tv Not a Day Care CSPAN September 2, 2017 8:02am-8:55am EDT
and i have the privilege of his three massive dogs when he is out giving those lectures. fourteen years as president of the university. he has beat known for his passionate defense of intellectual freedom. he advocates tirelessly for cultural courage with the time-tested truth. his commentary on religion education and politics challenges the intolerance of today's academic community. at oklahoma wesley. he ed's art were to lay featured in local and national news outlets.
his most well-known this is not a daycare is that the university has since gone viral and is not the basis for his new book. along with their two sons seth and kobe had served as the first family since august of 2002. he actively participates in the community and the church. and serves on a variety of councils and boards relating to christian leadership public policy and community leadership. please help me walk him dr. everett piper. delighted to join you. i would suggest the audience should know their speaker. trigger warning.
i do not shoot trigger warnings. i don't believe in safe spaces he is not safe but he is good i would argue that the great line of the academy of the university of americans and western universities and colleges. should not be safe but indeed they are good. i don't believe that my feelings are yours are the final measuring rod of what's right or wrong. i actually believe education should be more about facts than feelings feelings lead to fascism and fax lead to freedom. remember the basic fact that jesus told us up. i believe in ideas and i believe in words i believe that when we lose control of our words we lose control of our ideas. when we lose control of the debate we ultimately lose control of our freedom.
for example when we dumbed down the definition of words like heat to nothing more than disagreement we make hate meaningless and disagreement dangerous. words matter. ids have consequences and one last word before i get into my lecture life is not about you. education is not about you. it isn't about me. george mcdonald a writer from the turn of the 1800s to the 19 hundreds one that led to the conversion of the cs lewis if you well. have this to say. the core principle of hell is i am my own i am my own king. in the center and i'm the object and i am the end. my judge it -- my judgment is there. anything from marriage to morality from male to female
anything from what it means to be good this claim of godlike deity can only lead to the ugly hell of our own making. the only repentance and confession. so i'm the guy this is the university it's not a daycare. let me give you a little bit of a context and then we will launch into a little bit as we go along also. i was just before thanksgiving 2015 they still have required chapels every once wednesday and friday. i received a phone call from one of my vice presidents. i did not go to chapel that day i have some thing else to do and he wanted to call me and let me know that there could be a problem.
he said it is what you do not my our students after chapel came to me played the victimization card. he told me that i have offended him. and i have singled his peers out and he didn't like it. he did not like my chapel speech. first corinthians 13. for those of you who don't know first corinthians 13 is the quintessential love chapter of the bible. i ask this particular vp give me a copy of your sermon because i know he always speaks from a text. i know if i read it i would get exactly what he said. so i read through the sermon i was a very no political humor no sarcasm nothing whatsoever that could be deemed offensive other than first corinthians 13.
