Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 339 | The Price of Losing Georgia & Christian Nationalism

Episode Date: December 16, 2020

We've got several topics to cover today, including what kind of bills the Democrats are trying to pass and how that relates to the importance of the Georgia Senate runoff. The Left is eager to impose its views and morality on all Americans through law, and a win in Georgia would bring us a step closer to that goal. With a Democrat-controlled Senate, you can expect to see expanded taxpayer-funded abortion and less religious freedom. And, Beth Moore recently went viral for a tweet thread in which she proclaims the dangers of "Christian nationalism," but does she really know what that term means? Today's sponsor: Bult Bar: Go to https://BuiltBar.com and use promo code 'RELATABLE' for 20% off! -- Today's sources: The Equality Act Is a Time Bomb https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-equality-act-is-a-time-bomb/  A Liberal Law Professor Explains Why the Equality Act Would ‘Crush’ Religious Dissenters https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/law-professor-explains-why-the-equality-act-would-crush-religious-dissenters/  This Is the Future That Liberals Want https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/09/democrats-win-senate-white-house/616370/  -- Buy Allie's book, You're Not Enough (& That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self-Love: https://alliebethstuckey.com/book Relatable merchandise: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey

Hey guys, welcome to relatable, happy Wednesday. Hope everyone has had a wonderful week so far. Okay, so today I'm going to try a little bit of a new format. Kind of. It's like a rough draft of a new format that I'm going to be trying in the new year. We have a really exciting announcement coming for the show for the new year that you guys are really going to like, but I'm not going to announce it quite yet. But part of what I am going to practice for that announcement is kind of a new year. new format for the show. So what I think that I am going to do in the future and you guys can give me

feedback over the next couple weeks and tell me what you think about this, I think I'm going to go with three segments of the show. So I'm going to make it a little bit more structured. Every show will have one segment that covers a political topic or story or set of stories that falls under one political topic. Same thing with culture. Same thing with theological. I might split them up like 10 minutes each or maybe I'll dedicate a little bit more time to one particular subject and last time to another subject. But I think I'm going to try to cover those three subjects in every episode. And rather than dedicating every week, an entire episode to a long interview, which I know you guys really like, those always perform well. And the guests are always really fascinating. So we'll probably

do that every now and then. I might actually use shorter interviews as segments to cover a particular topic or a particular story that we're covering. So a little bit more variety within the show, but the same structure every day. And it's always, it's going to be the same show. I mean, we're always going to try to go back as vigilantly as we can to that biblical worldview and to discuss the why behind what we're talking about. So I'm interested to know what you guys think about that. And if you guys think that you're going to look forward to that right now, what we've kind of done is we have started with on Monday. We used to do like a theological topic on Wednesday. We'll talk about the news. And then on Friday an interview. That kind of changed when the election

came around because we were doing election topics on Monday and then the news on Wednesday and the interviews on Friday. And it's kind of just been changing a little bit every week. And so I'm going to try to stick with that structure every time on the show. And you guys can let me know what you think about it. And we'll probably start doing that in January and you guys can give me feedback. I do listen to your feedback when I see something or when someone emails me or messages me and says, I really miss you doing this on the show where I really miss this format. I do take that into account. Now, I can't listen to every single. I can't apply every single bit of feedback that I get because, you know, people are different. There's a lot of people, thankfully, in this audience. And you all

have different opinions, but you guys are my, essentially, my executive producers, and I do want to make this show what is best for you. It's best for as many people as I can anyway. And so give me your constructive critiques and your feedback about the format once we get started on that. Today, I'm going to kind of play around, like I said, do a rough draft version of that, where I'm going to talk about three subjects if I have time. And typically I'm going to try to really keep our episodes 30 to 40 minutes. I have had a hard time doing that lately. Number one, I'm just a verbose person.

I am an external processor. And so as I'm explaining something, I am thinking through it. And it's, you know, it's coming together for me. And I'm explaining that to you. And I think that's really helpful to a lot of you because you're the same way. But I'm going to try to make some explanations a little bit more concise than I have in the past to try to fit it. everything that I want to talk about. Today, I don't know if I'm going to be able to accomplish that. But in the future, starting next year, I do want to accomplish that. So today, what I want to talk

about, the three subjects that I want to talk about, that I'm going to try to talk about all today, is one, the Georgia election, which is coming up on Tuesday, January 5th, some of the things that are on the line there. We're going to get into the specifics of a particular bill that I think that we should be really looking out for and a big reason why I think conservatives need to vote in Georgia to secure the majority in the Senate. And then I want to talk about the death penalty. And so I really wanted to talk about this on Monday, but I had already recorded Monday's episode the week before. And so we didn't talk about the death penalty on Instagram until the end of last week. And so I wasn't able to talk about that on Monday. But I want to talk about that today. If I have time, if I don't

have time to talk about that, I promise I will talk about that thoroughly soon because I have a lot, a lot, a lot to say about that. But I definitely want to get to Beth Moore's viral Twitter thread about so-called Christian nationalism and the dangers of Trumpism and some of my thoughts on that. So I'll definitely talk about Georgia and Beth Moore. If I have time in between those two things, I'm going to talk about the theological implications of the death penalty and the biblical view of that and some of the disagreements that Christians have. But let's start with politics. Let's start with the Georgia election. Like I said, This special election is happening on January 5th.

