Will Cain Country - NBA Player Cut After Controversy… Over His Anti-Pride Comments? (ft. Bishop Robert Barron)

Episode Date: March 31, 2026

Bishop Robert Barron, Founder of ‘Word On Fire,' joins Will to explain why Christianity is the key pillar of Western Civilization, the main reasons behind Gen Z’s return to faith, and the overlap between love, judgement, and endorsement that is so often forgotten in today’s political discourse.Plus, with the Chicago Bulls waiving Jaden Ivey over comments they deemed “homophobic,” is America still a place where Christian values can exist in the open? Will and The Crew debate how serious a threat the decline of Christianity poses to the Western world, and how much of a role religious upbringing plays in instilling basic morals. Subscribe to ‘Will Cain Country’ on YouTube here: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Watch Will Cain Country!⁠⁠⁠Follow ‘Will Cain Country’ on X (⁠⁠⁠@willcainshow⁠⁠⁠), Instagram (⁠⁠⁠@willcainshow⁠⁠⁠), TikTok (⁠⁠⁠@willcainshow⁠⁠⁠), and Facebook (⁠⁠⁠@willcainnews⁠⁠⁠)Follow Will on X: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@WillCain⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Chicago Bulls release Jaden Ivy in what the headlines describe as an anti-gay or anti-LGBQ post. Jaden Ivy, no scrub, no longer in the NBA because of a position that is widely held in almost every major religion across the globe. plus the future of Western civilization with Bishop Robert Barron. This is Wilcane Country streaming live with the Will Cain Country YouTube channel, the Wilcane Facebook page. You can always follow us at Spotify or on Apple. Tidful Pat, two a days, Dan, yours truly here, on a Tuesday, where the headlines scream that Chicago Bulls, Jayne Ivy is no longer employed. And as it was described, Patrick, to me, this.

morning on the phone by Dan because of anti-LGBQ statements that he made. That's how it was characterized by you, Dan, and that's how it's characterized in the headlines this morning. Guys were talking together? I mean, huh? We were talking about me. Yeah, we were talking without you. Yeah.

Sorry, buddy. Yes. You didn't answer, man. I did a group call. You didn't answer. I didn't get a call. Well. Wow.

That's a you problem, not a us problem. Must have been your 12 hours of work that you just caught up in. I jump in, he's like, wait, you guys were talking without me? Yeah, and I didn't know anything about this Jaden Ivy story. And then Dan tells me, yeah, Jaden Ivy got released by the Bulls. I'm like, why? He's like, well, he made some anti-LGBQ statements. And I'm like, by the way, immediately my antennas went up.

And I'm like, what did he say? Yeah. That statement in of itself characterizes the story, frames your mind. And for the vast majority of people out there that hear this story today, maybe it hits their X feed, maybe it scrolls across their TikTok reel, that's how it's going to be framed. And, man, that is how information is internalized. I don't know if it's a reflection of the modern day attention span or the modern day media economy, but the headline increasingly is everything. because who even gets beyond the headline. So if you call something anti-gay or anti-LGBQ, then that's what it is.

And it's hard to even get to the actual statement. It feels like critical thinking to even go, well, what did he say? But that's what you should do. And I think what he said, even if at the end of this, you say it's anti-gay, it's anti-LGB. Well, then I think that's still only the beginning of the conversation. I don't think it's the end. And I think this is really, in the end, not good for the NBA. So the story from The Daily Signal reads as follows.

The Chicago Bulls waived guard Jaden Ivy after he called out the NBA for its celebration of Pride Month. The Bulls denounce Ivy's departure on Monday, quote, due to conduct detrimental to the team. I'm reading from the Daily Signal, which is going to put this in more neutral terms than what you will see from almost every other mainstream. outlet. But that's fine because what you need to do is judge this based upon the actual statements from J. Nivey. Here is what he posted in a video. He said, the world can proclaim LGBTQ, right? They proclaim Pride Month and the NBA. They proclaim it. They show it to the world. They say, come join us for Pride Month to celebrate unrighteousness. They proclaim it. They proclaim it on billboards. they proclaim it on the streets, unrighteousness.

So how is it that one can speak, how is it that one can't speak righteousness? Who are they to say that this man is crazy? Dan has the actual video. The world can proclaim LGBTQ, right? They have, they have, they proclaim Pride Month and the NBA. They proclaim it. They show it to the world.

They say come, come, come. Come join us for Pride, for Pride Month to celebrate unrighteousness. Okay. So the key there is that he says that Pride Month and the celebration of LGBTQ is, quote, unrighteousness. And that statement right there is it. That is the anti-Gay. That is the anti-LGBQ statement. That is what gets him fired from the Chicago Bulls. Now, we should take a moment because the first thing, that I thought of when you told me about this story, Dan, was Colin Kaepernick. And there's this ratio in any form of employment of what do you contribute versus what do you cost. What kind of headache do you cause versus what kind of benefit do you provide to our company? And for Colin

Kaepernick, the question, the ratio was you are a backup quarterback. You do not play much. And you have said something now that infuriates a large part of our fan base. And then therefore the headache isn't worth the payoff for your continued employment. Now, the bulls have made that same calculation, right? And they're perfectly fine to do so. By the way, this whole First Amendment and free speech thing is about government interference. It's not about your employer having to continue to employ you based upon your own opinions. You can make a cultural argument for free speech, and I think that's a very valid conversation to have.