so i was incredulous i thought to myself an institution like this that is bold and clear in our marketing white you should come here you cannot enroll without knowing who we are. you know that we have a center on capitalism free enterprise and constitutional liberties because we think those things are good not bad. we know that we see in for pro-life and that we actually promote through our nursing program that god defined life you don't. and when you choose to pay to go there you are buying a product that is very will defined but in spite of that. we have a student same he did not like first corinthians 13. so i want to share with you what my response was. i actually published on the website and i also publish it
and then the local newspaper which i have the routine of doing. i said to the sandman the feeling of discomfort you have after listening to a sermon it's called your conscience. an altar call is supposed to make you feel bad. it is supposed to make you feel some degree of guilt. the primary objective of the church in the christian faith is your confession and that your self actualization. let me offer you some advice. if you want the chaplain to tell you that you are victim rather than tell you you need virtue this may not be that university you are looking for. if you want to complain about a sermon and that makes you feel less than loving for not showing love this might be the wrong place. if you're more interested in playing the heater card than in confessing your own hate if you want to lecture rather than humbly learn if you don't want to feel guilt in your
soul when you're guilty of sin and if you want to be enabled rather than confronted there are many universities across the land in missouri and elsewhere that will give you exactly what you want but we are not one of them. we teach you to be selfless rather than self-centered. we want you to model inter- personal reconciliation we believe in the content of your character and we think it's more a pair port and the color of your skin. we don't believe you had been victimized every time you feel guilty and we don't issue trigger warnings before altar calls. it is not a safe place but rather a place to learn. to learn that life is not about you but about others that bad feeling you have while listening to a sermon it's called guilt in the way to address it is to repent of
everything that is wrong with you rather than blame others for everything that is wrong with them. this is a place where you were quickly learned that you need to grow up this is not a daycare this is a university. this caused a bit of a grass fire and before i knew it fox and friends and glenn beck and nbc today. newspapers in great britain and the far east. were all this and interested apparently many wanted to hear what i have to say. apparently i said something that many were waiting for. the simple and brief response struck a chord. many who even openly disagreed with what they called my religion and my politics wrote me to say thank you. this was is long overdue. please carry on. we had 3.5 million views in a
two-week time in 90% and percent of the comments were positive. there were dozens upon dozens if not hundreds of people that wrote in and texted e-mailed, snail mail called and said i don't like your religion and check you out. and i like your politics i read your website. it's about time some reset it. i believe it's because we recognize as rational human beings we are made in the image of god that there is a great power in ideas at the end of the day they are built and cultures are conquered not so much by armies and navies but by speeches and lectures and blogs and books. by the power of ideas. much more so than that of bullets. you guys know this you had
been taught this 1948 richard weaver told us that ideas have consequences it was the title of his book. you hardly even need to read the book. ideas have consequences ideas metal -- matter. if you years earlier. or will the so education can be used of total power and total control. ideas clearly do have consequences, good and evil people have a recognize this. us. good ideas lead to good culture bad ideas lead to the opposite. your grandmother told you garbage and and garbage out. she was out -- she was right. i would argue today that
education is a total mess colleges and universities are in crisis the contemporary university is no longer known for pursuing truth. and in the name of tar lawrence tolerance i'm told my intolerance is intolerable. this is nonsense i cannot tolerate your intolerance. i'm absolutely confident there are no absolutes and i know nothing can be known. this is humorous. it's like watching a dog chasing its tail. the result of this nonsense is that the tradition of good teaching is actually become the dark flag of tierney almost overnight. academic freedom does yesterday rather than celebrating liberals now
demand conformity rather than we become bastions universities and campuses have become bastions of speech rather than bulwarks of free speech. they are more interested in trigger warnings than they are in pursuing truth. colleges across the land have become indoctrination camps much more so than campuses of open inquiry. they now rule where they used to have a pursuit of truth. our track record is terrible. we have taught the next generation that it doesn't matter what you believe as long as it works for you. if you guys ever say that she on you. we have taught you that all morality is relative and good and evil are merely subjective social contacts. that liberation theology is the only good. day in and day out we have
diminished excellence while installing entitlement. where we surprised at the result. they have lost the courage. our congress has lost the soul. our culture is without a conscience. the lousy ideas that we had been teaching in our colleges and in our universities for the past several decades are buried themselves out daily before our eyes. i actually think there is a solution. and i to gets found in the historical liberal arts my first book which you can find and not a daycare.com my first book was titled why i'm a liberal it was not
apologetic. i am a conservationist i believe in conserving the environment and be a good steward of the water in the air. i am a conservationist but i also believe in conserving some other things that are time-tested in true and perhaps even more important and more enduring truth those ideas that have been tested by time and confirmed by recent and given to us by revelation they are endowed to us by who. someone bigger or better than you and me. permanency of those things that should be conserved as a conservative ironically today i am more classically liberal than my left of center counterparts because i believe in a good robust exchange of ideas. i believe that there is a right answer and a wrong answer at the end of the hour.