Early voting begins Monday, December 14th. So that just started. You can go ahead and vote. Registration deadline for voters was December 7th. And so if you didn't register to vote in Georgia, you're not going to be able to register now. Same day registration in Georgia for this is not available. Absentee mail-in voting ballots must be received by Tuesday, January 5th. Currently, Democrats in the Senate have 40.

seats. The GOP has 50 seats. So this means that Republicans need at least one of these Georgia seats to maintain the majority in the Senate. You know that Democrats have the majority in the house, a slimmer majority than they would like, but they do have the majority in the house. It's looking like Joe Biden as a Democrat has the White House. And so our really only balance, at least within these two branches of government, is with the is with the, is with the Senate. So in the Senate, most of you know, but just in case you don't, there are 100 Senate seats. If Democrats win both Georgia Senate seats, it will be 50-50. But the reason they really want these two seats is because even though it looks like it'll be 50-50, they really have a majority

because Democrats are going to be, it looks like, in the White House. So that makes Democrats as the Senate majority because the vice president functions as the president of the Senate and serves as the tie-breaking vote. So that would be. Kamala Harris. So if Democrats win both seats in Georgia, Dems have the majority in the House, they've got the majority in the Senate, and if everything moves forward like it looks like it's going to, Democrats will also control the White House, which means virtually everything that Democrats have wanted to pass will get passed. Republicans only need one of these seats, only needs one of these seats in Georgia to keep the majority in the Senate. And of course, we would like to win both seats,

but they really just need one seat. Democrats need both of these seats. So we're going to talk about some of the consequences of Democrats controlling these two branches of government what this would look like. What's on the line? What are some of the bills that they've promised to pass? The biggest one I think and the one that I want to spend a lot of time on is the Equality Act, because Joe Biden said that's going to be his first order of business to ensure the Equality Act gets passed, which it will pass if Democrats win these two seats in Georgia and they take the majority in the Senate. And I know some of you have a lot of election integrity concerns. And I will get to some of those because I do understand.

I do understand. But first, we're going to talk about what's on the line and specifically zero in on this particular bill, the Equality Act. I did an entire episode dedicated to this a little over a year, probably a year and a half ago now when it was first being passed in the house. And I just want to reiterate because a lot of you didn't, you maybe didn't you, you probably didn't listen to that episode. Sorry, I got tongue tied for a second. Or you just don't remember. So this will serve as a good refresher to those of you who need your memory jogged on what this is. So the Equality Act, as I said, Biden said that this is a priority for him to get passed. It passed the house last year as HB5. So if you want to look at the

text of the bill yourself, you can type in on Google or duck.com. That's what I use. HB5 Equality Act text. It will come up at a dot-gov address and under the Congress's website and you'll be able to read the bill for yourself. So fact check me. Like if at any point you're like, no, Ali is exaggerating. That's not really true. You should read the text of the bill yourself. Now, I'll tell you that purposely legislation, oftentimes both on the right and the left, they use language that is intentionally vague to where a lot of times you actually have to get some kind of constitutional scholar or legal scholar or some kind of insider in this legislation to tell you what this really means. But please, read the text to yourself. I want you to do your

own research on this. So according to National Review, which is a conservative outlet, but I think is extremely trustworthy, especially when it comes to breaking down legislation, here is what the Equality Act does. The sweeping legislation would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected characteristics. But it goes further than that. Under the guise of anti-discrimination protections, the bill redefined sex to include gender identity, undermines religious freedom, gives males who identify as females the right to women's spaces, and sets a dangerous political precedent for the medicalization of gender-confused youth. So redefining the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and redefining biological sex is actually something

that you identify as, is something that you declare rather than a scientific reality. This has really big implications. So what this means, and this is the exact purpose of the bill, is to ensure that no institution or organization, private or public, religious or secular, can deny biological boys into, can deny their entrance into women's spaces if that boy or if that man identifies as a girl. And vice versa, a biological girl who says that she is a boy can use men's spaces under this law. So this includes, but is not limited to, bathrooms, locker rooms, sports teams, women's shelters, prisons. And this obviously has bigger consequences for girls and women than it does for boys and men for the simple reason that progressives want to deny that men and women are biologically different. Men in general are bigger than women. They're stronger than women. They can overpower women.

And so biological men, and I hate that we even have to specify with that adjective, biological men in women's spaces. And on the athletic field can pose a physical threat, especially in prisons or especially in women's shelters. They can pose a physical threat to women that biological women cannot pose and do not pose to men because of the very thing that these progressives want to assert does not exist, which is science. It also means that a religious institution, so a religious nonprofit, a private religious school, probably could not refuse to hire or fire someone who, for example, comes out as gay or transgender. There may be legal recourse for something like this, but this is what this bill aims to do. And I know that some of you might hear that and you might be thinking, well, that's a good thing. I don't think that you should be able to discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation or their so-called. gender identity. But let me have you take a step back for a second. Because the question when it comes to

a law is not whether or not you agree with the thing that it might be prohibiting or forcing. You have to ask yourself what freedom it is restricting and how that could be applied across the board. So just because a law passes that I might agree with what it is trying to get done, or I might agree with outcome that it says that it is trying to achieve doesn't mean that it's necessarily a good law. Just because I think something is good and that people should do something doesn't mean that I want it to be forced legally. So I think that everyone should pray. I think praying is a great thing, but I would not support a law that forces people to pray. Like if there was a law that was written by a Republican legislator that says you have to pray every morning when you wake up or like you have to

read your Bible or you have to go to church. I think all of these are wonderful things. I think people should pray, should read their Bible, should go to church. But I would not support a law that forces people to do those things. And so because that restricts people's religious freedom, that restricts freedom of conscience, that violates people's First Amendment rights. And so in the same way, I think actually progressives have a much harder time kind of understanding that you can disagree with the principle of a law, even if you agree. with the outcome that it's trying to produce, you have to understand that this law is restricting the freedom of religious schools to operate in a way that is in line with their beliefs,

even if you believe that they shouldn't discriminate or that they shouldn't refuse to hire someone based on their sexual orientation or their gender identity. The question is, do you agree with limiting the religious freedom of private religious institutions? Because this law would say, for example, that a Muslim school has to is forced to legally go against their beliefs in hiring a teacher who does not hold to the tenets of their faith, one of which is heterosexuality. The same thing goes for a Christian school or a Catholic school or a conservative Jewish school who hold the same belief under this law. So this is the government saying you cannot actually practice your religious belief that