But that's a cultural argument about free speech. that's not anything to do with the First Amendment. Jaden Avi's no scrub. Now, he might be this year. He's only played in four games because he's hurt. He was the fifth overall pick in the draft. In his first three years with the Pistons, he averaged about 15 points a game.

He got sixth or fifth in rookie of the year. He's out for the rest of the season. Just to point that out. He is. So his benefit now is low. I mean, I could definitely see how the Bulls be like, this isn't worth the headache. Sure.

But the headache is the interesting part. Okay, that's the interesting part, that they say, this is a headache. Because what Jaden Ivy has said is that he believes pride and the celebration of pride and LGBTQ is unrighteous. He believes that these sexual behaviors are unrighteous. And in that opinion, he is not in some radical minority. Like every major world religion believes the same. Islam, Judaism, Christianity, all hold the same. Now, this is where the world is messed up now.

That's not to say there's hate, right? I know many a Christian who love, but can also say, I don't endorse that behavior. It is not righteous. Love is not the same thing as a lack of judgment. judgment can be an act of love. That's how you would behave to your children. If you thought your children were doing something wrong, you would judge them, correct them, and see that as an act of love.

But in modern day America, endorsement is the only form of love, right? Not even tolerance. Endorsement. So Jaden Ivy says something. And my point is not whether or not, you know, is only that Jaden Ivy has said something it is very commonly held on the moral righteousness of certain behavior. And the NBA takes an affirmative stance that that is anti. That is anti-gay.

That is anti-LGBQ. To be fair, I haven't seen anybody say hate, but it's a short leap from there to saying it's hate. And I think that that puts this debate and this conversation in the realm that it actually belongs. And that is, what do you do when almost every world major religion says the behavior is unrighteous, but modern society says you can't say that that's unrighteous. Right, but a team can feel right. And that's a really interesting question. Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's fine, but that's a position now taken by, at a minimum, the Chicago Bulls, perhaps, having Pride Night is a position. You're right. They had already taken the position.

They had already taken the position. But now the position they're taking. is you cannot question it. You cannot say anything in any way in disagreement with it. And by the way, they're not the only ones. This happens all the time in world soccer. Because to be truthful, Muslims are very, very outspoken on this stuff. And so you have Muslim soccer players in England and in Italy and other places like, I'm not doing this. I'm not doing this. And this is the clash we have of basically the moral tenants of almost every religious foundation on the world to the modern day sentiments of what is righteousness, what is virtue. And the NBA has taken a very, very strong stance. And you don't have to agree with

Jaden Ivy. That's kind of not the point. The point is rather that most every major world religion does agree with Jaden Ivy. You don't even have to endorse, because Jaden Ivy does say some other stuff in here, and this is fascinating. They say that in the past, I think it's in the past. He has said Catholicism is a false religion. And you don't know what's interesting about that. I didn't know this. His mother is the head women's basketball coach at Notre Dame. I did not know that. He's from South Bend. She coaches at Notre Dame. He's out here saying Catholicism is a false religion. Let's let's hope that doesn't impact her employment as well as his. But I will note, he was not fired for saying Catholicism is a false religion. He was fired for saying that

endorsement of LGBTQ or pride is unrighteous. Interesting dichotomy there. We've had a larger conversation at times here about Western civilization, the future of Western civilization. The opinions of a lot of really high-profile Democrats like Alexander Gaccio-Cortez on basically the evils of the evils of the evils of Western civilization, the fall of Western civilization, both from a Marxist, leftist angle, and from an Islamic angle. The real battle right now for Western civilization, I had a fascinating conversation, I don't know, a few weeks ago, a month ago on the Will Cain Show with Bishop Robert Barron.

He is the Bishop of the Diocese of Winona, Rochester, Minnesota, and he's the founder of Word on Fire as well. And by the way, he has 3 million subscribers on YouTube, Bishop, really, hey, look, that's got to be a good sign. A lot of people want to hear what you have to say, Bishop, about everything, $3 million on YouTube. Well, thank God it's a good sign, I think. It's a sign, too, when we started doing that work a long time ago, people thought, oh, that's not going to be popular, and you better make it as kind of, you know, relevant to the kids as you can. I always resisted that and always spoke out of the, you know, Catholic intellectual

