https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=wbV-modAVMw
I want to get some back to another point you made a moment ago about the role of religion. I’d re-characterize one of your observations about my comments there. I don’t believe that the the Constitution requires in order for it to work for anyone to cling to any particular religious belief or for that matter, to any religious belief at all. In fact, by its own terms, it carves those things out and makes clear that government can’t mess with those. But government also may not establish those things. It’s important to have that boundary. Now, but the there there, I think what you’re referring to, there is my comment about the fact that it helps to understand these things, if as was the case in America at the time of America’s founding. And as I believe is still the case with most Americans, when we understand that we are subject to an all knowing benevolent and all powerful creator to whom we will stand accountable at the end of this life. And when we understand that our rights and our existence come from him and are a result of a bestowal of of his blessings rather than that of any government, I think that helps inform the proper role of government and the proper relationship between the people and its government. There seems to be a supposition in the Declaration of Independence that rights that there’s a relationship between rights and divinity. And that is, I think you can think about that conceptually rather than purely religiously, although you can think about it both ways, is that there’s a hypothesis that there’s something transcendent about each individual that isn’t subject to earthly definition, let’s say that always escapes definition. That’s what makes it transcendent. There’s a transcendent value in each individual. And the best way that we can describe that is in religious terms. In fact, when we start describing it, the description becomes religious. And so we use language like the soul. And we think of our rights as something that are intrinsic to us and of the highest possible value. And that is an assumption that has to be made before the statements that are in the Declaration of Independence can even get off the ground. That’s why the people who crafted that document said that they held those truths to be self-evident. It’s an a priori presupposition that there’s something transcendent about each individual. And that’s where sovereignty is placed. When I’ve done my attempts at historical analysis in monarchical systems, there’s a relationship posited between the monarch and divinity, and the monarch is sovereign because of that relationship with divinity. And it’s a complete transformation of the view of humanity that occurred over thousands and thousands of years and certainly manifested itself in the American system. That sovereignty is actually something that is inherent in each individual, not just the aristocracy or the monarchy or not just any single group of individuals, aristocrats or any specific group, but in each individual. And so… That’s exactly right. And were we not the offspring of God created in his image, it would probably be harder to recognize that and to accept that. It would probably be harder to recognize that and to accept that as a priori supposition because the inherent worth and the infinite value of each and every human soul is part and parcel of this concept of liberty. Now, I want to be very clear. I know a lot of people who don’t share my religious beliefs, who share another, and a lot of other people who don’t have any religious belief at all and don’t believe in God. They too, all of them are capable and are rendered no less capable of living in freedom than I am. Just the same. One cannot mistake the significant influence of a religious belief system like that that most Americans share about the existence of a God and the existence of a Redeemer. The other thing that I think is important about that conceptually, again, and the reason I insist upon the conceptual level is because of the dangers of associating this with any particular religious viewpoint or even with a religious viewpoint at all for that matter, because as you said, the Constitution works just as well for atheists or it’s just as applicable. There is some real utility, I think, in positing that ultimate knowledge lies beyond you. You know, if you look at, if you’re a totalitarian, let’s say you’re an atheistic totalitarian, and those things don’t always go hand in hand, but generally they do. There isn’t anything even hypothetically beyond your system of knowledge. But if you’re a believer, if you’re someone with faith, then you’re forced into a position where you always have to admit your fundamental ignorance because you don’t have the answers at hand. That’s reserved for something that’s beyond you or something that’s beyond. And so I’ve often thought that there’s a real useful humility that’s part and parcel of belief in something that’s transcendent because you leave what’s omniscient well outside of you and you understand that that’s something that you always approach but never can possibly attain and that all your systems are partial and incomplete at best. And that seems to me to be a necessary antidote to potentially dangerous totalitarianism or narcissism. So I think it’s so wise that the system is set up that way. I mean, it puts a tension in it because there is this nesting of the political system inside a set of religious suppositions. But then there’s also this insistence of the separation between church and state. So that’s a strange tension and it’s a tough one to sort through. No, that’s right. And it can seem contradictory. It can seem like it’s in conflict. I think once you unpack what government is and how it’s used and you understand human beings and their relationship to each other and to their government, it becomes easier to see how this can work and how it must work. In other words, for me, at least, my belief in my relationship with God is the most important thing in this world to me. It’s right there with my relationship with my wife and my children. It’s something without which I cannot imagine my existence. And it is for that reason and not in spite of it that I don’t want government touching it. In other words, there is an increasing inclination in society today, including among many Americans, that if something is really important, then it must be something that the government does, promotes, funds or is otherwise officially involved in. And I think it is a helpful example to all of us of the reasons why it ought to stay out. It is it is because it’s important that it must not touch it. It’s not an appropriate place for the use of force. There’s a good reason why people have for many, many centuries sought sanctuary in places of worship. People instinctively recognize that force, the use of physical, physically coercive force is not something we want to take place inside of a church or a synagogue or another place of worship. And so too with many aspects of our lives that are important because they are important. You don’t necessarily want government in charge of it.