God created the gender binary as male and female and that marriage must be between a man and a woman, beliefs that people around the world, by the way, have held for millennia. When it comes to operating your private organization, you don't have the freedom to hire and fire who you want to when it comes to this. So that gives the power of the state to begin to regulate, it gives the power to the state to begin to regulate all religious activity to align with its own secular views. This is the starting point, at least of that. You could argue it's even beyond the starting point, but that's certainly what it is trying to do to make sure it has all-encompassing power to regulate these private religious institutions. All teachers would be forced, if you look

through the implications of the legislation, to use preferred gender pronouns, which means according to a Christian doctrine that you would be forced to bear false witness to lie because you would be affirming an identity that does not conform to what we believe is a God-given biological reality in male and female. We talked about this a couple weeks ago. Or maybe it was last Monday, the biblical tell-loss of gender. We did an entire episode on why gender exists, why God created it, and what scripture tells us to believe about it and what we should do with what scripture tells us to believe about it, if you think that all of this is not an intentional step towards regulating speech that comes from the pulpit or what's taught in the classroom of

private schools or what parents can teach their children. Like if you still, after learning about this bill, think that people warning about the real tangible dangers of progressivism, that it's just a slippery slope fallacy, that it's just fearmongering, then I posit that you might have your head in the sand and that you are avoiding facing a threat that is knocking on your door because you don't want to recognize it's dangerous. You don't want to realize that it exists because maybe it causes some discomfort. But the fact of the matter is, is that it's coming for you like a freight train. That's what progressivism does. It goes, it goes, I won't even say forward, but it goes in a particular direction without even knowing what the endpoint is. And it doesn't matter who it takes out in

it's wake. This bill also regulates religious adoption agencies by threatening the removal of federal funding if they operate under the traditional marriage ethic, which means that if they lose this federal funding, they might shut down the kids they were taking care of would be, you guessed it, released to the state. It forces foster parents to affirm a child's so-called a child's child, their so-called gender identity, barring them from affirming the goodness of a child's biological reality. So if you want to foster a child, you have to give in to the secular sexual revolution. Even in your words, I don't see how that's not a violation of the First Amendment, of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. But they are making it harder for Christians to be

a part of the adoption process in a way that actually aligns with what we believe biblically. schools are encouraged to circumvent parental involvement if they are deemed not, quote, affirming of their child's newfound sexuality or identity. I mean, we're talking about your children, your children, that the public schools, which they're really invented to do this and have been used for this cause to circumvent the authority and the influence of the parent to impose the values of the state. the bill denies a parent's right to be involved in their minor child's medical care, specifically when it comes to puberty blockers and chemical castration of gender-confused minors. This already happens in a variety of states, by the way, that a minor can go to Planned Parenthood, for example. A girl can go to Planned Parenthood at, say, 14, 15 years old, say, you know, I decided that

I actually identify as a boy. A Planned Parenthood has to give them or another clinic has to give them puberty blocking hormone treatment, whether or not. their parents know about it. So this is already happening in some states on the state level. This is ensuring that it has to happen on a federal level, this Equality Act. So it denies a parent's right to be involved in their minor child's medical care, specifically when it comes to so-called gender reassignment. And it makes it more difficult for doctors regardless of conscientious or conscious or religious objections or medical judgment to perform so-called

gender reassignment surgery, so it makes it more difficult for them to deny or refuse to do gender reassignment surgery or prescribed cross-sex hormones for children, even if they have personal objections to it or professional objections to it. This bill takes steps to eventually ban any form of counseling that helps assuage the discomfort of gender dysphoria by helping children and adults. their bodies. That's what counseling seeks to do. Sometimes you hear about scary conversion therapy, which is not something that actually goes on. Yes, there's Christian counseling that does encourage young people and people in general, many of whom do not want to feel this kind of discomfort in

their body, I would say most of whom do don't want to feel this kind of discomfort in their body, help them learn to accept their physical reality. If you love thy body with us, you might you might remember that the secular worldview says that we have to change our bodies to fit our feelings. But the biblical worldview says that no, we conform our feelings and we conform our minds to our biological reality and that actually creates a healthier and a more holistic view of the body and the view of the whole person than secular gender ideology does. And so when you hear these fearmongering terms like converses, therapy. All they're saying is that they're against any kind of counseling that affirms biological

reality. And what we learned from Abigail Schreier, who wrote the book, who wrote the book, Irreversible Damage about the social contagion of transgenderism among young girls and how there are no obstacles, no barriers whatsoever when it comes to psychology and when it comes to medicine that are trying to, that's trying to protect girls from making hasty decisions about their bodies that are irreversible that are causing this title of her book, irreversible damage. Because medicine now, when it comes to transgenderism is so politicized that no one can say, hey, is there something else going on here? Is there something psychological going on here other than gender dysphoria that is causing you to make these decisions? We're not allowed to ask any of those questions.

We're just supposed to accept that a 13-year-old child, for example, decides that she wants to be a boy, and she apparently, according to this bill, should be able to go to the doctor, plan parenthood, get hormone blockers, potentially get surgery, a double mastectomy, to completely change her body. That should be her decision and her decision alone. Parents shouldn't be able to say anything about it. Doctors shouldn't be able to say anything about it. I mean, we are taking away all reasonable boundaries to these life-changing

decisions made by kids whose frontal lobes won't be developed for another 10 years. And people are saying this is good, that this is good for our youth, that this is moral, this is right. It's a violation of parental rights. It's a violation of religious liberty. It's a violation of free speech in some ways. All public schools would be forced to incorporate probably through this incorporate new sex ed curriculum, which includes at the elementary school age. You've seen some of this stuff that's happening in California. It's trying to be passed in Texas, a sex education that is endorsed by Planned Parenthood and WHO and all these left-wing organizations, discussion about gender fluidity while they're in elementary school, different forms of sexuality, masturbation,

I mean, graphic stuff in the sex ed curriculum that is just completely inappropriate. for kids to be learning about from anyone but their parents by the way again this is not the state's role but this equality act is seeking to transfer as much power as possible from families from the parent from churches to the state in the name of the sexual revolution in the name of equality and of course you're going to be hearing from every left wing outlet that these are that this is a great bill for equality and for love and for inclusion no it's not no it's not no it's not. It's a very dangerous bill. It's a dangerous bill to liberty. It's a dangerous bill for kids. It doesn't consider any kind, any kind of actual science or morality or reason. Douglas Laycock is a liberal

professor at the University of Virginia. He's a longtime advocate of gay rights. And he explained to National Review why he does not support the Equality Act. He said this to National Review. It goes very far to stamp out religious exemptions. Leacock tells. National Review in an email. It regulates religious non-profits. And then it says the Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not apply to any claim under the Equality Act. This would be the first time Congress has limited the reach of RFRA. This is not a good faith attempt to reconcile competing interests. It is an attempt by one side to grab all of the disputed territory and to crush the other side. This is a real bill that has really passed the Democratic-controlled House

that is approved by virtually every Democrat in Congress that is explicitly supported by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and that will pass the Senate and be signed into law if Democrats win both seats in Georgia. We're talking about the forced laying down of free speech, religious liberty, and parental rights on the altar of the progressive sexual revolution. You can read it all. It's in the bill. So for people who are saying the crowd that just matters, The evangelical Christians in particular who say that, oh, progressivism isn't a threat. What are you talking about? It's just a mirage. Joe Biden presidency will be fine.