tradition in a serious way. And the fact that I found an audience, I do think is an encouraging sign. The people are open to having serious conversations about life and society and religion. Why do you, you know, it actually doesn't come as a surprise to me, especially the more I have teenage boys and the more I interact with their friends and their peer groups. It doesn't come as a surprise to me that they're open to the message, but also, as you described it, the intellectual foundations, the intellectual argument, the C.S. Lewis, the St. Thomas Aquinas, approach to religion doesn't surprise me. Why do you think it's resonating so much with young people? We underplayed it. I'll speak from my Catholic perspective. Like when I was coming of age,

back in the, you know, like 1970s, early 80s, we really underplayed the intellectual dimension. Oh, somehow, you know, the kids can't handle that or it's too much. And we emphasize the social justice issue. That was really big within Catholicism. Usually read in a very left-wing way, right? And then what happened, the new atheists came along. So early, you know, zeros, the new atheists come along, and they are making intellectual arguments against God. Now, not very good ones, but they were intellectual arguments, and they swept up a lot of people in that.

And see, we, as I'll speak as a Catholic anyway, we've thrown away a lot of our weapons. We had de-emphasized the apologetic and the intellectual. And so we weren't able to respond well to them. And I know there was a whole generation that was very affected by the new atheist critique. So I find now that when you bring forward the faith in an intellectually compelling way,

people are starving for it and they like it. And we so underestimated what they're capable of. That was a pastoral tragedy, in my judgment, because we lost a lot of people, my generation, certainly. So the next generation, they're open to it, they're interested in it. And you're right. I mean, the fact that I found this pretty big audience

is a sign of it. That's interesting you talk about this generational thing. I don't know how old you are, Bishop, but I would say, I'm going to guess we're in the same age range because I feel like I lived through that, and I feel like I was personally part of that. You know, I grew up in the church, not Catholic, Methodist Church, and there was a time in my 20s probably when I would have described myself as agnostic.

I would never have said an atheist. I found that. I found that intellectually weak. The case for atheism is incredibly intellectually weak. But I found some intellectual, what I thought was humility and I don't know. And that being said, it is actually not just intellectualism that has brought me back, but it is sort of this deeper feeling of connection and the necessity of fact. faith in life. I think as you get older, humility becomes more than I don't know. Humility even

gets more profound as you get older, and that has drawn me back. But I do think that was a generational thing. Yeah, and there's, you know, there's that hunger of the heart. And I'll use heart here, kind of in St. Augustine's sense, not just my emotions and feelings, but kind of what encompasses the whole of me. It's the deepest dimension of my life, right? So Augustine says, Lord, you've made us for yourself, and therefore our heart is restless until it rests in thee. It's the greatest statement of Christian anthropology ever made. And it's played out every day. So people, you know, seek their joy in wealth and in power and in friendships and in their country or any worldly good. And they are really good, these things. But they're not ultimately good.

They're not what the heart finally wants. And so you're always left dissatisfied until you discover God. Our heart is restless until it rests in thee. And that's what people perennially are hungry for in ancient times and medieval times and modern times. And so I find that my work online again and again that dynamic plays itself out is, yeah, yeah, I know, I know. You're dissatisfied. Listen, by the way, go back on YouTube or something, to every homily, every sermon that Billy Graham ever gave. They have the same structure, which is, hey, you've tried this, this, this, this, and that, haven't you? they haven't made you happy, have they? I've got what will make you happy. And he's deeply

Augustinian in doing that. He's deeply biblical in doing that. That's the basic form of all Christian evangelism. And it's still true today. People are still hungry in the same way. Say quick break, but continue this very fascinating conversation with Bishop Robert Barron, the Bishop of the Diocese of Winona, Rochester, Minnesota. When we come back on Wilcane Country, Join Fox in supporting our troops from daily needs to global emergencies. Help us be there for those who serve. Visit go.com slash Red Cross to donate to service to the armed forces today. This is Ainsley Earhart.

Thank you for joining me for the 52 episode podcast series, The Life of Jesus. A listening experience that will provide hope, comfort, and understanding of the greatest story ever told. Listen and follow now at foxnewspodcasts.com or wherever you listen to podcasts. Welcome back to Will Kane Country. We're still hanging out with Bishop Robert Barron, the Bishop of the Diocese of Winona, Rochester, Minnesota. And I think that's my story, especially the emphasis as you point it to the heart, because at some point you realize, I'm trying to pick which noun to use. The world, your life is not fulfilled through your brain. Like, your brain is a big part of it. That's a weird place because we started with the intellectual exercise and the intellectual explanation. But I just think the humility thing I'm referencing is at some point. point, you're sensing something within yourself that has nothing to do with what's happening between your ears. It's happening somewhere else in your soul. And that's that hunger.

Well, you know, faith, I've always said this. Faith is never infarational. It's super irrational. Meaning, it's never below reason. So what's below reason is superstition and credulity and stupidity. And no one wants that. No one wants what's lower than reason. But faith, comes in when reason realizes its own limits. And that happens to you in whatever field you're in, is reason can do so much, and then you sense a reality on the far side of reason. That's where faith comes in.

