But I don’t know because I would always point to the First Amendment.

Completely Religious Construction in the Constitution

David:

Rick, your thought?

Rick:

Man, I’m cheating. I’m scanning through the constitution real quick. Oh I can’t think of what would be a good– let”€™s see. Man, you got me there.

David:

He actually pointed out three clauses in the Constitution that have a completely religious construction that I had never even thought about before.

Rick:

Interesting.

David:

Article 1 section 2 where the president takes the oath of office, it says, “€œHe shall by oath or affirmation–

Tim:

Sure.

David:

–subscribe the following.”€

Tim:

Sure.

Rick:

Yeah, yeah.

David:

Why does it give you an option not to do the oath?

Tim:

Because it might be against your strongly held religious beliefs.

The Difference

David:

Because the Quakers firmly believed you do not take an oath. Jesus said swear not at all. The Quakers would affirm that they were telling the truth, affirm before God, but they would not take an oath because Jesus said, “€œDon’t take oaths”€. And for them, that was a right of conscience. And if we take an oath we violate God’s word and the government said, “€œYou know, we’re not going to put you in the point of violating God’s word. So, right here in Article II we’re going to say the president has to by Oath or Affirmation.”€ That’s an accommodation for the rights of religious conscience.

Tim:

That’s a great point.

Rick:

Yeah, yeah.

David:

And I have never seen that before.

Rick:

That’s good. And so that’s the difference between conscience, if you will, or strongly held beliefs and strongly held religious beliefs. The government did not want to put you in the position of having to choose between God or government. Government needed to be submitted to God and therefore if it’s as strongly–

For Jehovah’s Witnesses we require all students to say the Pledge of Allegiance. But you know what, we’re not going to require Jehovah’s Witnesses to say it because there are strongly held religious conviction is if they say, if they take an oath of loyalty to anybody but God, even the United States, God will judge them for that. And we’re not going to put a person in the point of being judged by God. Now, I can’t say that about my views on Democrats or Republicans or my views on Dallas Cowboys versus Philadelphia Eagles or anything else.

And that’s why there’s a constitutional protection for the rights of religious conscience because government did not want to get between an individual and God. Does that make sense?

Oaths and Affirmations

Rick:

Yeah, yeah. Yeah I think that that hopefully clears up for Joe as well. It certainly helps. Now, you mentioned there’s three areas that he drew a distinction to and let me make sure I caught them. So, the first one is the difference between an oath or an affirmation.

David:

Right.

Rick:

And then what were the other–

David:

There’s two more clauses in there that deal with oaths and affirmations and so there’s three acknowledgements in the Constitution of Oath or Affirmation which is three more acknowledges–

Rick:

I”€™ve got you. So, three different places–

David:

That”€™s right.

Rick:

–in the Constitution driving home that difference.

David:

That’s right.

Rick:

Got it, got it.

David:

So, we add that to Article 6, we add that that the First Amendment, we add that to the Sundays Excepted clause, we add that to the attestation clause. There’s a lot of clauses in the Constitution that have a very definite biblical, religious, construction, but I had never seen those three before. But that judge was exactly right – that is a constitutional accommodation for the rights of religious conscience. It”€™s protected, once again, in the Constitution.

Rick:

Alright, guys, quick break. We’ll be back with more questions. You’re listening to WallBuilders Live on Foundations of Freedom Thursday.

Outro:

George Washington said, “€œThe constitution approaches nearer to perfection than any other government instituted among men.”€

Leadership Training Program

Rick:

Hey, friends! We’ve got a great program to share with you today. It”€™s the WallBuilders Leadership Training Program and it’s an opportunity for 18 to 25 year olds to come spend two weeks diving into the original documents we’re always talking about here on WallBuilders Live.

Tim, you’ve already been doing this a couple of summers and seen the results of young people coming to this program. We’re going to see more of them coming this year.

