S1: Hi friend, thank you so much for downloading this podcast
S1: and I truly hope you hear something that edifies encourage, equips, enlightens,
S1: and then gets you out there in the marketplace of ideas.
S1: But before you go, I want to tell you about
S1: this month's truth tool. It's called Have You Ever Wondered?
S1: And I absolutely love this topic because if you're like me,
S1: going out into the night sky and looking up and
S1: seeing a million stars, don't you just stop and think
S1: about God? And are you not in a moment of
S1: awe and wonder or looking out over the vast expanse
S1: of an ocean and you start thinking, what is man,
S1: that thou art mindful of him? And it makes you
S1: wonder about the magnificence of God? I think that sense
S1: of wonder was put there on purpose, and this wonderful
S1: book includes a composite of multiple authors who have written
S1: from their perspective as a scientist, or a historian, or
S1: a mathematician or an artist, on why they all have
S1: this sense of awe through the work that they do.
S1: In other words, the heavens declare the glory. And as
S1: it tells us in Romans, we are really without excuse
S1: because his handiwork is everywhere. And this book invites you
S1: to walk through the chapters written by people who all
S1: have a sense of awe and wonder when it comes
S1: to God through their various disciplines in life. It's an
S1: amazing book and it's yours. For a gift of any amount,
S1: just call 877 Janet 58. That's 877 Janet 58. Ask
S1: for a copy of Have You Ever Wondered? And we'll
S1: send it right off to you as my way of
S1: saying thank you, because we are listener supported radio. Or
S1: you can go online to in the market with Janet Parshall.
S1: When you're also on the website, consider becoming a partial partner.
S1: Those are people who give every single month at a
S1: level of their own choosing. You always get the truth tool,
S1: but in addition to that, you get a weekly newsletter
S1: that includes my writing and an audio piece just for
S1: my partial partner. So 877 Janet 58 or the website
S1: in the market with Janet parshall.org consider becoming a partial
S1: partner or asking for this month's truth tool. Have you
S1: ever wondered? And now please enjoy the broadcast.
S2: Welcome to In the Market with Janet Parshall. Today's program
S2: is where Janet and her husband, Craig, take some of
S2: the stories making headlines this week and offer their insight
S2: and analysis. Before they get started, let's take a quick
S2: look back at some of the highlights from the week.
S3: I is an extremely powerful thing and has enormous capacity
S3: for both good and evil. But every bit of thought
S3: in AI is human thought, and AI leverages leverages our thoughts.
S3: I think in some ways that we don't fully understand yet.
S3: I mean, it's a very complex matter, but everything in
S3: there is us. The computer is just is just the instrument.
S3: It's the tool. We must not let our lives be
S3: governed by this idea that since God is God and he's.
S3: He is, uh, good and gracious and generous. He's going
S3: to do for me whatever he wants to do, whether
S3: or not I ask. And I just think the answer
S3: to that is no, he isn't. He has suspended the
S3: bestowal of his blessings on the petitions and the intercession
S3: of his people. So I know that's hard for people
S3: to reconcile, but there's no way to get around the
S3: clear teaching of Scripture in that regard.
S4: We never think to pray for the people with talent
S4: who don't know the Lord. And so I want to
S4: highlight the names of people who really are incredible talents
S4: given from God, and ask us to lift them up
S4: and to let God work through them personally, not just
S4: with their talent. And so I like to do it
S4: with people with names of people who really are household
S4: to a lot of us. And so this is the
S4: way I don't want to say on here, they need
S4: Jesus or they're lost or they're bad. I want to say,
S4: let's appreciate their talent. We know it's from God, and
S4: let's lift them up so the Lord can do more
S4: with them.
S5: Anybody claiming the Bible doesn't have a sexual ethic has
S5: either not read the Bible or is reading the Bible, um, with, with, uh,
S5: blindfold Because virtually every book in the New Testament, not
S5: to mention most of the Old Testament books, mentions and
S5: condemns sexual sin that right away tells you there is
S5: such a thing as sexual behavior that is not God's will.
S5: And the only form of sexual expression that's commended in
S5: both testaments is a heterosexual covenant union of marriage between
S5: a man and a woman.
S6: They don't want to be under Hamas. They don't want
S6: to be under the Palestinian Authority. They want to be
S6: under Israel. And so there's going to be a great pushback.
S6: So what are we just going to force these people
S6: to do this and it's going to get worse. We're
S6: going to get worse. It's just going to cause more radicalism.
S6: So who knows what's going to happen. But it's just
S6: Israel again is in the vice grip. They just go
S6: from one crisis to another. And this is a vise grip.
S6: They've got a date. They've got a time. We're forcing
S6: a Palestinian state. And whether you like it or not, well,
S6: what country would undergo Go that and not fight back.
S2: To hear the full interviews from any of those guests,
S2: go to In the Market with Janet Parshall and click
S2: on Past Programs. Here's some other stories making headlines this week.
S7: US job growth cooled in May amid uncertainty about President
S7: Trump's tariffs, according to a closely watched report out Friday
S7: from the Labor Department.