It's not that big of a deal. The real threat is conservatism. That's the real, that's the real threat. Progressive, it's not, you know, communism. It's not, it's not coming. I mean, it has really no effect these people who acts like we're just all blowing it out of proportion. The dangers of leftism and progressiveism. Pastor, it's here. It's here. It's knocking on the door of your church, about to tell you what you can and can't say who you can't hire. Parent, it's here. It's at your kid's school. It's coming into your home. Adoption agency. It's here. Church, it's here. Christian, it's here. Counselor. It's here. Like, it's not far off in the distance. It's not on the horizon anymore. It's here in this legislation that will pass. That will pass. It'll probably pass eventually no matter what, but it'll definitely

pass now if Democrats take the Senate. Read the bill yourself. Fact check me. I invite you to. And through this, we also see how important the Supreme Court and the federal judges are because a lot of this stuff is going to be litigated. A lot of this stuff is going to cause lawsuits. The fact that constitutionalists, thanks to Trump, hold a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court, not 6-3, Roberts is not a conservative. A 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court is a great comfort when we consider the lawsuits that are coming because of this. And that would not have happened. These federal judges being appointed and confirmed, including the Supreme Court justices, would not have happened without a Senate majority, without Mitch McConnell. So the other thing that we'll see with

Dems controlling Congress in the White House is the nomination and the confirmation of left-wing activist judges that will make decisions that are always, no matter what the Constitution says, right in line with the latest Democratic dogma. Democrats are never disappointed in their judge's decisions, unlike Republicans, because the judicial perspective of left-wing judges is activism. So they always line up with whatever the latest line of the Democratic Party is, whereas conservative judges look at the text and they try to interpret the law according to the original meaning of the Constitution, which means there's going to be disagreements between Republicans and the judges and justices that are nominated by Republicans. Dem nominated judges or

ideologues. And so they always agree that is not necessarily true of those conservative justices. The only check that we have got on this is the Supreme Court, but Democrats have also said that they will pack the Supreme Court. So that doesn't just mean nominating justices or judges that you like. That's not what packing means. Packing means expanding the court, adding teeth to the court and then filling those seats with judges that you like. And so they would like to add four seats to the Supreme Court to make 13 justices and then fill those vacant seats with left-wing justices. So they have a majority.

They could accomplish this by doing the other things that they've promised to do if they take the Senate, which is in the filibuster. The filibuster prevents extreme legislation like packing the court from being passed with a simple majority. So that would mean if they are able to accomplish that. So if they take the Senate, if they are then able to pack the court, that would mean the Democrats control all three branches of government. And everything that they want to get past, they will get passed without compromise. It doesn't matter what you want or even what the majority of America wants.

The Constitution at that point will be moot. They've made clear that the Constitution is a hindrance to their agenda, to progressivism, so they'd be able to ignore it. And no one would really be able to stop them. Hyde Amendment overturned, which most of you guys know, the Hyde Amendment protects your federal tax dollars from directly funding abortion. They want to overturn the Hyde Amendment, so your federal tax dollars would be directly funding, paying for abortion procedures. The Green New Deal would probably get passed. Gun Confiscation programs passed.

That's a promise of Joe Biden's administration. You can read that on his website, the mandatory gun buyback programs, Equality Act passed, single payer health care, which we did a whole episode. on probably past, that means that you don't get your private health care coverage anymore. Religious liberty done, taxes skyrocket. I wish I were exaggerating this. I wish I were making this up. But I'm just looking at the policies that they're proposing. I'm just looking at the legislation that's coming down the pipeline.

I'm just looking at the promises that they made in their campaigns. Yes, there's always a chance that these bills don't go through, but nothing's stopping them, except for maybe some moderate Democrats. Maybe. And you may be thinking, well, they're not going to go full on radical for the next couple of years. They're not going to try to pass all of their pet issues and pet bills because they'll just get voted out in the midterms if they do that. Well, I guarantee you, they have already thought of that. And they are promising, according to the Atlantic, to, quote, fundamentally change how voting works in the United States.

That is one of the first things they plan to do. They're going to say that it's expanding voting rights. They're going to say that they're making it more equitable and fair. The reality is that they are going to make it hard. for them to lose. They have also touted the idea of abolishing the electoral college, which would mean that the red states, the less populate states, get no say whatsoever in presidential elections. There's a reason for the electoral college. Anyone who says that there's not, that it's racist, that it's wrong, doesn't understand why the electoral college was founded

by the founders. So all of this is resting on Georgia. We've got Raphael Warnock, who is a far-left, pro-abortion self-professing pastor. In August, he argued that abortion intentionally killing defenseless babies in the womb is consistent with biblical values. He's endorsed by Planned Parenthood, something he's very proud of, who donated $220,000 to his campaign. He has a supporter of Pastor Jeremiah Wright, just like Obama was in his, who made that infamous sermon that said, not God bless America, but God, bleep America. He argued Warnock that you can't serve in the military and follow God. His opponent Kelly Leffler responded to that particular line of reasoning in a debate a couple weeks ago. She said, I'm not going to be lectured by someone that uses the Bible to justify

abortion or to attack our men and women in the military. You know, what's happening here is someone who will not own up to their own record of division. He has called on Americans to repent for their worship of whiteness. That's divisive. That's hurtful. He didn't do that. He celebrated Jeremiah Wright, an anti-Semite. Jeremiah right is an anti-Semite. He's actually called Israel in an apartheid state. That is wrong for America. And I'm going to continue to make sure Georgians understand that that is him in his own words. She's right. She's absolutely right. So you've got a pro-abortion, far-left Democrat, who will do everything he can to bring those far-left bills across the finish line or pro-life conservative.

in Kelly Luffler. Then you've got John Ossif, and you've got David Purdue with the same story. Ossif will be a vehicle for progressive policies, and Purdue will be a vote for conservative ones. You don't have to like every single thing about either one of these candidates. You know, I have my own. I have my own issues with a variety of Republicans that I would love to change about them.