So in my tradition, with Thomas Aquinas, we talk about Fides et Razzio, faith and reason. You never eschew reason. You never leave reason aside. That's superstition, or that's a kind of fundamentalism. But you go beyond reason to this realm of faith, which is sensed more by the heart than it is by the intellect. But that's the right relationship. Yeah.

The last time we were together, maybe the only time we were together, we were talking about Alexander Ocasio-Cortez, I believe, at the Munich Security Conference, talking about Western civilization. So let's start with the importance of Western civilization. and it's in its tie. Theoretically, Christianity is something that is independent of and above Western civilization, but yet we all still sense that their futures seem to be intricately tied together. Absolutely. You know, my hero here is Pope Benedict the 16th, Yosef Ratzinger, one of the great Catholic theologians of the 20th century. And he emphasized that theme over and over again, that you can't understand Europe, he often said,

apart from Christianity. But more broadly, you can't understand the West apart from Christianity. And you can point to that in so many different ways. Think in terms of our political culture, how important that Jefferson, who is not a perfectly Orthodox Christian, but Jefferson, you know, we hold these truths to be self-evident,

all men are created equal. See, take created out of that sentence and it falls apart because we're not equal in any area. We're not equal in intelligence or creativity or courage or freedom or virtue or anything. We're all very unequal. How are we equal? We're all equally children of God, created by God.

Take God out of it and our equality goes away. Our rights, you know, so endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. Take the creator out. And what do you get? Well, maybe some people have rights, maybe an elite part of society have rights. those rights can be given and therefore taken away by the state. Take God out of the equation, and you've got a very dangerous political space. My point there is God is integral to our Western understanding of democracy and of politics.

Also the objectivity of truth, I'd say that. We live in a time, our postmodern time, when we've relativized almost everything. So even my gender I can create on my own terms. own terms. Who are you to tell me what my gender is? We've bracketed truth as something objective and made it simply a construct of our own will. But see, you believe in God. You know that God is the ground of being, the ground of truth, the ground of objectivity. Now you can talk about objective values, objective truth, objective moral principles. Take God out of the equation, as so many have. What are you left with? Our postmodern

self-invention society. I'll make it up as I go along, right? So in that sense, it is integral to what we recognize as our Western civilization. Religion is not a little private matter, a little hobby that some people have. It's integral to the understanding of Western culture. Well, and what does that tell you then about the modern, it's more than skepticism. I don't know that it's fair for me. I think it's an attack. I do think it's an attack. What do you think on the modern attack on that relationship? Whether or not it is from, when we were together last time, we were talking about AOC's point of view on Western civilization is inherently Marxian, right? We also at the same time have this issue of pluralism and freedom of religion in the

United States that welcomes in other religions that do not have that same historical, philosophical relationship with Western civilization. So what do you make of the, I'll use the, I'll use the word attack on this relationship between the two? Well, there's no question it's an attack. And go right back to Marx himself, who said the first critique is the critique of religion. So Marx wanted to do an economic critique, a political critique and all that, ultimately leading to a revolution. But the first critique, he said, is the critique of religion. Now, why? Because religion's the opium of the masses. And so as long as we're taking this drug of religion, then we're not going to be sensitive to our suffering.

and therefore the revolution won't get underway. So the first move you got to make is get rid of religion. Well, you see it played out. People read Marx carefully and they implemented them. So see it in the great revolutions of the 20th century and so on. So, yeah, it is an attack for sure. And they also know, well, I think that we're the most powerful opponent. So if the Renian philosophy is this sort of postmodern relativism,

The great opponent is classical Christianity. And so of course they're going to go after us, and they're going to try to humiliate us or try to undermine us or try to smear us with scandal or whatever, because we are the most significant opponent. No, no question about that. On the issue of religious liberty, it's very interesting to me, because religious liberty is not something that Christians, for example, grudgingly accept. No, no, it comes up from Christianity itself.

It comes up from this keen sense of the dignity of the individual. So something that you cannot do, you should not do, is impose religious belief on someone's deepest conscience. Christians recognize that because we're Christians. And so look at the Founding Fathers. It was out of their Christian convictions that they understood the importance of religious liberty. So it's a bit of a paradox, I realize. but it's a Christian conviction that we shouldn't be imposing Christianity on the world. It has to be accepted.

So John Paul II said, you know, the church should always propose but never impose. Right. I think that's John Paul II and Thomas Jefferson. Say quick break, but continue this very fascinating conversation with Bishop Robert Barron, the bishop of the diocese of Winona, Rochester, Minnesota. When we come back on Wilcane Country. whether it's with your besties or date night get to all the hottest concerts with GoTransit.

Go connects to all the biggest entertainment venues and makes it affordable with special e-ticket fares. A weekend pass offers unlimited travel across the network on any weekend day or holiday for just $10. A weekday group pass offers the same weekday travel flexibility from $30 for two people up to $60 for five. So no matter what day of the week, Goz got you covered.