S8: Immigrant communities across the United States are reacting in shock
S8: to the president's sweeping new travel ban.
S9: Donald Trump and Chinese leader XI Jinping spent over an
S9: hour on the phone Thursday talking trade. The rare leader
S9: to leader call came after weeks of tensions over tariffs
S9: and critical minerals.
S2: Janet and Craig have lots to share, and they'll put
S2: the first story on the table when we return. To
S2: get more information or to download the podcast of any
S2: of the interviews, go to In the Market with Janet Parshall.
S1: So many in our culture today are spiritually curious but
S1: hesitant about religion. That's why I've chosen. Have you ever wondered,
S1: is this month's truth to explore how everyday experiences might
S1: be the signpost pointing to deeper biblical truths? As for
S1: your copy of have you ever wondered when you give
S1: a gift of any amount to in the market, call
S1: 877 Janet 58. That's 877 Janet 58 or go to
S1: in the market with Janet Parshall.
S10: This is London. London calling in the home overseas and
S10: European services of the BBC and through United Nations radio Mediterranean.
S10: And this is John Snagge speaking. Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary
S10: Force have just issued communique number one, and in a
S10: few seconds I. I will read it to you. Communique
S10: number one, under the command of General Eisenhower, Allied naval forces,
S10: supported by strong air forces, began landing Allied armies this
S10: morning on the northern coast of France. I'll repeat that communique.
S10: Communique number one. Under the command of General Eisenhower, Allied
S10: naval forces, supported by strong air forces, began landing Allied
S10: armies this morning on the northern coast of France. This
S10: ends the reading of Communique Number one from Supreme Headquarters
S10: Allied Expeditionary Force.
S1: And that's what radio sounded like June 6th, 1944. Hello, friends.
S1: Welcome to In the Market with Janet Parshall. Craig partial
S1: is with me. And this is where Craig and I
S1: want to start today because history matters and we need
S1: to understand who we were, particularly when that great, great
S1: group of people who fought in World War Two are
S1: slowly stepping into eternity. Our dads were part of World
S1: War two. My children's grandparents were part of World War two.
S1: And with each succeeding generation, we are one tick away
S1: from trying to understand how in the world do you
S1: press on, persevere, and hang on to hope when the
S1: entire world is on fire. So D-Day was in fact
S1: the name given on the June 6th, 1944 date. It
S1: was the invasion of the beaches at Normandy. There were
S1: actually five beaches on that northern coast of France. U.S. troops,
S1: Canadian troops, UK troops and others during World War II.
S1: What you just heard was the BBC covering Great Britain.
S1: You can imagine how they were glued to their radios
S1: hearing about this assault that was taking place. Remember, it's
S1: not that far from the southern part of the UK
S1: to the northern coast of France. You can actually drive
S1: a tunnel underneath the ocean between those two countries. Now, France,
S1: at the time, you will recall, was occupied by the
S1: armies of Nazi Germany and the amphibious amphibious assault. It
S1: had a codename. It was called Operation Overlord. Landed some
S1: 156,000 Allied soldiers on the beaches of Normandy by the
S1: end of the day. Now, despite their success, some 4000
S1: Allied troops were killed by German soldiers defending the beaches.
S1: And at the time, the D-Day invasion was the largest naval,
S1: air and land operation in history, and within a few days,
S1: about 326,000 troops, more than 50,000 vehicles and some 100,000
S1: tons of equipment had landed. By August of 1944, all
S1: of northern France had been liberated. In the spring of 1945,
S1: the allies had defeated the Germans. Historians often referred to
S1: D-Day as the beginning of the end of World War Two.
S1: It's very important that we remember what happened that day,
S1: but it took courage. The same choice to be brave then,
S1: is the same choice to be brave now. General Dwight
S1: D Eisenhower was at the time the general for the U.S. forces.
S1: He would later go on to become president of the
S1: United States. But you can imagine what it would be
S1: like to give the directive, when so many would end
S1: up giving all that they had on those beaches of Normandy.
S1: Here's a part of what General Eisenhower said.
S11: Soldiers, sailors and airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force, you
S11: are about to embark upon the great crusade toward which
S11: we have striven these many months. The eyes of the
S11: world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty
S11: loving people everywhere march with you in company with our
S11: brave allies and brothers in arms. On other fronts, you
S11: will bring about the destruction of the German war machine,
S11: the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of Europe,
S11: and security for ourselves in a free world, your task
S11: will not be an easy one. Your enemy is well trained,
S11: well equipped and battle hardened. He will fight savagely. But
S11: this is the year 1944. Much has happened since the
S11: Nazi triumphs of 1940 41. The United Nations have inflicted
S11: upon the Germans great defeats in open battle. Man to man.
S11: Our air offensive has seriously reduced their strength in the
S11: air and their capacity to wage war on the ground.
S11: Our home fronts have given us an overwhelming superiority in
S11: weapons and munitions of war, and placed at our disposal
S11: great reserves of trained fighting men. The tide has turned.
S11: The free men of the world are marching together to victory.