You don't have to agree with every single thing that they think, say, or do to understand the consequence of this election. and that voting for them is what protects conservative values. Now, if you're a liberal, I don't expect some people hate listen to my podcast or some people, you might be really open-minded. You want to hear the conservative perspective. If you're a liberal, I don't expect you to want to vote for them and I'm not necessarily trying to convince you to.

But if you're a conservative who cares about the Constitution and your liberties, then absolutely you want to go out and vote for these two Republican candidates. And you know at least part of what is on the line here, there's also the possibility of D.C. statehood that they want to make D.C. a state. Democrats do. And of course, because it is so heavily blue and they want to be able to give, they want to be able to take those two senators from D.C. So it's all a power grab. But the fact of the matter is, is the capital is not supposed to be its own state. It's supposed to belong to everyone. That is the point of our capital. But of course, they're trying to make it a partisan power grab by giving D.C.

to senators. That is, that's the, what, what everything is about is more power and ensuring that Republicans don't have any power that conservatives don't have any real voice in their government. Now, I know that there are very real concerns among Georgia Republicans about the voting process, and a lot of those concerns are justified. I get it. I am very close to a lot of people that are working in this election to ensure election. integrity. And I'm not talking about the activists that are holding these rallies and the stop the steel stuff. I'm not talking about those people. I'm talking about real Georgians who are conservative, who are Republicans, who just want to make sure that the signatures are verified

and make sure that this election process is as honorable and honest as it possibly can be. I can't guarantee you what's going to happen or what the other side is going to do. I'm not even getting into all of that. I'm just telling you that I'm just telling you that I'm know for a fact that there are conservatives that are working hard to make sure that this is a free and fair election. So understand that your concerns are not just being ignored. They're not just being brushed to the side. It might seem like no one is doing anything. There are people behind the scenes working really hard to make sure that this is a fair election. You aren't teaching establishment Republicans a lesson in not voting. If that's, if you're thinking, well, I'm just not

going to vote because I'm going to teach them. I'm going to teach them a lesson. They don't, I mean, Mitch McConnell, he's still got a job. Like, you're not teaching anyone a lesson. You're just willingly giving up the constitutional rights of people who are depending on you to vote in a way that protects those. Now, there's only so much you can do. I understand you might feel like it's you're out of control and that the leaders there in Georgia aren't listening to your concerns. But you've got to at least fight. Like you've got to at least show up. You've got to at least vote. Don't just hand it to them.

Like I don't know what the process is going to look like, but you can't just hand it to them. Doug Collins and Kelly and Leffler, they got 600,000 more votes than Warnock in the original, in the original election. Purdue got more votes than Ossoff, but never reached the 50% necessary to actually claim victory. So that means if every Republican that showed up in November votes in June, January and maybe some more, we will win both seats. But you can't stay home. You can't stay home. I understand your concerns I do. And I promise you they're not being ignored. I'm checking in on this stuff. This is being checked out. There are people who are vigilant about this and who are pushing for election integrity for a free and fair and equal election. Okay. So just understand that

people are fighting for that. But you've got to do your part by voting. There's a lot. on the line. Okay, I've got one other subject that I think I have time for. As I suspected, I talked a lot about that. And so I'm already like almost 40 minutes in. So I don't have time to talk about the death penalty and Bethmore. And if you were all here in front of me as a studio audience, I would ask you to please raise your hands and ask you what I, what you want me to talk about. So I'm going to talk about Bethmore. So I'm going to pretend like you all raised your hands for the Bethmore tweet. I'm going to talk about the death penalty, but I feel like that's also a little bit of an evergreen topic.

And so I could talk about it at any point. It's really important. I shared a lot of my thoughts on it on Instagram. And I really do want to get into it because I've also just been reading so much about it. Like my husband can tell you that I stayed up until like 1 a.m. The day that all of this was happening and people were talking so much on social media about the death penalty reading an ethics book. and reading both sides. I understand, fully understand, as well as I can anyway.

I'm not saying that I know everything, as well as I can, the arguments for and against the death penalty, both the biblical arguments for and against the death penalty, and also the secular, just the pragmatic arguments for and against the death penalty. And so I will give you that perspective. But first, I want to talk about this viral Bethmore Twitter thread. before I get into that. However, I have to take a quick ad break. Okay, so we'll talk about the death penalty at some point.

I promise, that's probably the thing I get asked about the most. And I did talk about it on Instagram, but I'll do a podcast episode on it or at least a segment. I can assure you that. But first, I want to talk about this viral Bethmore Twitter threat. Now, some people get really upset when I talk about Bethmore, which is not often at all. I like really, maybe I've talked about her once before, but I don't, I don't follow her. And so I don't just like randomly talk about people. When I talk about something that someone said, it is because it made the news or it went viral.

I should say, I'll call it a newsmaker. It didn't necessarily like, I don't know if it was like on CNN. Maybe it was. But it's because it went viral. And so a lot of people were talking about it. So it's basically a news story. I'm not talking about her personally. I always make sure as I'm critiquing people's arguments or as I'm giving pushback to

people's arguments, I'm not attacking her personally. And you know what I found really interesting? If I ever do disagree publicly with Beth Moore, which I'm disagreeing publicly because she is making an argument publicly. And so this is all happening on a public forum. She, I get when people, when people see that I disagree, they get really mad. and sometimes and they get super defensive. And the funny thing is, is they tell me that I'm disagreeing with her because she is calling

out one of my idols. And that is why I'm disagreeing with her. And that is why I'm upset. But in reality, I'm like, I'm not upset at all. I'm just very reasonably and calmly explaining why I disagree. And it's the people who are yelling at me who are upset. And so shouldn't that indicate that maybe it might be you that is, that is waiting in an idolatry and not and not me? Because if like you are that angry and that emotional and that

defensive about this person, not even just about their argument, but about them personally, and you're accusing someone else who disagrees with them of idolatry, maybe, maybe the finger points back at you as well. Maybe not. But I just think that that is some good food for thought. People get really, really mad when you disagree with someone like Beth Moore, which I understand. Like she has helped or a lot of people feel like like she has really had a big influence on them. Like she, you know, her Bible studies, I think most women that I know have done her Bible studies. I used to do her Bible studies. I remember hearing her speak at Passion.