i think the truth is the judge not you not me not power, not politics i believe the truth is the judge of the debate. and that liberates me to engage. other than confines me i am more liberal than those that often disagree with me. because i believe in liberty with freedom and justice. i believe that if you go back a thousand years to the birth pace someone thousand years ago that the university was established to liberate us to educate us. so why do you believe people were so interested in what i have to say. why were 3.5 million you're
here today to hear about it. some two years later and later we were told by only by trusting in that paradox of liberty and law can we ever hope to protect our rights life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. not hapless but happy. self-evident truths that are endowed from outside not constructed from inside. it was those fences around freedom that chesterton told us that you can have no liberty without law. and you you can have no freedom without fences. that is how we become a free people in a free country. power, politics or penance freedom honors at the debate
because they knows there's an answer a true north. again chesterton. he told us when you get rid of the big laws this is good stuff. when you get rid of the big laws you don't get liberty you get thousands and thousands of little laws that russian to build a vacuum. we can't live as a culture any longer by ten simple laws. that's all we needed. we have refused to live by those big laws and by the way jesus narrowed it down to two. we can't live by ten or to any longer they are rushing in to fill the vacuum. were being produced in the city. telling us how to do everything down to which bathroom to use. when you get rid of big laws you don't liberty but rather
thousands upon thousands of little laws that russian to fill the vacuum. it has never been found in the roles of government. but rather in the few and simple laws of nature and nature's god. there is a reason that dozens of universities were once emblazoned with the model. you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free. there is no freedom. if you stop teaching truths. the solution can be found in its endowed to us by our created it is entrenched in the arrogant and calloused human heart. and the laws of nature the truth of god is written on every human heart. for example if you want to dispute that, do we know that
rape is run. do we. do we know it that the holocaust was evil. do we know that slavery is a bad thing. we hold these truths to be self-evident not socially constructed. because there is a creator and it's not you. the solution is ever turn to teaching the laws of that make sense. natural law leads to freedom. minute maid laws bring nothing but more restrictions more fascism and less liberty it may seem a bit redundant but i would like to leave you as i get ready to wrap this up with a very simple and clear
message. culture is about ideas and ideas are defined by what, words. in other words words mean something. sidebar always remember that he who defines the words wins the debate. education is about words. words mean something to guess what they have definitions. words like marriage male and female moral and immoral. all words have meaning. and as thinking human beings
we do know what the definition of is, is. we know something else very important it is changing and manipulating the meaning of words is called something. it's called line. we also know that defeat does bring consequences as were told by the prophet isaiah. lying about words and with words turning them upside down is always wrong. as self-evident as it is it should be clear to all of us what i'm trying to challenge you with right now.
many history and against us those of us who care for religious freedom. they do so in the name of tolerance but their objection seems to be anything but tolerant. they say i can't tolerate your i know nothing can be known and i'm absolutely confident that there are no absolutes. they don't seem to recognize everything they just said a self refuting at every turn and makes no sense they soft the very branch in which they set. waving the banner of intolerance. it does not make you a champion of your ideals. it makes you it's executioner
and doesn't take an eighth grade education to see this for what it's worth. if anything any schoolboy can see that the premise proposed is never been about tolerance. it's really more about tierney and power at every turn we sit on our campuses and in our courts and culture. they are shouting you must agree with us. you must be one of us. if you don't, applaud what i say it when i think you would be expelled we do not want you in our culture and our community and surely not on our college campus. in the end their worldview is not about coexistence but rather as a poster child for cost prediction.