S11: I have full confidence in your courage, devotion to duty
S11: and skill in battle. We will accept nothing less than
S11: full victory. Three. Good luck, and let us all beseech
S11: the blessing of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking.
S1: The roughly 160,000 allied troops who landed in Nazi occupied
S1: France on June 4th. June 6th, 1944. Not only successfully
S1: executed the largest air, land, and sea invasion in history,
S1: and that remains to this day. They did so amid
S1: daunting obstacles, terrible bloodshed and stakes that couldn't have been higher.
S1: Dwight D Eisenhower said, we will accept nothing less than
S1: full victory, and victory in this battle was far from
S1: certain in the first hours of that day. Out of
S1: that day came the saying, all gave some, some gave all.
S1: When Steven Spielberg made his movie Saving Private Ryan, it
S1: opens with 22 minutes of action of the landing on
S1: the beaches. There's not a single word of dialogue spoken.
S1: And history records that there were several World War Two
S1: vets who, in the opening of that film, found it
S1: so realistic they literally had to walk out of the theater.
S1: We cannot forget their sacrifice. It's easy to do that,
S1: particularly with each continuous generation. But Craig, it's imperative that
S1: we remember. I look at America now, and I look
S1: at our animus and our our slothfulness and our licentiousness,
S1: and I think to myself, do we still have that
S1: same character? Do we still have that same courage? Could
S1: you get out of that first boat that hit Omaha
S1: Beach as one of the five beaches as an example,
S1: and you see the bullets the way the Germans were
S1: bunkered up at the top of the hill. So you
S1: talk about, from a military perspective, they had clear aim
S1: right down at those soldiers who hit the beach. And
S1: the footage, by the way, which you can find black
S1: and white, some of it colorized, is horrific because in
S1: very short order, the waters were filled with the bodies
S1: of our troops. Who gave their all your thoughts?
S12: Yeah, we think so much, and rightly so, of the
S12: landing crafts that had to wade in to a storm
S12: of bullets coming their way. But also we had the
S12: Army Air Corps as an example, uh, trying to protect
S12: them and and soften up the Nazi defenses, uh, along
S12: that coast. I read one account, uh, where a gentleman
S12: who is now 106 years old and was at, uh,
S12: as part of the attack on, uh, in the landing
S12: in Normandy, he was with the Air Corps, and he
S12: was a repairman for those pilots and for those airplanes
S12: for the Army Air Corps. He said half of the
S12: pilots in his one company lost their lives on D-Day,
S12: trying to protect those on those landing crafts. So as
S12: of now, we may think, well, was victory uh, shortly after, actually,
S12: it took 11 months after that, before V-E day, victory
S12: in Europe. But every historian of that war recognizes this,
S12: and that is it created the way forward to achieve victory.
S12: Had we not done that, had those men and women
S12: given their last sacrifice, the most important sacrifice for freedom?
S12: In that storm of of defense that the Nazis raised,
S12: then it could have been several years. It could have
S12: been a non-victory, considering some of the weaponry that Nazi
S12: Germany was experimenting with at the time.
S1: And, you know, it was a high risk decision, wasn't it?
S1: Operation Overlord, you find it very interesting that that was
S1: the code name that they gave for it. But you
S1: rightfully pointed out that it takes almost a year before
S1: you can claim victory. But here's what is so significant
S1: about that day. And it has it tells me. And
S1: Eisenhower was a man of faith, by the way, but
S1: tells me that they had to do a lot of
S1: soul searching before they knew they were going to send
S1: so many people into harm's way. But by being on
S1: that beach, it established a new major front against the
S1: Germans in the West, and it helped the Soviet forces
S1: facing the bulk of German troops in the east. And
S1: that's why, less than a year later, Germany was forced
S1: to surrender. You wonder what would have happened if there
S1: had not been a D-Day, June 6th, 1944. If so
S1: many weren't willing to go into harm's way for the
S1: sake of something greater than themselves. And again, I just
S1: keep asking myself the question today, when we're in a post-truth, post-modern,
S1: post-Christian era, do we still have the same strength of
S1: character if called upon today? Could we still have some
S1: who gave all but some, some who gave all and
S1: all who give some?
S12: Yeah. We also have to remember that there were, uh, climactic, uh,
S12: and I don't mean, uh, dramatic, but I mean the
S12: climate and the weather point in that landing, uh, the,
S12: the planning team behind the invasion and the timing of
S12: it had to take into consideration what the weather factors were, uh,
S12: and it, uh, You knew at some point that it
S12: was going to be between the fifth and the 7th
S12: of June, but that was depending on weather. And, of course,
S12: weather is beyond human control. Yes, but we know in whom, uh, that, uh,
S12: atmospheric and weather condition lies. Uh, we we cannot forget
S12: the providential hand of God and the prayers, even, uh,
S12: and most importantly, from General Eisenhower himself, uh, asking for
S12: God's providential care and support in winning that war against
S12: absolute abject evil. And there's no way to counter to
S12: characterize it other than that it was a battle of
S12: good and evil.
S1: Every Memorial Day weekend, we have a concert that's held
S1: in front of the U.S. Capitol. It's called the Memorial
S1: Day Concert. And every year we honor those who have served.