Find out more at goadransit.com slash tickets. Welcome back to Will Kane Country. We're still hanging out with Bishop Robert Barron, the Bishop of the Diocese of Winona, Rochester, Minnesota. But what do you do, Bishop, when you're confronted with religious tolerance and liberty? And, you know, I don't know, look, Islam is 1% of the United States population, but there is not really an Islamic society on earth that has embraced that same kind of religious liberty where they are the majority. And so how the United States has a real difficulty here in what some would describe as a bit of suicidal empathy. Well, I mean, religious liberty, yes, but to the point where a system becomes

repugnant to the American polity itself. So if you have a religion that says we are opposed to the structure of American democracy, well, then that can't be tolerated. So there is a kind of built-in limit. You know, let's say someone has a religion that says, you know, I have to sacrifice a child every week to God. Well, no, we're not going to accept that because it runs counter to the basic political structure of the country. So within those parameters, it's not an absolute religious liberty. It's within the parameters of the American polity. Right. I know you were listening to me. I'm just curious on another thing that I think many Christians have to confront, and that is, you know, I think almost every week in church I hear, you know, at the benediction, like love one another.

And it's the central commandant love God and love one another. And I think that that edict is, you know, intricately tied to the concept of tolerance, love and tolerance. I'm sure you heard me saying that judgment can be an act of love. One could even argue condemnation can be an act of love, you know. And but we live in an age today when that is not. That is described as hate. And the only form of love that is offered by modern definition is one of not even tolerance, but endorsement and celebration.

Yeah. Right. And you're making a very important distinction. So Thomas Aquinas said to love is to will the good of the other. That's a really good definition because it's hard-edged. To love someone is to say, I want your good. Well, that means, first of all, I have to have some sense of what the good really is. I have to understand human nature objectively, so I know what's really good for human nature.

Think of a parent. Now, there's the great biblical example. Would a parent be loving toward a child if he gave the child everything the child wants it every minute? Well, of course not. Child wants all kinds of stupid things and wants them inappropriately and so on. The parent knows what's good for the child and wants that. Can that include saying no? Can that include punishment? Can that include limitation? Of course. Of course. So apply it, you know, to God and then to the faith that represent him. Can it be an act of love to say to someone, no. No, that's inappropriate. No, you shouldn't do that. But you're right that what's happened is we've allowed this kind of rhetorical sliding to happen. So love is now read as, you shouldn't do that. So love is now read as, you're right, that what's happened is we've allowed this kind of slight rhetorical sliding to happen. So love is now read as, you're toleration of all things at all times no matter what. Well, that isn't love. That's a very dangerous

attitude. I'm going to tolerate whatever you do and whatever you want to be. Come on. You're not serious then about that you don't truly love that person. You're trying to mollify them or you're trying to get along or something, but you're not loving that person. That distinction, though, is lost on a lot of people and mischief follows. Yeah, I would say it's lost to I think to some extent we've lost that rhetorical. We've lost that rhetorical trick, sliding scale. I don't know if we're in the minority, but we're certainly walking uphill to convince people of what we just said, because it's just much easier to accept celebration is love.

Right. Because it means there's going to be conflict. If you say love is willing to go to the other and someone, look, we're all sinners. all of us. So we all choose bad things from time to time. We all make bad choices. We all adopt bad lifestyles to varying degrees. And so when someone comes along and says, no, no, that's wrong. Don't do that. That's going to cause trouble. Now here's the other thing I find interesting on this score is you'll hear the rhetoric of total tolerance, total inclusion, you know, whatever you want to do. But yet, if someone's demonstrating racist attitudes or anti-woman attitudes or anti-indigenous

people attitudes. They're pretty quick to say, no, no, no, you can't do that. And see, what I'd like to do with that is say, all right, what are the conditions for the possibility of that? You must believe in objective value. If I came along and said, oh, no, I think racism is fine. I just my opinion. And you got your opinion and shouldn't we just tolerate each other? Oh, no, no, no. You're dead wrong about that, you know? Or I think it's okay to be abusive toward women. And it's just my opinion. And you should tolerate me. Oh, gosh, no. No, absolutely not. So they do indeed believe in objective values.

They do indeed believe in the legitimacy of saying no, right? But they just have different, different, you know, emphasis. You are more articulate and well-read than I am. And I am humble listening to you. And if anybody's ever going to convert me to Catholicism, I think you're the first-round draft pick. But what you just said, the only thing I'd push back on is what you have revealed there is there's a creed.

There is not, I would argue, objective values because I think those values change over time and therefore they can't be objective, right? And so the question is, what defines the creed? The creed that we will not tolerate racism, but we will tolerate these other things. And not only that will celebrate. So what is defining the creed? Is it popular consensus, consensus amongst intellectual elites? Is it what, what is it? We're identifying the existence of a creed, even if it's really.

it and it moves, and I would argue it does, it moves very fast, perhaps, maybe five-year terms. But what is defining that creed? Yeah. And see, that's where I would, with those folks, I push and say, you don't deep down think that your conviction is born of a popular consensus. If I were to say, well, what if the popular consensus changed and now it's okay to be racist, would you be down with that? Well, no, of course not.