She was my favorite speaker when I went to Passion in college because she is such an amazing and compelling and dynamic speaker. And like she's just so, she's so charismatic and she's so appealing and attractive in that way. and so I completely understand. I completely understand why people follow her. And she has come out over the past few years saying that she doesn't like Trump. That's fine. I know that I voted for Trump. I talk about voting for Trump. But I've also said many times, and I sincerely believe this, that I don't believe it, have never asserted that supporting Donald Trump is an indication of your righteousness

as a Christian, or it makes you more holy or even more patriotic. I know a lot of conservative Christ, who love this country and share a lot of the same values that I do that didn't vote for Donald Trump, that don't like Donald Trump, that can bring themselves to vote for Donald Trump. And I do not in any way think that I am more righteous than them, that I am holier than them, that I'm a better American than they are. I don't believe that at all. So I really don't care that Bethmore doesn't like Donald Trump.

The problem that I've had, or the where I take issue with a lot of her stances over the past few years, is that she has a disproportionate, I believe, focus on the threat that she believes that Donald Trump and his supporters pose to evangelicalism. And she would probably say that I disproportionately focus on the dangers of progressive Christianity, except that I think that I see a lot more evidence, and I think it's quantifiable, a lot more evidence of the pervasiveness and insidiousness of progressivism and progressive Christianity in our culture than I do of Trumpism. That's what she calls it in this thread.

But I will add some, let me say one of my least favorite words, but something that is sometimes necessary, nuance to this conversation after I read her viral tweet threat. She said, I do not believe these are days for mincing words. I'm 63 and a half years old and I've never seen anything in these United States of America. I found more astonishingly seductive and dangerous to the saints of God than Trumpism. This Christian nationalism is not of God. Move back from it. Fellow leaders, we will be held responsible for remaining passive in this day of seduction to save

our own skin while the saints we've been entrusted to serve are being seduced, manipulated, used and stirred up into a lather of zeal devoid of the Holy Spirit for political gain. And God help us. We don't turn from Trumpism into Bidenism. We do not worship flesh and blood. we do not place our faith in mortals. We are the Church of the Living God. We can't sanctify idolatry by labeling a leader our Cyrus. We need no Cyrus. We have no king. His name is Jesus. So some of that I want to say yes and amen to. Like the last part that we don't worship flesh and blood, that we don't

place our faith in mortals, that we are the Church of the Living God. We have a king, his name of Jesus. Yes. And amen. I completely agree with that. And therefore, I agree that any kind of political idolatry is wrong, that placing too much hope or resting our peace upon earthly kingdoms and earthly governments and even earthly policies is wrong. As I've argued many times in this podcast, should we care about those things? Should we vote in a way that we believe is for the well-being and the welfare of our nation? Absolutely. But we shouldn't idolize the government or believe that our peace comes from what's happening politically or else will be tossed to and fro. on the waves of partisanship.

And it's not a good, it's not a good foundation for our faith. Where I disagree is, well, where I have some real questions and where I think that her words are very incomplete and misleading is when she talks about the most, the most seductive and dangerous ideology to the saints of God being Trumpism. like what I want her to describe, what I want some specificity from. And I've asked her on Twitter, it's the only way that I have to get in touch with her that I know of. What I've asked her is to define her terms. Like she uses social justice terms a lot when she talks about equality, when she talks about justice, when she talks about racial justice, I always want to know what she means.

So I've asked her to define her terms. She never defines her terms. And interestingly enough, a couple weeks ago, she did, um, She did a Twitter thread that was slamming the Southern Baptist convention, I believe it was, or Southern Baptist, who called out the dangers of critical race theory. And she said, I've never been able to get from anyone a real definition of critical race theory. Can anyone give me a definition of critical race theory? It's almost like these people have just, you know, I'm paraphrasing.

She thinks that people have basically created this boogeyman that's not really real. And so I gave her a definition of critical race theory. race theory. You guys know I've talked about the definitions of critical race theory, have experts on here that are much smarter than me and much more well read than me on the subject. Talk about the definitions of critical race theory. I have been very specific about what critical race theory is, what it looks like, how it manifests itself, because I don't want it to be this fake boogeyman. I don't want it to be something that I just bring up and slap on people who disagree with me in order to shut down conversation. No, I want people to know what it is. I want people to know what the

definition is I want them to know specifically what it looks like and specifically how to listen for it. I don't want it to be this thing that I just use as a rhetorical device to shut down my opponents. That's not helpful to anyone because I actually think it's a real threat. So if you want to know more about what critical race theory is, you or Bethmore, go listen to my various podcasts on it. They all have it in the title. You can look it up on Apple Podcasts or Google it or whatever. I have lots of conversations and lots of podcasts on specifically what. critical race theory is, what it believes, what it posits, how it has specifically infiltrated the church and how it weaves itself into biblical doctrine and biblical theology in order to

leaven the whole lump in a very poisonous way. And so she laughed kind of, or she made the point that no one has been able to define CRT to her. I defined it. I didn't get a reply. And then she uses these terms like Trumpism and Christian nationalism without giving any definition, and I don't know what she means. Like, I don't know what a lot of people mean when they talk about Christian nationalism. So I asked someone, someone messaged me about this saying that, you know, they agree with Beth Moore, they disagree with me, that Christian nationalism, you know, is something that we really need to watch out for.