S1: This year, there were several members who did fight on
S1: that day in 1944, all of them very aged, all
S1: of them very proud, all of them keenly aware of
S1: the sacrifice their brothers made on the beaches at Normandy.
S1: May we never forget and always remember their courage. That's
S1: the legacy they left for us back after this. I
S1: shared yesterday that on today's edition of In the Market
S1: with Janet Parshall, knowing that Craig would be with us
S1: and his background as a constitutional attorney, that we would
S1: break down two significant cases that were handed down by
S1: the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday. There were more than two
S1: that were handed down, but two in particular. We're going
S1: to highlight both of them a 9 to 0 decision. Now,
S1: there are only nine justices that sit at the High Court.
S1: So that's pretty rare. But it also really solidly affirms
S1: the outcome of the particular case, by the way. Let
S1: the record reflect, Your Honor, that this is the merry
S1: month of June and the and the term ends at
S1: the end of the month. We're still waiting for some
S1: very important decisions, including one called Skrmetti, and that could
S1: come down any time. And that will deal with a
S1: whole myriad of issues of free speech, exercise of religion, transgenderism.
S1: So it's going to be one of those hot button ones.
S1: I guess the hotter they are, the later in the
S1: month they get handed down. But you can bet Craig
S1: and I will be on top of that and we'll
S1: share when they come out. But as for now, let
S1: me start first with one. And in a unanimous decision yesterday,
S1: the Supreme Court upheld the claims of a woman who
S1: faced workplace discrimination because of her majority group identity and
S1: in this case, what was her majority group. She was
S1: a heterosexual. So the decision upholds the rights of a
S1: majority group, individuals, to be free from reverse discrimination. I
S1: find that to be a sloppy word anyway. Discrimination is
S1: discrimination when it comes in any way, shape or form. Uh,
S1: but but the part of this that's so significant is
S1: that it was considered about the protection provided us under
S1: title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. For
S1: Justice Jackson delivered the opinion. Justice Thomas delivered a concurring
S1: opinion and that was joined by Justice Gorsuch as well. So, Craig,
S1: give the background on the facts of this case and
S1: why this was significant. And again, you don't have this
S1: kind of unanimity that often in Washington. I always jump
S1: up and down and wave the flagpole when it happens.
S1: So you get a nine zip. That means there must
S1: have been some real clarity in the law on this one.
S1: Talk to me about it.
S12: Yeah. The the person who brought this lawsuit originally, um,
S12: in the case called Ames versus Ohio Department of Youth Services, uh,
S12: the plaintiff was Marlene Ames, and she's, as you said,
S12: was a heterosexual woman. Uh, she worked for the Department
S12: of Youth Services, uh, for a number of years. In fact, uh,
S12: started around 2004. So she had been there until, uh,
S12: the episode that led to the lawsuit, which is 2019.
S12: So she was there for 15 years. She was a
S12: veteran of that agency, uh, apparently highly qualified. And she
S12: applied for a new management position that was open. And
S12: as you know, in government agencies, they they will make
S12: public postings of, uh, promotional opportunities. And she applied for that,
S12: but she was turned down and she was replaced in
S12: that position, which she was qualified for by another candidate
S12: who was a lesbian. Um, so, uh, based on some
S12: of the fact finding that she and her attorney made, uh,
S12: by the way, they subsequently later on, they demoted her
S12: from her role as a program administrator. Um, and later
S12: hired a gay man to fill that role. So, in
S12: other words, not only does she not get the promotion,
S12: but then she was demoted and replaced in her regular
S12: position that she had been at for some 15 years. Um,
S12: by by a gay person. So twice she was discriminated against,
S12: according to her lawsuit by, uh, a minority group, which is, uh,
S12: you know, a gay woman and a gay man. Um,
S12: but here's here's the issue. Here's the legal issue. The
S12: legal issue is title VII of the Civil Rights Act
S12: says that if you are discriminated against in employment, and
S12: that's what title VII deals with, is discrimination in employment
S12: based on protected categories such as race or religion or sex.
S12: Then you have a claim and you can bring your
S12: claim if you can prove that in fact, it was
S12: done intentionally and not accidentally or for some other reasons,
S12: like poor performance on the part of the employee. Uh,
S12: but what has happened over the years, because, of course,
S12: 1967 was the beginning of the Civil Rights Act and
S12: a lot of lower court decisions trying to interpret, well,
S12: what happens in a reverse discrimination case where, let's say
S12: a majority group, uh, is so-called discriminated against by a
S12: minority group, uh, in who are in charge of that
S12: particular place of employment. So they have this rule. And
S12: the Sixth Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals had followed their
S12: own created rule. It's not in the text that Congress passed.
S12: It's the legal rule generated by the courts, the lower
S12: courts saying this if you're in a majority opinion or
S12: in a majority category, like let's say a heterosexual, um,
S12: then you have a higher burden of proof. You don't
S12: have an equal opportunity for proving your case. You actually
S12: have a higher level of proof. You have to show
S12: additional background information to show why you fit into the
S12: very unusual, in the words of the court category of
S12: reverse discrimination against majority group. Here's what the Supreme Court
S12: all nine justices, regardless of what their jurisprudential philosophy is, left,
S12: middle or right. Every one of them said, wait a minute,
S12: the text. of the law is what should be binding here.