Well, then you don't believe it's a matter of democratic consensus. you believe it's objectively the case. If I were to say, you know, people accepted slavery at one time, and then, boy, we fought a civil war, and now everyone's against slavery, but, you know, it might change, and actually I think slavery is not a bad thing. Well, no, I mean, they would push back at you violently

because they don't think that's a matter of consensus. So that's where I would say, we've got to be consistent on this. You do believe in objective values, but you just, you don't yet see why the values I'm defending are in. fact objective. So, so let's have an argument. Let's not play this facile game of, well, let's all just tolerate each other. That gets us nowhere. You know, you said you have a Methodist background. One of my favorite theologians. Okay, okay, this is kind of fun, but I disagree a little bit.

See, I think that they actually would yield to the popular consensus. I actually think they would argue to you, oh, I don't care if the popular consensus moves towards endorsement of slavery. I won't be there. But I do think they are largely cheap. that would be. I do think they're largely sheep that would be there. I think that they would follow the popular consensus. I mean, Barack Obama was opposed to gay marriage. Yeah, man. Yeah. No, I'm just trying to find that I think there's a core inconsistency, you know, in the way they're thinking it through. No doubt. You know, it's, yeah, it's that loss of an objective structure to reality, which in turn is grounded in God. And once God's out of the picture, then everything begins to slide around.

That's the story of post-modernity, certainly. Modernity kept it together to some degree. Think of someone like Jefferson and the founders. I mean, they're coming out of a modern framework, but it still had a lot of the consistency of the classical world. But the post-modern, that's where everything starts sliding around the deck of a ship. Yeah. I'm sorry, I interrupted you a moment ago.

disagree with you. You were about to quote a theologian. I feel robbed of myself that I don't get back. Oh, yeah, no, it was, yes, it was Stanley. It was Stanley Hauerwist. I don't know if you know that name, the Methodist Theologian, whom I love, I've been reading him for years. And Howard said, one of the things we need to recover in our country is the ability to have a real argument about religion in public. And what he meant was, I said, there's two

options available. One seems to be, you know, complete oppression or violence, I'm going to impose my religion on you, or total indifference and relativism, and you got your view, I got my view. There's something in between those two, which I would call religious argument. We can discuss this thing publicly, appealing not just to our feelings, but appealing to certain objective principles. And let's talk about it. So my hero, St. Thomas Aquinas, his whole work is structured as a kind of public argument. You know, is there a God, Aquinas S? And then he says, well, some say there's not, because A, B, C, D.

I say there is, and here's my, and now let me answer the objections. That's called an argument, and we've kind of forgotten how to have that about religion in our culture. Yeah. Bishop, what do you think, this will be my final question for you, what is the biggest threat to Western civilization? The loss of God. I think if we keep marginalizing God, Western civilization will collapse. And so like the disaffiliation of people from churches, which I've been following now for many years,

when I was a kid back in the 70s, 97% of Americans identified with a religion. It was 3% said they had no religion. Now it's like 28% would claim they have no religion. Church attendance, of course, has gone dramatically down. You say, oh, that's a little sociological problem for the churches. No, no, no. That's a fatal threat. It's a mortal threat.

to Western civilization. Because the more we lose touch with our biblical roots, the more we lose touch with the Hebrew prophets and with Jesus, the more we lose touch with the religious tradition, we're going to lose the moorings of our Western culture. So the biggest threat is loss of belief in God, I think. Say quick break, but continue this very fascinating conversation with Bishop Robert Barron, the Bishop of the Diocese of Winona, Rochester, Minnesota. When we come back on Wilcane Country, When West Jet first took flight in 1996, the vibes were a bit different. People thought denim on denim was peak fashion, inline skates were everywhere, and two out of three women rocked, the Rachel.

While those things stayed in the 90s, one thing that hasn't is that fuzzy feeling you get when WestJet welcomes you on board. Here's to WestJetting since 96. Travel back in time with us and actually travel with us at westjet.com slash 30 years. Welcome back to Wilcane Country. We're still hanging out with Bishop Robert Barron, the Bishop of the Diocese of Winona, Rochester, Minnesota. Oh, that's going to give me a ton to think about, to talk about. As this entire conversation, I have, you're always welcome here.

I'm sure you're a busy man, but you're welcome here anytime for these kinds of conversations. I always enjoy talking to you. I appreciate it. God bless you. Thanks. Okay, I hope to do it again soon. God bless you as well. That is Bishop Robert Barron here of the Diocese of Winona, Rochester, Minnesota.