it's about fascism here and simple. you may know this but it was a roman bottle sticks bound together so tightly that cannot be broken. i cannot break it. the power of the common that is where we get the word fascism. and today is likewise an unbreakable bundle of power. no dissent no differences no diversity. at several of the gang it is unquestioned and unchallenged power the call to arms of these modern-day you must submit. so the question we face today is not whether we want to be ruled by the ideological fascism that has been prevailed across our land or do we want to enjoy intellectual freedom. let me ask some questions just to point out headlines of the
past couple of years. students are supposed to but do we have freedom to believe and behave by the dictates of our conscience unimpeded by government. should they have the power to force a jewish owner to process pigs. should it have the government should they have the power to demand that the catholic owner sell bread and wine. should the government be able to force the owner of a billboard company to sell his services to someone who wants to mock christmas or easter. if your answer is no and i hope it is how in the world can you possibly think that the government should now be able to force the owner of a flower shop in washington to participate in religious
service that directly violates a key sacrament of her faith. when to the government get the power to define tech about a breach of a wall of separation. should the government be able to force them to buy contraception that they don't want their catholics and their nuns. they don't have because they are nuns. they are celibate. why would anybody preach supposed to tell these women what kind of pills they need to buy in the healthcare. ..
you're nothing but the fantasy, the fabrication, the feelings of a disforric male who wants to raise his hand on a given day and say, i am one. oh, but, by the way, i'm pro-woman, and insulting you in such a way and suggesting anytime anyone else raises his hand and says i am a female even though genetics does not show it, chromosomes don't show it, its feelings and emotions and fabrications, it makes the woman, it makes the female less than a fact. you're nothing but a remember rah cawn or -- leprechaun or unicorn anymore. you're make believe. i would suggest that that's anything but being pro-woman. but i digress. let's get back to my point. forced agreement is totalitarianism, to the not tolerant -- it is not tolerant. requiring women to submit to the
whims of a government hegemony is not feminism, it's misogyny. it is not intellectual freedom, and it's a clear example of the government establishing what religion is acceptable and then prohibiting the free expression of any religion that is in disagreement with that. sound constitutional to you? so let's wrap this one up. words mean something. as students, as leaders, as community members, hang on to your words. define them. defend them. honor freedom and fight fascism. stand for truth and fight tyranny. stand for love and fight hate. stand for the rights of women and fight against their subjugation. stand for liberty and liberation. fight licentiousness. remember the words of
bonhoeffer, they mean something. not to speak is to speak, not to act is to act. silence in the face of evil is evil it. one more time. not to speak is to speak. not to act is to act. silence in the face of evil is evil itself. god will not hold us guiltless. be there is a reason that jesus is described in the gospel of john as what? the word. the word. he means something. he cannot be changed. he's the logo, he's the way, he's the truth, he's the life. he defined himself as the alpa and the to mega. an alphabet. jesus, the incarnate son of god, in dwelling among us, defined himself as an alphabet, as a word. why? why? remember his words, you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free. remember that he is the word made flesh and dwelling among us.
remember that he has said, behold, i am coming soon. may the word, the word be your confidence and your courage as you fight the good fight to win the prize. which christ, the word, has called you heavenward. amen. do you have some questions? q&a. fire away. >> thanks so much for coming and speaking, dr. piper. i was curious to hear, to maybe talk a little bit more practically just because alistair mcintyre says when we lose the sort of objective standard of morality, it's replaces with what he calls mote vim, making people respond to the way you feel about things, and the only way is lu power which seems to pretty accurately
describe the movement of the left to make people respect the way that they feel. but in response, i feel like conservatives have embraced a lot of bombastic and aggressive people like stephen crowder who go to liberal campuses and yell back louder which makes the left accuse conservatives of being the fascists. so i guess it's sort of a two-part question. one, do you think that's a wise embrace of these people who try to yell back just as loudly as the liberals are yelling. and secondly, how practically do we try and encourage the open exchange of ideas and opposing ideas to the left without sort of stooping to their level of aggression. does that make sense? >> yeah, i think so. i'll respond by pointing to christ. again, i am a christian, so if that's outside of your world view, i guess that's okay. we're here to talk about ideas, and when i bring ideas to the table, i bring it in the context of my convictions and my world view, and my world view is
biblical. i believe it's the world view that's been tested by time and proven to give the greatest measure of human freedom throughout the course of human history. so let's go back to the founder of this world view, jesus. when he was confronted by an adversary, whether it be political or academic, what did he almost always do when he was confronted with the contrary question? he almost never debated. he almost always simply asked a rhetorical question. whose face is on that coin? why do you call me lord? do you want to throw the first stone? and then christ himself -- again, if you're a christian, the incarnate, son of god -- the word made flesh and dwelling among us. the guy who was the smartest guy to ever walk the planet. he obviously knew the answer, i would argue. he probably could have won the debate. but he chose not to.