Tim:

Yeah, Rick, it”€™s something that”€™s been cool to see the transformation with young people coming in. The emphasis, for us, largely is a pursuit of truth. We have a culture that doesn’t know what truth is. We don’t know what biblical truth is, or constitutional truth, or the American heritage that we have. And so we really dive into original documents and say, “€œWell, what did they actually write? What did they actually do? Not just what did somebody say, what is actually true, and the truth is what’s transformational.

David:

Yeah, guys. This really is a remarkable opportunity. And for those who want to spend time with us and spend time in the original documents, this is a great program. So, if you’re from 18 to 25, or you know someone who’s 18 to 25, send them to sign up for one of our three sessions this summer at WallBuilders.com/leadershiptraining.

Intro:

Calvin Coolidge said, “€œThe 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.”€

Should Government Be in the Marriage Business?

Rick:

Welcome back to WallBuilders Live on this Foundations of Freedom Thursday. Next question comes from Bill. He said, “€œShould governments be involved in marriage at all?”€ Here’s his question, “€œHello WallBuilders Live, love you guys and I appreciate all you do. Recently, my daughter has stated, at least I think it’s a libertarian view, the more libertarian view that government should not be involved in marriage at all as if it was just a way to make money from people.

“€œI disagree with this view because I believe that government is supposed to be good government that promotes and encourages good and moral behavior. Which view should the Christian take? I find myself arguing with her. She listens, but I don’t think I’m convincing her.”€ We could have a whole show on that one.

David:

Yeah, we could.

Rick:

“€œOr should she be convincing me? Should government just get out of the marriage business altogether?”€ David, Tim?

David:

This, the answer to this one is really based on the answer we had to the previous one. The government recognizes a hierarchy where that God comes first and government comes second. And because of that, when you look at the way the Declaration of Independence is written, and it talks about the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God, it takes the position that anything that God says the government is not allowed to contradict.

Guess what? God said marriage is between a man and a woman. Period, end of story, that’s good. I know you had it in the Old Testament where there were more than one wife, but Jesus made it real clear in Luke 19 from the beginning God made it one man one woman. That was God’s plan.

Government Shouldn”€™t Re-define What God Defined

David:

And so government is supposed to be involved in marriage in the sense that it’s not supposed to change what God arranged. And since God made that arrangement it’s not the right of government to redefine something God defined.

Tim:

Well, and so more specifically, because I would argue a little counter to that. I would say that government’s job is not to define, to restrict, to do other things with marriage other than perhaps promote–

David:

Right, agreed.

Tim:

–a union of what marriage might be. Now, “€œpromote”€ then becomes relative because this is when the legality becomes interesting. Because I would even argue a lot of what government does right now with marriage, and the tax breaks, and these different things. And how they want to regulate, and who you can leave it to, and your spouse. I mean–

David:

I agree, totally.

Tim:

–there’s so many things right now that are so messed.

David:

I agree.

Tim:

But the problem is not that government is supporting marriage, or government– No, no, no, these problems ultimately have come from the fact that this was never government’s job in the first place.

David:

That’s right.

Anytime Government Puts Their Nose Somewhere

Tim:

Anytime government puts their nose somewhere they’re not supposed to be you have problems. However, it’s also foolish to say that, “€œWell, you don’t want a government that promotes good behavior. Because if they promote good behavior then they might discourage bad behavior and you wouldn’t want government to do that.”€ Well, that’s just foolish.

David:

That’s right.

Tim:

Of course you want a government saying, “€˜Hey guys, it’s better that we don’t murder, it’s better that we don’t steal. In fact, the best thing you could do is treat other people the way you want to be treated. Well, you can’t say that, that’s religious. The role of government is to punish the wicked, it’s to reward the righteous, to uphold the standard of right and wrong. There are some basic fundamentals of government you look at and whether you go back to the founding era, whether you go to the Bible, we can argue this from a lot of different positions.

