The Listening Tube with Bob Woodley--Church and State with Director Andrew Linn

SPEAKER_01 0:00

This is the listening tube. Hello. Thank you for putting your ear to the listening tube. I'm your host, Bob Woodley. On this episode, I'll have a chat with Director Andrew Lin about his documentary. You're gonna have faith in it. State law.

SPEAKER_04 0:25

But first, not the headlines.

SPEAKER_01 0:31

A story provided by Yahoo News and credited to an organization called Blavity tells the story of how black people should vote, according to former vice president and presidential candidate Kamala Harris. Her remarks and advice came at the National Action Network Convention, which I'm guessing is a political left gathering hosted by Al Sharpton. The story says it's almost like an audition for the next Democrat political stars and top office contenders. More on that in a minute. I was curious about a news organization called Blabity, which I had never heard of before, so I'm going to look that up. He's gonna look it up. He's really gonna do it. As it turns out, Blabity is a media group with several brands that focus on the black consumer and those who wish to market to them. When describing themselves, they use the word multicultural, as in Blavity Media Group is committed to creating an inclusive world where multicultural voices are amplified and celebrated. Then it adds, Our mission is to provide platforms, content, and services that empower the black community. We believe that when black people are empowered, they can change the world. Clearly, the goal is to market to black people for black businesses and creators. And that's possible because we have the data to know exactly where people are and what color they are. And we are a lot of different shades. Blavity may add multicultural to their verbiage, but they only mention black people specifically. Now, imagine if that statement said, Our mission is to provide platforms, content, and services that empower the white community. We believe that when white people are empowered, they can change the world. Who's the racist here? Getting back to Kamala Harris's advice for black voters, she said that black voters should be more transactional. The story quotes the former vice president as saying, I think we need to be transactional voters. Get yours. Vote and say, I'm voting because I expect something out of this. You're not going to take for granted that I'm going to vote because I'm a good citizen and it's my civic duty to vote. Let's examine that statement a little bit. She's saying that you should treat your right to vote for your government representation as half of a transaction for which you expect some product or service in return. Essentially selling your vote to the highest bidder. Whichever candidate promises that you'll get what you want in return for your vote should get your vote. I hate to break it to Kamala, but that's always been the case. When you vote for a candidate, you are voting for someone who understands you and knows the conditions under which your district or town are under and shares your points of view. And in return, you get someone who represents you in our government who shares your values and wants what's best for the country. But Kamala wants to make it more of a personal transaction. In fact, I've read two stories now about what she's been saying at these get-togethers, and she apparently has discovered the word transactional, because that's what she keeps talking about, regardless of what you ask her. So that'll be her new catchword for a while until she learns another one, or when someone tells her what the new catchphrase is according to the progressive doctrine of the day. But I digress. Kamala wants to turn our election system into a quid pro quo. But what do most Democrat voters want? Well, free stuff if you take a look at how socialists are getting elected in cities with high levels of progressive voters. More government dependency, which is exactly what the Democrats want. The more dependent we are on the government, the more the Democrats are happy. That way they keep voting for the politicians who keep promising the government will take care of them. Take care of them with free stuff like health care and bus rides and cheap prices at government-run grocery stores. Free childcare and welfare programs that last a lifetime. These are the transactions Kamala Harris is talking about. It's not new, it's just a different way of saying it. She's trying to make it sound more sophisticated than saying something like, vote for us and we'll give you free stuff. Now, the people who want to rely on the free stuff can claim they're transactional voters. The only problem with being a transactional voter is that eventually the money runs out and the free stuff goes away. Unless, of course, the government you voted for raises taxes to pay for the programs that provide the free stuff. Getting caught in that cycle will inevitably lead to what we see in many inner cities now. Poverty, empty storefronts, homelessness, desolate streets that used to be bustling business centers. Baltimore's inner harbor is a good example. California is another. Look, it's okay to be a transactional voter depending upon what the other end of the transaction looks like. If you expect a representative government that upholds the Constitution and gets work done for the American people as a whole, that's one thing. But if it just results in more dependence on the government, then your transaction will lead to your demise.

SPEAKER_04 6:52

You can hang your hat on that.

SPEAKER_01 6:55

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas made that very clear recently when he spoke about progressive policies. The Wilson, to whom he refers as President Woodrow Wilson. I've edited the Justice for Time and Content.