So I asked this person to define it for me. And I actually really appreciated that while this person disagrees with my take, that she did take the time to give me a definition. And, but I'm still, I'm still a little confused about it. It's basically conflating patriotism with Christianity, I think is what people mean. Now, everyone means different things, I think, because I think some people use this term because they've heard it and they have no idea what they mean by it. So conflating patriotism and Christianity thinking that in order to be a good Christian,

you have to have a certain brand of patriotism or in order to be a good Christian, you have to like Donald Trump or you have to fight for this election. Now, I will say that I've seen some of that. Like, here's what I think that I have seen that is actually probably Christian nationalism. And that is the idea that America is modern day Israel, that who the prophets were talking about in the Old Testament is actually, was talking about America, that we are really the city on the hill. Like, we are really God's chosen.

people, that we are basically like the culmination of God's kingdom. I do think that's dangerous. And to be perfectly honest, I have seen that from people who support Donald Trump, who think that this like battle, this litigation battle for the election is Armageddon. That's what it comes across us. Now, they probably wouldn't say that. But that's what it comes across as in some of the interviews and speeches I've heard from evangelical Christians thinking that this is like the spiritual battle of our lives. And I think it's also conflating support for Donald Trump with the light and opposing Donald Trump as the darkness, like reading Ephesians 6 that says that we don't battle against flesh and blood, but we're battling against the spiritual powers over

this present darkness, that they liken those spiritual dark powers to anyone who opposes Donald Trump. Now, I would agree that there are certainly spiritual implications to our ideologies. Like, I obviously believe as a conservative that the leftist ideology is a secular. It starts with an anti-God premise, whether or not people who hold to leftism realize that it started as an anti-God, anti-religious, anti-Christianity philosophy, even going back as far to as to Marx and the people who started the collectivism that defines the left today. It is. It's a secular anti-God purposely started as an anti-religious, anti-Christian ideology, and it's still what it is today. So I understand that there are definitely spiritual implications to what we believe. But to say that

the Republican Party or the people who voted for Trump are basically the saints and the members of the household of God, as Ephesians describes Christians. And anyone who opposes Trump is not. That is obviously wrong. That is a form of idolatry. And it is a form of, it's just a skewed worldview. It's an idolatrous worldview and it's not correct. Yes, I believe people who were Christians who said that they voted for Joe Biden, that they were wrong, that they're operating from a wrong perspective. I don't know.

I can't say that they have a wrong worldview, but I think that that was wrong. I don't think that they had to have voted for Donald Trump, though. I don't think that they had to have loved Donald Trump. I think they were wrong in their decision making in voting for Joe Biden. I think that that was absolutely a mistake, just like they think it was a mistake for me to vote for Donald Trump. But I go head to head with them on that any day of the week. But I do not believe that you have to like Donald Trump in order to be a good Christian or that indicates your righteousness at all. So anyone who ties righteousness, holiness, sanctification, chosenness to supporting Donald Trump or being a Republican,

maybe that is what Trumpism is. And I certainly make no qualms about which ideology I think actually aligns better with scripture. I mean, there's a reason why I'm a conservative. But those aren't political issues for me. Like me believe in traditional marriage, me believing in the biological gender binary, me believing in smaller government and personal generosity, voluntary generosity, those actually are political issues for me. Those are theological issues that have political implications.

And that's what I want to be careful about because I was reading the definition of what some people think Christian nationalism is on Wikipedia, which like I said, Beth Moore didn't define her term. So I have no idea what she believes. But according to trustworthy Wikipedia, the Christian nationalism promotes religious Christian discourses in various fields of social life from politics and history to culture and science with respect to legislation. With respect to legislation. Okay. So let me start with that first class. So discourses in various fields of social life from politics and history to culture in

science. So that's Christian nationalism. Is Christians wanting to view culture and science and politics from a Christian perspective? That's Christian nationalism. And so is Beth Moore and other people that are lambasting Christian nationalism saying that we shouldn't try to approach these areas of life through the lens of biblical faith? Why? You understand that if we don't look at policies and we don't look at justice and we don't

look at cultural issues through the lens of biblical Christianity, that we're going to be looking through another lens. There's no such thing as neutrality. Like Christians understand that. That if the Christian worldview is not what we are operating from when we are looking at these public square issues, then we will be operating from a secular worldview, which is not neutral. Like secularism is its own belief system. It has its own dogmas. It has its own directives. It has its own rules and restrictions. And so as much as secularism is pushing itself on society, why shouldn't we as Christian say, no, we're going to approach this from a biblical perspective? Certainly the founders did. Like is the Constitution a Christian nationalist document or is the Declaration of Independence

a Christian nationalist document because it says we were endowed by our creator with certain in inalienable rights among them being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Is it Christian nationalism to believe that our rights come from God? See, I'm afraid people are starting to believe that Christian nationalism just means Christians viewing the world through a Christian perspective, are viewing policies or cultural or social issues through a Christian perspective. And I think that it's going to convince people because they're so scared of being a called a Christian nationalist of saying, well, I'm just going to not allow my faith to let me

view the world in these public issues, I'm not going to allow my faith to color my views of those things. And so you're going to be thinking like the world. You're going to have a secular perspective, which again is not a neutral perspective of the world. You're going to take on a different worldview, a different faith that is opposed to your faith. You're not just going to be able to strike this balance of, oh, I'm a Christian privately, but I don't let it affect what I think publicly. Like, you can allow Christianity to dictate what you think about policies that have to do with human dignity, that have to do with freedom, that have to do with religious exercise without advocating for a theocracy.

Like I was saying earlier, just because I believe everyone should pray doesn't mean that I believe that the government should dictate that people pray. But am I a Christian nationalist? Because I actually believe that people should have the people that my faith informs me that people should have the freedom to be able to worship how they want to worship. Like, am I a Christian nationalist because I believe in religious liberty that I actually think that my faith informs that. Am I a Christian nationalist because I believe that I believe in smaller government

and that the responsibility of charity and caring for the poor should be predominantly on individuals and private organizations rather than on government, on the government, and government programs. Like, I want to know specifically what is Christian nationalism, according to the people who call people Christian nationalists? Because I can get on board of the definition that says, okay, it's conflating patriotism with righteousness, or it is saying that you have to be a Trump supporter in order to be a Christian, or it conflates people who voted for Donald Trump with all Christians.