he chose to ask the rhetorical question that would cause the world view of his opponent to implode. and more often than not, they would drop their stones and walk away. i think the best thing we can do in a culture today that is prone to anger and vitriol, that's caustic and con descending -- condescending is ask bold and clear, i don't think capitulation and compromise is necessary. i don't think forced conversation about evil is necessarily the only way to go. and when i say "conversation," there's some things that are not debatable. i'm not going to sit around and discuss the merits of slavery. i'm not going to discuss the merits of the holocaust. i'm not going to discuss the relative values of those who engage in rape. it seems self-evident the me that when i engage in that conversation and ask my questions, i am not going to give any implicit ground to those bad ideas. but that doesn't mean i get
angry, that doesn't mean i get caustic, that doesn't mean i get condescending, it doesn't mean i employ various different fallacies whether it be a non sequitur. it means that i can simply and clearly ask a question that would cause the person that's advocating the contrary world view to recognize the brokenness of their idea. role play. so you think slavery's okay. are you telling me black people are inferior to whites? so you think consensual sex with minors is okay. are you telling me that a 10-year-old can consent to the desires and the passions of a 25-year-old man?
be quiet. don't say anything. force the answer. met the world view -- let the world view, that's obviously broken and wrong, implode upon itself. i think that's the best strategy. hope i answered your question. i think there's one down here. >> thank you, dr. piper. just as a question, so a few of us at least interns are college students, and if you could kind of give us maybe a little bit of what you've experienced with students on universities, campus. you gave the example of someone in chapel, kind of what we could do practically, whether we go to secular or christian schools or any other religion just kind of how we can approach this problem with not only our peers, but sometimes professors that might give us an opposite view of how we feel and what we know to be true and kind of how we can approach these certain situations.
>> i'm going to say a couple things that are common sense. it's probably not true for you because by virtue of the definition of who you are, you're spending a whole summer studying and reading and putting several more arrows in your quiver, if you will, so that you're prepared to engage. but you know very well that, generally speaking, very few other people in your peer group or in the general culture are prepared. they don't read, they don't know how to express their ideas. they may have an intuitive feel. they may understand, and i would argue that it's a biblical fact that the truth is written on every human heart. we have of a general understanding whether you're secular or whether you're religious that slavery's a bad thing. we have a general understanding that the holocaust was probably a bad idea. so you don't have to be religious to have that general understanding therein. but so few people do any reading
to say anything about it beyond that. so when they get in a debate, they're totally intimidated, and they don't know what to do. so, number one, do what c.s. lewis told you to do. before you aide read a new -- before you read a new book, maybe pick pick up a dozen or so old ones and read them because those ideas have been around a while, and there's a reason they've been around a while. they've stood the test of time. so don't assume -- and he accused his own burgeoning new generation of chronological snobbery. i'll be so blunt as to challenge you not to fall into the same trap. don't get involved in chronological snobbery where you think the only idea worth considering is something on this phone that just came across your twitter feed. go read the old books that have stood the test of time and know what they say. and odds are because they won the debate a thousand years ago, they'll probably be of value in winning the debate today. that would be my first point of advice. the second is get a spine, get some courage and have some
confidence. it's amazing to me, it's amazing to me how few people on the conservative side of the debate have the courage and the confidence to even engage at all. maybe it's because intuitively we defer to good manners, intuitively we defer to being courteous and avoiding the conflict because we don't want to break relationships. that could be why conservatives are often reluctant. and those are all noble things. but i would also say that christ himself tells us that if you love me, you'll obey me, and the lord disciplines those he loves. so there is no false dichotomy of strength and conviction, discipline and love. it is a mutually beneficial truth. love and discipline, conflict, confrontation -- if handled properly -- is necessary in a loving relationship rather than contrary to it.