SPEAKER_00 7:12

Progressivism was the first mainstream American political movement, with the possible exception of the pro-slavery reactionaries on the eve of the Civil War, to openly oppose the principles of the Declaration. Progressives strove to undo the Declaration's commitment to equality and natural rights, both of which they denied were self-evident. To Wilson, the unalienable rights of the individual were, quote, a lot of nonsense. Wilson redefined liberty not as a natural right attendant and ancedent to the government, but as, quote, the right of those who are governed to adjust government to their own needs and interests. In other words, liberty no longer preceded the government as a gift from God, but was to be enjoyed at the grace of the government. The government, as Wilson reconceived it, would be, quote, beneficent and indispensable. Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence and hence our form of government. It holds that our rights and our dignities come not from God, but from government. It requires of the people a subservience and weakness incompatible with a constitution premised on the transcendent origin of our rights. You will not be surprised to learn that the progressives had a great deal of contempt for us, the American people. Before he entered politics, Wilson would describe the American people as, quote, selfish, ignorant, timid, stubborn, and foolish. He lamented that we do too much by vote and too little by expert rule. He proposed that the people be ruled by administrators who use them as tools. The century of progressivism did not go well. The European system that Wilson and the progressives scolded Americans for not adopting, which he called nearly perfect, led to the governments that caused the most awful century that the world has ever seen. Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Mao, all were intertwined with the rise of progressivism and all were opposed to the natural rights on which our declaration are based. Progressivism, in other words, is retrogressive.

SPEAKER_01 10:06

So if you want to be the kind of transactional voter Kamala Harris is encouraging you to be, Justice Thomas just told us what the consequences could be. The listening tube will return at the speed of sound.

SPEAKER_02 10:21

Send email to thelising tube at outlook.com.

SPEAKER_01 10:27

My guest today is Andrew Lynn. He's a film director who's got a documentary about the balance of religion and politics. And you can watch it for free. He'll tell you how. But before we run off and do that, let's get some questions answered. The film that you have recently directed is called Church and State, Rogams and the Founding of Freedom of Religion. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct. Is Roger Williams a good guy or a bad guy?

SPEAKER_04 11:03

I would say he's a good guy. I personally think uh he was a very good man, a very courageous man. I don't agree 100% with everything he thought and did. However, you know, I don't agree with anybody 100%, you know, whatever they think or do. But I think what he did, you know, laid the framework and the foundation for America and for the modern way the world works, generally speaking, in the West.

SPEAKER_01 11:29

He was the first public official to call for a wall or hedge of separation between the wilderness of the world and the garden of the church. Why is that interpreted as a separation of church and state and not just a separation between reality and faith?

SPEAKER_04 11:56

Yes. Well, he framed it that way. He, I mean, he did frame it as the church being separated from everything, not just the government. But, you know, he went on to found Rhode Island, and that was the first colony where in its charter they had the separation of church and state, in that the government had no official denomination, and it didn't have anything to do with churchy, with churches. So they didn't regulate faith, they didn't endorse faith, uh, or a specific church, rather, uh, whereas the other colonies did, and throughout world history, that's that was the case.

SPEAKER_01 12:33

Is it meant to limit government or is it meant to limit religion?

SPEAKER_04 12:38

It is not meant to limit religion. A lot of people in this day and age would interpret it that way, would say, oh, the separation of church and state means uh you can't pray in public, you can't discuss religion or God in public. Uh that's not what he intended. That's not what I believe the founders intended. Of course, the Constitution doesn't have the separation of church and state in it. That's a phrase people took from uh a letter between Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists. However, it's to encourage faith. It's to protect faith. It's not to. The reason he came up with this idea was because he was persecuted for his beliefs. Though he was a Puritan, like his friends and and colleagues in Massachusetts Bay colony were also Puritans, he started to grow in his faith, have different ideas, started believing in liberty of conscience, didn't believe you could force people to, you know, believe certain things. And so he was banished for that. And that's when he went on to start his own colony, Rhode Island, and establish uh this framework for the government there. He became a Baptist then, did he not? So briefly, yes. A lot of people think he was a Baptist. You know, a lot of Baptists will say he's a great Baptist. He was briefly a Baptist. He did go on to, with some others, start the first Baptist church in America, but he would end his life as what is called a seeker. So a seeker was somebody who was constantly seeking the truth. He was still a Christian. He just couldn't identify with any denomination. He he felt uh, I guess in the film, somebody says he was too Puritan, even for the Puritans. So he was very, he had his ideas maybe a little self-righteous, like, you know, nobody has it right.

SPEAKER_01 14:22

I guess only he had it right, but so the the title of your film uses the words freedom of religion. Yes. And we've all heard the comparison between freedom of religion and freedom from religion. How did Roger Williams see the difference between the two?