Okay, I can get on board with that. Like, that is wrong. That is a threat. That is idolatry. But I can't get on board with this. idea that Christian nationalism is just being a Christian in society, that is just like viewing the world in public issues through a Christian perspective. And you'll notice that these people who say that, you know, who call all conservatives Christian nationalists who just see the

world from a Christian perspective, they don't care when AOC uses Jesus as her political mascot to push socialism. It's very interesting. They don't care when someone who supports BLM says that Jesus was a Palestinian freedom fighter. They don't care. They don't care. when Jesus is used as a mascot for social justice, left-wing political issues. It's just wrong when conservatives say that my Christian worldview informs me, for example, that we need to protect all life, and that includes life inside the womb. That apparently is Christian nationalism to some people, and I just can't get on board with that. And so the segment of so-called Christian nationalism that might actually be idolatry and something that I disagree with,

you know, as I've already described, I just don't see its popularity. I see it in a segment of the Republican Party. I do. I see it in a segment of evangelicalism. I do. But like show me the books being published on that. Like show me the number of influencers of like influential Christian people. Show me the number of of real pastors who are pushing this kind of idea. I know that some of them exist, but present to me those. And then let's look at the number of progressive Christians who are pushing secular ideas about gender identity and sexuality and the inerrancy of God's Word and heaven and hell and sin and sanctification. Worldly definitions of justice, worldly definitions of right and wrong. Let's compare the influence that these two groups have. I promise you the

latter has more influence, that it is widely popular to dawn progressivism and secular ideas of social justice and identity and sin and redemption. That is far more popular, far more pervasive and therefore far more threatening than so-called Christian nationalism, something that I think most people can't even define or put their finger on. I'm not saying this not a threat. I'm not saying this not wrong. I mean, both things, in my opinion, lead you straight to hell. All kinds of idolatry, too. but I do not think that it's an accurate assessment to say that that Trumpism is the biggest threat to evangelicalism. And I understand that's because Beth has become more progressive. And her friends are progressive.

The people who have patted her on the back for speaking out against Donald Trump are the progressive people who deny biblical marriage, who deny the biblical gender binary, who deny the traditional biblical teachings on heaven and hell and sin and sanctification. and repentance and holiness. And so she's not going to offend them. She gets big points and a lot of likes and a lot of retweets for saying the, you know, the traditional democratic, quasi-Christian dogma of the time. And so she at the end says, you know, we shouldn't turn Trumpism into Bidenism. Bidenism is not a thing.

We all know that. Like Trumpism is a thing. I agree. People, there are some people who idolize Trump. Absolutely. like he is a people have like a cult around Donald Trump there won't ever be a cult around Joe Biden because he's not magnet like he's not interesting enough he's not compelling enough no one cares about Joe Biden no one voted for Joe Biden people who voted for him actually voted for against Donald Trump but it's not Bidenism that's a threat it's progressivism and it's on the march like you just already you heard what I read about about the Equality Act that is something that's really happening that is actually a tangible threat of progress Show me the legislation. Show me the legislation, the Christian nationalist legislation that's being pushed.

But show me, show me that. Show me how that tangibly is encroaching upon our freedoms. Like, show me the legislation that's representing, that's representing that kind of worldview because I can show you bill after bill that is representing progressivism and the threat that it poses. I got a message from someone talking about how in Victoria, Australia, they have a bill that is currently being passed that is trying to, on its face, it says it's banning some kind of, you know, dangerous suppression conversion therapy for LGBTQ youth. What it actually does is it bans parents and people from praying, praying out loud for their children. They are not even allowed to have frank conversations with their children.

Their child comes home and says, you know, I'm actually, you know, I'm eight years old. I was raised a girl, but I actually think that I'm a boy. That parent, according to this bill, is not legally allowed to say, you know what, I don't actually think this is true about you. Is something else going on? Let's have a conversation about this. I love you and I want to talk to you about this. They're not allowed to do this according to this bill in Victoria.

You can read the text to the bill yourself. They're not allowed to travel somewhere else for Christian counseling services that affirms their biological reality. I mean, this is something that's happening worldwide. Like, show me the institute. the influential institutions that are spreading Christian nationalism show me how pervasive that is. I'm not saying it's not a threat, but let's compare. Let's compare the two. Bethmore doesn't want to talk about that, of course, because again, it's her allies are there.

Like, I just want to know, like, was William Wilberforce a Christian nationalist because his Christianity compelled him to lead the cause of abolishing slavery? Like, was he, was he a Christian nationalist for that? Were the founders Christian nationalists because they believed that we have inherent rights given to us by God that therefore can't be arbitrarily taken away by the government? It was imperfectly implemented at the time of the founding. But the closer and closer we have gotten to our founding ideals, the more free and equal our country has become. Like are there Christian nationalists? Is it Christian nationalist to say, you know, my Christianity informs me to pass a piece of legislation that advances the dignity of human beings.

Like, is that Christian nationalism? Is that the threat you're talking about? I think we need to be very specific. I've been very specific about the threat of theological progressivism, I believe of political progressivism, of critical race theory of intersectionality. I've taken pains to define those things, to give you resources, to read about those things,

to talk to people that know about those things. Let's get some specificity about Christian nationalism. And Trumpism, because like I said, I probably agree with you. I probably agree with you that it's an idolatry, but I think it's important that we're clear. And that we do a very realistic assessment of what is actually the bigger threat here. That's my take on all that. I know I'm going to get some angry comments from it. But I hope it's clarifying for some of you.

I know another long episode. I completely failed at making this short. I'm verbose. What can I say? just got a lot to say. Okay, we will be back here on Friday with a very interesting conversation. And then we're going to have a series of interviews after that because I already pre-recorded them for the Christmas and the New Year weeks. And then we will be back with a new and improved show that you're really going to like. And there's an announcement coming along with it that I'm excited

to tell you. Oh, by the way, you should order my book. You're not enough and that's okay, escaping the toxic culture of self-love if you have not already. And order it for your friends for for Christmas. It's a really great Christmas present. I think that it's good starting for teenage girls and then the, you know, the range goes up as far as you want to. As a parent, you got to decide, you know, what maturity level your daughter is for this book. We do talk about some mature situations and some mature issues. But if you think that your 14-year-old is mature enough to handle that, then that is up to you. I typically would probably start this about 16 years old. I think that's probably a good starting point for this book. But we go through the biggest cultural lies that the world is

feeding women in particular and we break them down with the truth of God's word. And so you can order anywhere you get books. Alliebethsucky.com.com will tell you. Okay, that's all I have for today. I will see you guys back here on Friday.