S12: And there's no such test. It says if you're discriminated
S12: against based on sex or religion or race, regardless of
S12: whether you're a majority or minority, it's an it should
S12: be an equal outcome. It should be an equal application
S12: of justice. But the Sixth Circuit said no. Supreme court
S12: said no. Go back and wipe that extra rule off
S12: the books. The the law itself doesn't apply. Any additional proof,
S12: any additional evidentiary, uh, proof that you have to bring
S12: as a majority, uh, rather than a minority. But there's
S12: a bigger implication for this. And it's how much power
S12: do federal judges have to make it up as they
S12: go along in terms of inventing rules that aren't there
S12: in the congressional statute they're supposed to interpret?
S1: Well, to that point, I think there's many layers to
S1: this decision. And I'm so thankful that you talked about
S1: the legal perspective. There's a cultural application to this as well.
S1: And I do also want to talk about another 9
S1: to 0 decision handed down yesterday. This one deals specifically
S1: with religious liberty. These are important cases by the way.
S1: And again just let the record reflect it's June. This
S1: is when now all the ones where they've heard oral arguments,
S1: almost every one of them will have a written and
S1: decision made by the High Court that will be handed
S1: out by the end of the term, which is the
S1: end of this month. So for the next couple of weeks,
S1: it's going to be a legal heyday. We'll keep you
S1: posted more after this. Jesus told us to go into
S1: the world and not run away from it, and he
S1: didn't say it would be easy. In the market with
S1: Janet Parshall is a program designed to come alongside and
S1: walk with you into the marketplace of ideas. Partial partners
S1: are those friends who support our program on a regular
S1: monthly basis. They know the mandate of influencing and occupying
S1: until he comes. So why don't you become part of
S1: the inner circle of support? Call 877 Janet 58 or
S1: go to in the market with Janet Parshall. This is
S1: in the market with Janet Parshall. Craig partial is with
S1: me as he is on Fridays, where we put on
S1: the lens of Scripture and take a look at the
S1: world around us. Two important cases handed down by the
S1: US Supreme Court yesterday that you and I should know
S1: about both of them, 9 to 0. So that's significant
S1: and solid. And the first one dealt with whether or
S1: not there is such a thing as reverse discrimination. And
S1: it all involves a woman who was working in Ohio
S1: who not once but twice was passed over for her
S1: majority position. She was a heterosexual and given to a
S1: member of the LGBTQ community. So it raises the question about,
S1: is there such a thing under that title? Seven protection
S1: of the Civil Rights Act of 64. Is there such
S1: a thing as protection from, quote, reverse discrimination? Now, let
S1: me repeat myself. I happen to find the words cryptic discrimination,
S1: particularly for a believer, is discrimination. It's not reverse. I
S1: understand its application in the law, but to me it's
S1: it's repeating yourself. Discrimination is discrimination. So the court to nine.
S1: ZIP says, no, absolutely not. And I also take umbrage
S1: with categorizing somebody in a, quote, majority opinion. But here's
S1: something that I thought about, Craig, you started out talking
S1: about the legal application of this decision. I think there's
S1: a cultural application that cannot be ignored. I think this
S1: was a very sharp finger in the eye of die.
S1: When you want to talk about diversity, equity and inclusion,
S1: and you're hiring people based on what their skin color
S1: is or what their sexual orientation is, you are practicing
S1: just by the application of that, a form of reverse discrimination.
S1: So I'm wondering, even if it wasn't addressed directly in
S1: the decision, and we talked about three who wrote on it,
S1: Brown delivers it. Thomas concurs, and Gorsuch writes an opinion
S1: along with the concurrence by Thomas. I'm wondering if that
S1: will take some of the wind out of the application
S1: of die, knowing that because of this ruling, now you
S1: have to be careful.
S12: Yeah, really, if you kind of go to 1000 foot
S12: perspective on this. It really involves the question is the
S12: ground upon which the Constitution is based level ground for everybody,
S12: or are some groups going to get super preference under
S12: the Constitution? Well, the answer should be no. The same
S12: thing with title VII or any act passed by Congress.
S12: Because of course, Congress has to abide by the Constitution
S12: in the laws that they create. Because if it becomes
S12: an unconstitutional statute that Congress passes, the Supreme Court ultimately
S12: will knock it down. They will send it back and say,
S12: start it again. Try another version, because this one's unconstitutional. Likewise,
S12: if title seven, which involves discrimination against, you know, classic
S12: categories of protection like race, sex or religion, uh, if
S12: the if the landscape underneath those principles in that statute
S12: are not even they're not equal, then in fact, we
S12: have unequal application of justice. And that's unconstitutional no matter
S12: which way you look at it. So discrimination, as you said,
S12: is discrimination regardless of whether you're a, quote, majority group,
S12: let's say white employees with three Asians in it, the
S12: Asians are in a minority position in that company. But
S12: as Justice Thomas, in his concurrence, by the way, when
S12: the Supreme Court, um, arrives at a unanimous decision, justices
S12: can still agree with it but have concurring opinions to
S12: add some additional.