pleasure i was on the o'reilly factor during the time of this, so let's say two years ago, and it turned to the issue of cultural engage. , cultural debate. and basically, the church was turning tail and running the other direction. afraid to engage because of the conflict. and i said to mr. o'reilly, because he brought up the issue of tolerance, i said, mr. o'reilly, on your anniversary or perhaps it was thanksgiving, did you send your wife an i tolerate you card? [laughter] and i said i would suggest the answer so no, because if you did, it probably didn't end very well. because why? mr. o'reilly? tolerance says i could care less, do what you want. i don't love you, i really don't even like you that well, but i'll tolerate you. do what you want. love says i care deeply.
stop. love says i don't care -- excuse me, tolerance says i don't care, do what you want; love says i care deeply. stop. so have confidence and courage, get a spine, do some reading, understand your ideas, practice them. i'm a student of chuck coulson, and he told us that the only way you learn it is to teach it. so teach it. teach it to yourselves, teach it to your peers, talk about it constantly. be prepared for your speech by teaching it constantly. then you'll be comfortable and confident, your spine will stiffen, you can do it without getting angry because anger is always the last resort. emotion is always the last thing when you've lost the ability to be logical and to make sense. and, you know, you see it. you see it so often in the political debate. people will digress to the name calling. to the ad hominem, the non sequitur. they'll digress to the fallacy
because that's grounded in feeling rather than stay on point. and you have the ability, the courage, the confidence, the conviction to stay on point because you've practiced, you'll be the only one in the room that has it. >> i was wondering if you could -- i'm trying to figure out what could be to offensive about first corinthians 13. while we were talking, i went back and read it. [laughter] did you ever find this guy or girl and ask them, i guess you said it was a male -- >> yeah, it was a male. >> i mean, what was wrong, what's wrong with first corinthians 13? i mean, it's baffling that anyone -- >> it is baffling. i mean, it causes your head to spin. and the answer is no, i never went to the student specifically, and there's a reason for that. because this became a public issue, i didn't want him to feel that he was being called out publicly. and believe it or not, i'm told to this day that that student did not know the article was about him. believe it or not. which tells you something.
you might say, how is that possible? the only reason it could be possible is if he believed there were several students that shared his view, and it must have been about them, not him. that's part of the answer. the other part is what was so offensive about it? i have no idea other than it made him feel uncomfortable. and discomfort, apparently, we're at a time and a place in our culture, in our college, in our campuses where discomfort is anathema. any idea that makes you feel bad is anathema to good education and to safety. that's nonsense. i mean, go back to what i said earlier because i think it's powerful. maybe you don't. c.s. lewis, the great lion, aslan. when the kids are talking to mr. and mrs. beaver in the lion, the witch and the wardrobe, they ask mr. beaver, is aslan safe? and mr. beaver says, well, of course not. he's not safe, but he's good. so you paraphrase that.
the great lion of liberal arts, the great lion of the academy, the great lion of the university, the great lion of the ivory tower, is it supposed to be safe? or is it supposed to be good? there's a huge difference. sir, i think we're actually at a time where if the ideas don't make you feel comfortable and safe, unchallenged, that those ideas can be askewed, those ideas can be labeled as bad ideas. and that is not the measure of a free society. that's the measure of ideological fascism. that's not the measure of intellectual freedom. if you haven't read first corinthians 13, go back and do what this gentleman just said, read it, and you tell me what's offensive everyone it may make you -- other than it may make you feel uncomfortable for not measuring up. good! i'm glad it does. i'm glad it does.