You know, I talk about, this morning I was at, I had a breakfast with a friend of mine, and I said, Listen, I think, I said, I think immigration. Remember the other day when somebody said to me, what'd they say to me, Patrick? I'm soft on immigration. Yeah. I said, I think immigration is almost a single issue voting thing, that I think it's existential. I think it's existential to the United States and to Western civilization. The bishop makes an interesting point that I'm still not deep enough.

if you think about it. Because why would immigration be a threat? Well, if it is incapable or unwilling to assimilate into Western civilization, to our culture, which is part of who we are. I mean, and I think that debate in and of itself is where we exist a lot of times. Is it part of who we are? Does it exist? You hear people say, there's no culture in America, right? Of course there is. And then you have the debate about whether or not that is definitional to us, our culture, Western civilization. uniquely American part of Western civilization. And if it is, and I certainly believe that it is, then if you bring in millions who either can't or won't become part of that tradition, now you have an existential crisis. You know what I mean? That word is overused,

but it's exactly appropriate in this phrase, existential, meaning we will cease to exist. But he makes an interesting point, like, what is Western civilization? And he makes the argument in the course of that conversation, that it is, inseparable from God. It is inseparable from the belief in God, the Christian God. It is inseparable. And therefore, that has to be part of this argument. He didn't answer to me that the biggest threat to Western civilization is immigration. He answered to me, it is the loss of God. You follow? So, I mean, that means logically two things. You could lose your whole civilization with or without immigration.

You could lose it by simply the stats we see if people continuing to not go to church, not believe in God. We've seen those stats, right, over time. There is some green shoots on that with the younger generation. It does look like there is some upswing. But that in and in itself is an existential threat. I think it is the worship of self. Yeah, how is the lack of God going to kind of tear down the country as we know it?

I'm just curious. I'm asking. Because he's telling you that it's fundamental to. to who we are. It's fundamental to everything you take for granted. Meaning every premise through which you operate, you, Two a Days Dan, walking down the streets of New York, everything about your life, from the safety on the streets to the organization of the economy, to the rights and the freedoms that you enjoy, to the lifestyle that you have chosen, is a product, a flower off of the civilizational seed.

that were planted 2,000 years ago manifesting really uniquely 250 years ago here. And it's just really, really full of hubris to think it all started with you. But we don't have a choice then? And everybody does think that. Well, in some ways, you're living in something that you don't even realize you're living in or how it got here or how you're benefiting from it. But the wild thing is, as hard as that is for me to describe it. for you and for you to step outside yourself and appreciate, it's a really simple remedy,

and it sounds trite, go live somewhere else. And then you will see, you will see, take the fish out of saltwater and put him in the lake, and he will see very quickly. So you go live in a place that is not built upon those very same traditions. And I'm not just talking about go live in Syria. You could go live in Haiti for a little while. And, well, yes, but also a Christian nation, you know? Sure.

So go live in Thailand. And the organizational life that you would have in Thailand is very different than what you've enjoyed here. Maybe in some superficial ways, if you're into Lady Boys, you'll like it a lot more or whatever. Like Sam Rockwell's character. Like Sam Rockwell's character, White Lotus. I see. I've rewatched that scene. the past week, by the way.

Yeah. I kind of wanted, I would have pushed back on Bishop a little bit. When you're talking about the racism... What? And the... And the violence against women. I mean, you're talking about, like, two different things.

So you're saying, you're saying that if you think racism and violence against women are bad, you know, can't we all agree that those two things are bad? It's not... You know what I'm saying? Like, it... What? why do we agree those are bad?

Why would everybody, yeah, why would you agree that? The violence against women is bad? Why? Because it's... Dan, you take that self-evident. You take that as obvious. Once again, do you think everybody on the globe agrees with you on that point? They definitely do not.

On either one of them. Do you think everybody through history agrees on that point? They definitely do not. You are in a small little moment in time in a unique place where you, You think that is self-evident and obvious. You only have to travel 75 years here or a few hundred miles now. But we evolved from that. To find out those propositions are not self-evident.

No, you have not evolved. Yes, you have evolved, but you have to ask why. We know it's wrong. Violence against anyone is wrong. Why do you? But why do you know that? Because they don't. You go back to first principles.

Why do you know that and they don't? because that's what they choose to believe. And why? Because they can. But I'm just saying, but can we... You're smarter? No, can we all say those things are wrong?

What is your point on the other side of that? Because there is objective. Right. Go ahead. How do you arrive at those opinions? It's like, how do you arrive at those opinions? And it's like, we're doing is we're looking at the context of where we're all. where we are and not how we arrived at that point.

When someone in my family was beaten by their boyfriend, yeah, that's upsetting. And I think it's wrong. I mean, that's where my opinion comes from. And I had to deal with it. So that forms my opinion. No. Does it not? Because of personal experience.