S1: Further.
S12: Background and context to other concerns they have that really
S12: gave their vote in favor of the unanimity of the decision.
S12: Justice Thomas made the point of saying, look, how do
S12: you categorize majority in some states in the union, there
S12: are actually numerically slightly more women than men. So are
S12: men a minority? And then if you look at religion,
S12: are you talking majority religions versus minority religions? There are
S12: some communities where other religions are a majority and they're
S12: not Christian. So how do you divide that pie up?
S1: That's a dangerous precedent to start. Let me continue with
S1: Thomas because I thought his observation was brilliant. He wrote,
S1: in his opinion, to highlight the problems that arise when
S1: judges create a textual legal rules and frameworks that becomes
S1: a problem. And he calls the rule, quote, a product
S1: of improper judicial lawmaking. Now, that's tongue in cheek because
S1: judges don't make laws. And what he's saying is the
S1: Sixth Circuit, basically Ex Nihilo, came up with a standard
S1: that doesn't exist. And I found it interesting that, in
S1: her opinion, Justice Brown also said there's nothing in the
S1: text that says that you've got this higher standard that
S1: has to be applied to someone who's in a majority
S1: category as opposed to minority. So I think that's extremely important.
S1: And I think, like I said, with the conversation that's
S1: been going on non-stop in this country about die. This decision,
S1: I think, offers a clarity that says you can try,
S1: but if you really do hiring and there isn't. For example,
S1: under title seven of the 64 Civil Rights Act, you've
S1: done a Passover and you have discriminated against. This is
S1: going to be the consequence.
S12: Yeah. And in a broader sense, you know, I've always
S12: taken the position and I still hold to it because
S12: I think there's some truth in it that when courts
S12: all the way up to the US Supreme Court release
S12: an opinion and they render an opinion in a given case,
S12: they do really two things. The most important thing and
S12: the constitutional thing in the, uh, the article three of
S12: the Constitution thing is that they are acting as judiciary,
S12: as a separate branch of government that says what the
S12: law is. They don't write the law. They simply interpret
S12: what the law is as written. And if Congress intended
S12: something else, then the Supreme Court says, you better rewrite it,
S12: because we're just going on the text. So the job
S12: of the court is to interpret, not to write. Uh,
S12: and in this case, the Sixth Circuit and a number
S12: of other circuits devised these rules because it made it
S12: easier for them to say, we're doing the right thing
S12: here in a discrimination case, but it's not the judge's rule, uh,
S12: authority to say, what is the better thing to do?
S12: That's for Congress to do. That's why we elect them
S12: to Congress to do the right thing by their constituency. Rather,
S12: the judges simply say title VII doesn't say that. And
S12: if Congress wants to rewrite it and add some additional
S12: burdens on majority groups, we'll review that when the time comes,
S12: but not now.
S1: Scalia was famous for saying just that if you don't
S1: like the law, come back with different laws. But we
S1: don't make the laws. So let's turn our attention to
S1: the other case, another nine zero decision that was handed
S1: down yesterday, this one, the Catholic Charities Bureau. Uh v
S1: Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission. That's long, cumbersome title,
S1: but this is an important case dealing with religious liberty.
S1: What are the facts, Greg?
S12: Yeah, this was very troublesome. I remember you and I
S12: discussing this case.
S1: On this.
S12: Show. And in fact, we talked about both cases, but
S12: this one in particular, um, you know, I don't like
S12: to prophesize or predict, but, uh, you may remember that
S12: I said this, this one really should be, um, an
S12: not an easy one, but an easier one for the
S12: Supreme Court to agree on. Um, it should be a
S12: no brainer here. The state of Wisconsin, all the way
S12: up to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, affirmed a rule in
S12: Wisconsin where a Catholic charity was denied tax exemption because,
S12: in the opinion of the trial court that was supported
S12: by the Wisconsin State Supreme Court, in the opinion of
S12: the courts, uh, the charity, which had a goal and
S12: mission statement that was based on their beliefs, based on
S12: the biblical view of charity and helping others because of
S12: the freedom that the gospel gives us. They said, no,
S12: that's not enough. You have to show that you are,
S12: in fact proselytizing, which is another word for evangelizing. Um,
S12: to change people's mind with your message. And if your
S12: charity work doesn't include that? Well, we're not going to
S12: give you an exemption. Now, at the time, I remember
S12: our discussion because I was the thing that troubled me
S12: the most was the fact that you've got judges saying, no,
S12: that's not religious.
S1: That's not church.
S12: That's not religious.
S1: Enough.
S12: Right. And that's not the role of the court to
S12: decide whether, uh, they've got their doctrine strapped on. Right. Uh,
S12: to be religious enough to qualify for an exemption. Um,
S12: if you are going to say exemptions for any religious activity,
S12: then you have to interpret ultimately religion fairly broadly, not
S12: so broad as to be inapplicable, or I should say nonsensical.