SPEAKER_04 14:41

Roger Williams uh agreed with what the First Amendment says, that there'll be no establishment of a religion. He agreed with that concept, but he also believed that uh you cannot um ban or punish religion as well. So he thought the only way for the church to be pure and grow in truth and you know be a real church is to not have government involved in the church. So it's more of a one-way street. Government not involved in the church. Church should influence the government, but it shouldn't, you know, be married to the government because he felt that only corrupted the church. It didn't make the government better.

SPEAKER_01 15:23

Here's what I wonder. And you you bring up a good point. Is our government being restricted in ways that don't involve restrictions on religion? Is the separation of church and state preventing our government from doing the best job it can do? Um I'm not sure what you mean by that. What could you rephrase? It seems like our government, like, let's take for example, like I'm I'm not familiar with the Quran and I'm vaguely familiar with the Bible, but if the origin of wisdom or knowledge is considered irrelevant, why should lessons from the Bible or other religious texts not be allowed to be promoted by a government? I mean, there's some valuable stuff in there.

SPEAKER_04 16:18

Well, yeah, that this is uh related to a question I asked all the people I interviewed for the film, but I didn't really get a good answer. Is that all law, aren't all laws based on a culture's beliefs? So for instance, in America, uh polygamy, by and large, is against the law and has been throughout uh American history. But, you know, you go to a Mormon, you go to Utah, or you know, it's not illegal. Uh maybe recently they made it illegal, but you know, you go to a Muslim country, it's not illegal. So our our laws are based on you know religious beliefs, and by and large, the West. What I say about America is are we a theocracy? No. Are we foundationally Christian? Yes, in that the majority of our populace at the founding were Christian of different denominations, and so the Bible shaped the views and beliefs of people, even the deists that were involved, the founders that were deists. I mean, obviously they were influenced by their Christian brothers and sisters, whether, you know, you know, they didn't obviously fully agree on the you know deep doctrinal issues of Christianity, but their morals were in line with Christian thought because that was just the Western culture they grew up in. Ultimately, their laws are going to be based on something, and what are they gonna be based on? And in the West, it's gonna be based on Christian Christian values, or some would say Judeo-Christian values.

SPEAKER_01 17:41

Yes, uh uh Judeo-Christian values seems to be the common phrase. How does Islam work its way into any of our laws? Did you did you look at Islam as part of the research of your film?

SPEAKER_04 17:59

Uh no, I didn't. But I have read the Quran, not entirely, but I've read the Quran, and I don't believe it is compatible with freedom of religion. I think that, whereas, you know, Roger Williams did believe that, he believed that freedom of conscience should apply to everybody, uh, freedom of religion should apply to Muslims, everybody. But I think Islam, when small in number, it's fine. But the the whole goal, I find it more of a political system than a religious system, in that it seeks to dominate and it seeks to, and you can read these verses in the Quran. It's I'm not uh just disparaging or something like that, but uh it says things like you can't take Jews and Muslims or Jews and Christians for friends. It says that Jews are greedy for life. This is from the Quran, basically greedy. Jews are greedy. You know, it says a lot of things. You can't make friends with them, uh, you know, put terror into the hearts of the disbelievers. Basically, you're gonna have a competing ideology or competing religion when Islam comes in. It seeks to dominate, I guess is the point. It doesn't seek to live, you know, love your neighbor is a Christian virtue. Uh it says to, you know, harm your enemies, and and those who are enemies are Christians, Jews, pagans. So it's not really a and of course there are peace, peaceful Muslims who who can get along and all that kind of thing, but uh, you know, I'm just saying what the uh the Quran teaches.

SPEAKER_01 19:25

So well now certainly the Ten Commandments have obvious religious rules, as well as more secular or legal rules we're asked to follow. Yet many school districts are prohibited from displaying them, uh, as well as city halls and courthouses because of the religious content. What if we made a display of the Ten Commandments and we only listed the secular commandments, say like six through ten. And after the last one, it says, for more commandments, see Bible, Exodus 20. Yeah, right.

SPEAKER_04 20:06

No, yeah, that's what exactly what Roger Williams believed. He believed that the government could only enforce the second table of the Ten Commandments, uh uh commandments six through ten, as you just mentioned. He believed that the government should have no involvement in a person's relationship with God, which I think is a good thing. You know, it's a it's a mixed bag. These are challenging subjects. They're not very black and white as far as having Ten Commandments in a public space. It's hard to say. Um, I could go either way on that subject. But yeah, definitely is it is it bad to teach people not to steal, not to lie, not to murder, you know, all these things. I obviously I agree with these. I think most people would agree those are good things to be taught. Um, but yeah, the first part about love the Lord to God with all your heart, mind, and soul, uh, have no other gods before me, these kind of things. Yeah, that's where you get into theocracy versus you know, separation of church and state. And you know, so I'm not against if if people of a state or a county or municipality, whatever, want to vote that in for their community, and you know, they have a majority to do so, so be it. You know, that I I think that's kind of where I would land. If the people want it, then that's fine.