You're not an entirely self-made man. If you had been born in Afghanistan and that same thing happened. to you and to somebody that you loved, you believe it or not, may not feel the exact same way about it. You might have said, what did she do to justify it? Right. I believe what Islamic law did she break. Where I was born, just like religion, I was born Catholic, I had no choice in that. So I chose to evolve and learn differently and learn different ways of thinking. And my ways of thinking came to that.

But you didn't do it on your own. Of course I did. But you didn't do it on your own. After being Catholic, I did on my own. You're a product of, you're a product of, hundreds of years of development. You're the product of hundreds, thousands of years of morality and civilization. I think that gets us back to what we're replacing.

It's the self. It's the self. It's the intellect. It's what I described about myself in my 20s. I'm the master of my own universe. No, no one said you can't be a good person without going to church. But civilizationally, on the macro scale, what we're talking about is you lose these things. And I just think my opinion is I think you're taking something.

something is self-evident that is not self-evident with just a little bit of travel. So there's no self-evident truths at all? There is. What is? There is. That's the point. But what is, though? They are grounded in God.

But that's your opinion, though. The objective truths are the truths and the virtues that are grounded in God. Yes, okay, it's my opinion. Fine. Yes. It's not just my opinion. But it is grounded in that. And the bishop is making the point that. For those that say those things and have that creed, I still disagree with him that they are objective on those things. Patrick, do you agree with me or the bishop on that?

I do not think even for those, for example, Dan, do I think there is a world that could exist in the United States, a potentiality? Do I think it's possible on the curve of possibilities that a plurality or 51% of Americans could believe in the future that race, racism is good or beating your spouse is acceptable. Do I think that's a potential possibility? Yeah, I do. Because I do not think the people that think it's self-evident, kind of what you're saying, Dan, are actually grounded in objective truth. I think they're largely grounded in majority consensus. COVID said, COVID was a big moment for me on that.

The rapid change in gay marriage and trans were big moments for me on that. And therefore, they will go where the consensus takes them. Not necessarily because it's popular, but because it's popular, then they'll find the rationalizations to make to accept it. Do you see what I'm saying? But those are objectively bad things. If you're not grounded and hurt people. Of course they are. That's just what I'm just my point is.

It's like, I feel like we could all agree that those two things. specifically hurt other people, which we should not be doing. So in essence, should be bad things. There are a lot of cultures. Why? There are a lot of cultures that... Because they hurt people. And so women are lesser?

And then people of other races are lesser than the people that oppress them? Because that's what that means. Well, you're describing much of history and much of the world. Of course, but we could be better than that. And we should be better than that. I mean, we still have more slavery today in this world. In the common world today. Why are we better is the point.

But why are we better as the point? By not being... Why are we better? I agree. We are better. Why? Because we chose to not have segregation and not have slavery anymore and not have it okay to beat your wife. I think we're better. And Christianity was fundamental in every one of those moral evolutions. Well, every one of those more objective truths. You can point to certain parts of the Old Testament that aren't.

Well, we also have evidence. We also have, like, the world that we live in. Sure. We didn't do this in spite of. We did this because of we got to this place. All right. Fascinating conversation. So I got to take off here pretty quick.

Let's bring this full circle. You guys don't have to go. The Jaden Ivy conversation, this kind of in a way is what I'm getting at with Jaden Ivy. Jaden Ivy has espoused an opinion that while is contra to popular consensus, current popular consensus, is grounded in these larger things. Right or wrong, it is. And it's like all of a sudden the Chicago Bulls aren't in conflict with Jaden Ivy. That's my point. they're in conflict with Christianity.

That doesn't mean every Christian church and every Christian preacher is going to agree with that. But the majority, and in conflict with Islam and in conflict with Judaism. I don't know about Hinduism and Buddhism. I don't know as much. And that's a pretty, pretty certain place to stand for the NBA. That's a pretty certain, like, that's a, one could argue that is the radical position to take. To lose your job, you know, I agree. It only said it is unrighteous.

Yeah. That's all he said. Like if you ran into somebody that said that, would you automatically go, oh my God, I can't believe you just said it's unrighteous? You know what I mean? That's not a foreign concept. Now, if he said, I believe you shouldn't have any rights and you should be, that's different, right? but he only said it's unrighteous. I wonder if it breaks like a morality clause in the NBA or something like that.

You know what I mean? Like they have something, some words in there when you join a team or join the league. I would be curious. Yeah. And I can't help separate it from what the bishop said is the greatest threat is the loss of God. And in essence, the NBA or the Chicago Bulls are saying you can't have that God. You can't have that position. All right.

Anyway, absolutely fascinating conversation. I hope you enjoyed it. I'm going to be honest with you. I got a Dallas Cup soccer game. I got to get to second round. We won four to one in the first game. The young man is kicking off in 11 minutes. I'll tell you how it goes tomorrow.

Spotify or Apple. We'll see you again next time. Listen to ad free with a Fox News podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcast. And Amazon Prime members, you can listen to this show, ad free on the Amazon Music app. Thank you.