S12: There are some groups that pretend to be religious. You
S12: and I have talked about them that really are are fake, uh,
S12: organizations for political purposes or sociological purposes. They really aren't
S12: religious at all. But there's no question that this was
S12: a religion based charity, and all the work they did
S12: was empowered and influenced by those religious beliefs that should
S12: have qualified easily. And the Supreme Court agreed, uh, that,
S12: in fact, to parse it out that way, to impose
S12: yet another requirement on a religion or followers of a
S12: religion to have equal treatment again and its equal treatment
S12: under law, issue this one involving religion. You better make
S12: sure that you have level ground for everybody and that
S12: your interpretation makes sense.
S1: Uh, hats off to. Becket fund for their superb representation
S1: in this case. So grateful for the work that they do.
S1: And continue to do. Their tagline is Religious Liberty for all.
S1: And this was a perfect example of. That so hat
S1: tip to Becket for the superb work that they were doing,
S1: what I found was necessary. Craig, is that again, we've
S1: talked about this. In colloquial terms, that nowhere in the
S1: Constitution do you find the phrase separation of church and state.
S1: That that song has been played over and over and
S1: over again. And it really was in that remarks that
S1: Jefferson made, not to government, but to a group of Baptists,
S1: the Danbury Baptist Society. It was an assurance to them
S1: that the government wasn't going to poke their nose in
S1: their lives, and they were going to be free to
S1: worship as they saw fit. And remember, we just had
S1: a revolution from a nation that forced you to have
S1: a particular kind of religion and actually has a history
S1: of burning people at the stake who didn't believe the
S1: way the state believed. So why this is part of
S1: the First Amendment is because that was one of the
S1: more onerous things that they were rebelling against as part
S1: of the American Revolution. But this really was a question
S1: of unnecessary entanglement. When the government decides to say to
S1: a religious organization, nah, we don't think that was a
S1: religious enough organization. If there were such a thing as
S1: church and state, you would have hit the red button
S1: at that point. But they didn't. They they just pushed
S1: their way in. That's why the only people who use
S1: that as a cudgel are the people who really want
S1: government intrusion in religion, not people who are saying, look,
S1: just let us be free to worship as we see fit.
S1: That's why Becket's tagline is so important religious liberty for all.
S1: Government doesn't get in the way of your liberties.
S12: If you don't want entanglement, then give a broad version
S12: of treatment for religion rather than a narrow version that
S12: kicks some of them out.
S1: Right. So two excellent decisions yesterday. Doesn't always happen that way,
S1: but these are a couple we're celebrating back after this.
S1: So it's interesting, Craig, you talked before about how we
S1: discussed both of those Supreme Court cases in previous episodes
S1: of In the Market with Janet Parshall. Well, we discussed
S1: suicide pods in previous episodes as well. A right to
S1: die activist questioned for murder after the death of a
S1: woman using one of those suicide pods, has died by
S1: assisted suicide. You can't make this stuff up. Stick with me.
S1: Florian Willet apparently had a mental health crisis after he
S1: was arrested by Swiss police in September last year, said
S1: Philipp Nietzsche. You cannot make this up if you know
S1: Nietzsche is the paradox here. Cannot be missed. Exactly. Philipp
S1: Nietzsche is the inventor of the suicide capsule. Yes. There
S1: you go. Nothingness. Uh, Mr. Willett was the director. The
S1: one who committed suicide by assisted suicide. Who developed the
S1: suicide pods. Are you tracking with me? Here was the
S1: director of last resort. Note the twisting of language. The suicide.
S1: The Swiss suicide organisation which was set up to facilitate
S1: the use of these suicide pods. So apparently, the 47
S1: year old German was investigated for aiding and abetting suicide.
S1: So it wasn't cut and dry. Not just quite the clean,
S1: slick market program. They had about just go out in
S1: the woods and slip in one of these pods, and
S1: all your problems will go away forever. No, it wasn't
S1: quite that tidy. So prosecutors investigated whether he had strangled
S1: the woman when she was in the pub. But that
S1: was ruled out because before he was released in December
S1: after 70 days of pre-trial detention. And so Mr. Nietzsche,
S1: the director of Exit International, he must have teamed up
S1: with his buddy Jean-Paul Sartre. Right, Craig?
S12: So a happy bunch.
S1: Happy bunch. Exactly. Gone was his warm smile, said Mr. Nietzsche.
S1: And self-confidence in its place was a man who was
S1: deeply traumatised by the experience of incarceration and the wrongful
S1: accusation of strangulation. Talk about missing the forest for the trees.
S1: So he was mentally depressed because of his being incarcerated.
S1: How about the fact that you built a machine that
S1: took a woman's life? That that bother you at all,
S1: or just the part that you were incarcerated.
S12: Your thoughts? Yeah. Um, you know, I was struck with it.