And so if government ultimately is– people could argue government is supposed to be a moral. I don’t disagree with the idea that government should be a moral it shouldn’t be promoting things one way or the other necessarily. Other than if you are upholding a standard of righteousness, or a standard of right and wrong, you ought to ask the question, “€œWhere does that standard come from?”€ and “€œWhat does that standard look like?”€ If we’re saying this is what’s right, everything that you are saying is right is what you are promoting. And everything you’re saying is wrong is what you’re saying don’t do that.

David:

That”€™s right.

A Key Point

Tim:

And we discourage that. So, why would we want to promote marriage being a man and woman, lifelong union, stay together? Because that’s going to be the most beneficial thing for the society that the government is over.

David:

And that’s a key point because it is in government’s own interest to promote traditional marriage. From the standpoint of less crime, less gangs, less educational difficulties, less psychological problems, less health problems. How many dozens of studies do we need to point out that when you promote a man and a woman in a married situation raising kids in that situation it costs the government the least amount of money, the least amount of prisons, etc.

Tim:

And I would say probably the best answer to this is I think there’s probably some truth on both sides the argument for Dad and daughter. It’s tough to see this and go wait a second, this this piece is true, and this is true, but from different sides, but together we kind of get a better picture of it.

But there’s a case that, dad, you pointed out long ago, Grigsby vs. *, where this was a state– I think it was a state Supreme Court.

David:

Yes.

Tim:

And it was the issue of marriage that came before them and it was kind of understanding what marriage is, and what it was, and what it should look like, or shouldn’t look like. And the decision they said, to me, brings a lot of clarity to this. Because essentially, they pulled themselves back and said, “€œWe don’t have the authority to rule on this decision and say what marriage is or isn’t because marriage is not something within our jurisdiction.”€ This court, or the governments in general, did not create marriage. This was an institution created in the garden of Eden.

A Jurisdictional Recognition

David:

Let me just read that part of the case. The case Tim”€™s talking about, Grigsby vs. * , says, “€œMarriage was not originated by human law. When God created Eve she was a wife to Adam. They then and then occupied the status of a husband a wife and wife to husband.”€ And the court goes through other examples like Noah and his wife, and the sons and the wife, and the court comes back in and says, “€œThe truth is that civil government has grown out of marriage which created homes, and population, and society, from which government became necessary.

“€œMarriages will produce a home and family that will contribute to good society–“€ That’s the studies we’re talking about– “€œto free and just government and to the support of Christianity.”€ If you can imagine of court saying that. The court said, “€œIt would be sacrilegious to apply the designation of civil contract to such a marriage. It’s that and more it’s a status ordained by God.”€

And I would argue that in many ways it’s a jurisdictional recognition like we have in the Second Amendment. We recognize the right to keep and bear arms is a right that came from God and government”€™s not to regulate that right.

Tim:

Or the freedom of speech–

David:

Or the freedom of speech.

Tim:

Or their freedom of religion.

David:

That’s right.

Tim:

These are things that came from God and therefore we don’t have the authority or ability to change that.

David:

That”€™s right.

Tim:

We’re just recognizing what already exists. And that’s really the position government ought to take on marriage. They shouldn’t be coming in and saying what marriage is or isn’t, and what it should and shouldn’t do, and who can and can’t. No, the government doesn’t have that authority, but government should recognize what’s already been established and uphold the standard that God’s already done.

David:

Exactly right.

Presidents Ranked Based On Their Faith In Christ

Rick:

Folks, you can get more of these Foundations of Freedom Thursday programs on our website at WallBuildersLive.com. More questions are answered there and we dive even further into the Constitution, Declaration, and other principles upon which our nation was founded. So, check that out at WallBuildersLive.com.

And please spread the word. Share this program and others from that website with your friends and family. Use Twitter, and Facebook, and snapchat, and all those other social media tools. And then come alongside us at WallBuilders.com by making a contribution to the program so we can continue this good work and spread this good news. Thanks for listening today to WallBuilders Live.

Outro:

Thomas Jefferson said, “€œIn 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.”€