i'm not interesting -- i'm not interested, excuse me, in coddling or comforting you at my university. i'm interested in confronting you, because when you graduate, i want you to be a man and a woman of character. i'm not going to hand you a diploma that says, congratlations, you've got an opinion. [laughter] you majored in opinions, good for you. you have a degree in opinions. how absurd is this? this is lunacy. i actually hope you learn something that's right and wrong and just. i want you to know what, how it is juxtaposed to injustice. and i want you to know some truths relative to nursing and accounting and biology and philosophy. if you don't know anything that's true when you graduate, i would suggest you wasted your time and you wasted your money. you don't get a diploma in opinions because opinions -- mine and yours -- don't matter on graduation day. i don't care a what your opinion is. i really don't. and you shouldn't care that much about mine. opinions always lead to bondage
and slavery. mao and chavez and hitler and mussolini, all the despots of history had opinions. it didn't end very well. jesus told you, you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free. yes, ma'am. >> so i was at a conference recently at american university, and one of the au government professors came and discussed trigger warnings and safe spaces, and he believed that trigger warnings should be mandated across the country on all campuses, and i was the only one against trigger warnings. so i felt it was pretty easy to shut it down and show it flaws except on the fact he said what if there's a person with ptsd or someone who's been raped and you're coming in talking about a certain topic that could bring back ptsd. so how would you best help combat that situation on trigger warnings? >> i would argue that the judeo-christian ethic always defers to love, okay? and in such a situation, if
somebody has or a technical disorder or dysfunction such as ptsd, then of course we're going to be compassionate with that individual, recognize that we shouldn't ignore them, be cruel to them, expose them to greater harm. but this is what off happens in the progressive left of the debate. they will take an isolated incident, the anomaly, the aberration, the brokenness of our world, and then they'll break all the rest of the world to measure up to that anomaly as if that is the standard now. rather than recognizing by definition it's not the standard. by definition, it is different. it is disfunctional. there should be correction from it to the norm rather than moving the norm downward. we should love the person enough to bring them upward. so, of course, we recognize the anomaly.
we recognize the brokenness. but we don't break everything else because of it. we try to correct it. that would be my response to that particular question. >> first corinthians 13 is actually like the great trigger warning passage, right? [laughter] i mean, you know, it's about treating people with kindness and love and, you know, it's just kind of an interesting way to sort of think about that kind of answers the problem from a christian perspective -- >> fair enough. >> but it doesn't go into all this ideological claptrap and just be kind to people -- >> so if somebody so offended, explore the principles of first corinthians 13. but ironically enough today, if first corinthians 13 -- which is the solution -- becomes offensive to me because everything's subjective, everything comes down to me. i am god, you are not. god is not. i am god.
i would argue today that we seem to be more interested in praying to the god we see in the mirror than praying to the god we see in the bible. and i would argue that thened result of that -- the end result of that is not positive. there has to be a measuring rod outside of those thingsing being measured. lady justice has to be blind. when she takes the blindfold off and starts putting her thumb on the scale, then justice is lost, truth is nonexistent, power always will trump principle. there is no correction. there is nothing self-evident. everything is self-constructed. everything is self-referential. and we can even come to the point where we can say that the solution -- which has been obvious for 2,000 years -- love is patient, love is kind, is the problem because i don't like it. and i'll define things in my own image like narcissists gazing at his image in the pool. we slip, we fall in, infatuated with ourselves.
we drown, and all that's left is the tree nymph whose name was echo, pining after the loss of such wasted beauty. that's where we are coming as a culture today. we're on the precipice of the pool ready to slip and fall in. we might be wise to recognize that that thing we see in the mirror is not as grand and glorious as we think, that there might be something actually better, bigger, more permanent than that that's worthy of conservation. and it is only that that will give us liberty and liberation and freedom at the end of the day. thank you. [applause] >> live sunday at noon eastern,