S12: You and I have gone back, uh, many years dealing
S12: with this issue. I handle a case in a state
S12: Supreme court, um, dealing. And this was a long time
S12: ago dealing with the issue. And it is one that
S12: really tells us a lot about the problems in our
S12: culture and in the thinking that has, uh, really a
S12: very delusional aspect to it. And that is that somehow
S12: you're winning if you are the person deciding the time
S12: and date of your demise. What you don't realize is
S12: God already knew it in advance. He didn't cause it.
S12: But in a world, a sin sick world, uh, since
S12: the garden, um, people make bad choices. And I really
S12: felt bad for this individual because there were some mental
S12: health issues with him, clearly. And apparently he had sought
S12: psychiatric help. But you know what I thought? I thought
S12: of a verse. I thought of what Jesus said in
S12: the 10th chapter of John, verse ten. He said, the
S12: thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I
S12: came so that they might have life and have it abundantly. Um.
S12: Euthanasia like this. Which is a fancy word that is
S12: a euphemism for suicide. Let's face it. It's taking your
S12: own life, no matter what aspect of language you want
S12: to apply to it. The bottom line is you. For
S12: you to say, I'm making a choice, and I'm being
S12: victorious by being the person determining the time and date
S12: of my life is not only a delusion, because that
S12: was determined when you know God created the first atom
S12: in the universe. But more importantly, he's lost the opportunity
S12: for an abundant life, that there are forces out there
S12: and bad ideas that have come to steal, kill and destroy.
S12: They don't come dressed like that. They come dressed like
S12: the euthanasia movement for self-determination and having a good exit
S12: from life and choosing your way to be able to
S12: leave this life behind us. And the language and the
S12: flourishes and the advocacy all covers the fact that this
S12: is killing and destroying a life that could have found
S12: an abundant life and eternal life had they gone to
S12: the life giver and His Word.
S1: There is a way that seemeth right unto man and
S1: the end there in his death. I mean, if that
S1: isn't a succinct verse for that particular situation. The other
S1: thing I was also thinking about, too, is this raises
S1: some transcendent issues that is maturing believers we need to
S1: be thinking about. And that is, is there anything profitable
S1: that can come out of suffering? You know, we've talked
S1: interesting a couple of times this week. We've been talking
S1: about suffering. It is an age old question. It's one
S1: humankind has struggled with since we walked out of the garden.
S1: But can we see a value in that? Why would
S1: we be invited into the fellowship of his suffering? So
S1: you've got someone who's suffering mentally or physically, and you're thinking,
S1: isn't it merciful? I mean, look what we do to
S1: the family dog. Isn't it merciful to do this to
S1: a family member as well? Well, those are deep theological questions.
S1: Searching about this. And I've decided for me personally that
S1: while no one wants to suffer. Suffer is where I
S1: get refined like no place else. The points get whittled off,
S1: the having to press into him, completely understanding you were
S1: never in control. And these circumstances are reminding you absolutely
S1: you have no control whatsoever. So, um, the idea that
S1: all you have to do to get rid of your
S1: problems is to simply step into this pod, which, by
S1: the way, this woman who was killed, I'm not going
S1: to say she committed suicide. They said it was fast
S1: and it was dignified. They put her in a pod
S1: and they suffocated her. That's what, in a word, that's
S1: how the mechanics work. There's nothing dignified about that. It's brutal.
S1: And it fails in our recognition of the image of
S1: God in our fellow man. How dare we? Your thoughts?
S12: You know God has a plan for how we should
S12: handle suffering. The perspective. And it's again in his word.
S12: He made it easy for us. Second Corinthians, the very
S12: first chapter. God who comforts us in all our afflictions
S12: so we may be able to comfort those who are
S12: in any affliction with the comfort with which we ourselves
S12: are comforted by God. When you go through trials and
S12: tribulations and God is able to bring you through, you
S12: can bring that fact of God's comfort to other people
S12: who are suffering so that they may receive the blessing
S12: of it as well.
S1: We talked to Doctor Matthew McCullough of Edgefield Church yesterday
S1: on his new book, remember Heaven. And one of the
S1: reasons why he challenged us to remember heaven is to
S1: remember that when we get our perspective right on heaven,
S1: it helps us endure. As the words of Scripture declared
S1: these momentary afflictions that whatever we're dealing with here, it
S1: is going to be surpassed by the eternality of being
S1: forever in his presence. So it's important that we remember
S1: that and that we continue to press on. So something
S1: to think about. A lot of stories there. So we
S1: thank you so much for spending the hour with us,
S1: reminding you again love our truth tool. It talks about
S1: the wonder of God. So a whole bunch of authors
S1: contributed and asked questions about why we seek money when
S1: we know it won't satisfy, why we want happy endings
S1: and stories, why we long for happiness. The list goes
S1: on and on and on. And when it all gets
S1: said and done, it points to God himself and the
S1: relationship of a great king who put that sense of
S1: awe and wonder in us because he is the very
S1: essence of awe and wonder. It's a great truth tool.
S1: It's yours for a gift of any amount. 877 Janet
S1: 58 or online at in the market with Janet parshall.org.
S1: Have a great weekend. Stick around if you can join
S1: us for the next hour or listen on the podcast.
S1: We'll see you next time.