SPEAKER_01 21:21

It's fine and well to think that the that could happen, but let's say if if your town there in West Virginia voted to display the Ten Commandments in a public space, you know that somebody's gonna come along and file a lawsuit against that, and some judge, probably in some other jurisdiction, higher up in the chain of the judicial system, would come down and say you're not allowed to do that. Now, is that is that a viol is that a violation of someone's religion, or is it a violation of of our laws?

SPEAKER_04 21:56

As I said, if people voted it in, I don't and you know, the the Court's kind of come down that you know people can do this. It's not a freedom from religion, it's freedom of religion. So a lot of people want to, you know, like the ACLU or whoever want to come against and sue, like you had mentioned, people for doing things like this, you know, or they'll say, Well, if you have your Ten Commandments, we're gonna have to have uh a Krishna over here. You gotta have equal representation of all the faiths, right? Well, that's ridiculous. If if it's what the people want, you know, and the people vote for it, they should have it. And if it and that's this is where intolerance comes in. You know, people are intolerant who want to get rid of these things. If you can't handle it, that's that's where you have a discussion. You don't ban things you don't like. You know what I mean? You can't just be like the Massachusetts Bay colony and say, okay, well, we're gonna ban you, we're gonna hopefully get you killed or sentenced to prison for your difference of opinion thoughts on religion. And this at the time was not for people who believed in uh Judaism or Islam or, you know, whatever. This was Christians. They were persecuting other Christians who just thought a different way than they did. And so we don't want to get to a kind of you know, that kind of pure puritanical idea of life and religion, spirituality, allow, you know, freedom of religion.

SPEAKER_01 23:20

Now, just for reference sake, we should mention that Roger Williams, as you said, founded Connecticut. Uh Rhode Island. Rhode Island, I'm sorry. And that was back in the 1600s. Correct. So how do you think Roger Williams would look at today's society and what kind of conclusions or precautionary measures would he bring to us?

SPEAKER_04 23:47

Yeah, so a lot of people think uh freedom of religion and freedom in general is this idea of anarchy, and he would be completely against that. He was against anarchy. That's not what he was trying to establish. What he was simply trying to do, uh, you know, he believed in taxes, he believed in government, you know, he believed in respect and submission to authority. So I think he would be, I'm sure he'd be pretty appalled. I think a lot of the founders would be appalled at some things that go on in this day and age. He might reframe some of what he thought, but by and large, I think he'd stick to his guns on the bigger subjects, uh like the freedom of religion and the separation of church and state. But uh, you know, based on where his church that he established went and where it is today compared to what the way it was when he was there, I'm sure he'd be pretty upset about that.

SPEAKER_01 24:38

Well, he he did seem to have a very uh malleable mind. He didn't seem to uh object to changing his mind or changing his uh his points of view depending upon what he learned and what he experienced. So I think he's he's he's probably be might even be more open-minded than we would imagine.

SPEAKER_04 25:01

Yeah, I mean, see, he he was in some regards, but he was also very, like I said, very self-righteous to the point where, you know, he was, you know, there was no denomination good enough for him, and he kind of you know went his own way. But yeah, he was he was growing and you know and changing in his faith and his beliefs. Some of you know, some of these things were established early on in his life. His uh mentor was Sir Edward Koch uh back in England. He was kind of very influential on Roger Williams and his ideas of separation of church and state and freedom and all these kind of things. So the the main thing he kind of became more malleable about later in life was uh, you know, the denomination kind of thing. He was originally a Puritan, um, became a Baptist, then became a seeker. But he was hard-nosed. He he had, you know, he did not care for Quakers. He he would uh but he he never banished them. You know, a lot of Quakers came to Rhode Island because nobody liked them anywhere. So the Quakers came to Rhode Island because there was freedom of religion. It was kind of a haven for these types of people that nobody cared for, I guess. So they went there and he didn't banish him. It was a it was a quick test uh of his character and his uh supposed beliefs, but you know what he did? He debated them. He traveled, he would travel by canoe, row all the way hours away just to debate Quakers. So he was he was very, you know, he was a funny guy. I I like that. That's good. That's what we should do: debate, discuss, not you know, kill and banish and you know, harm others because they're you know different views.

SPEAKER_01 26:39

So learn from each other. Yes, yes. Well, it was Thomas Jefferson who who's credited with coining the term uh separation of church and state, but uh he also wrote the Declaration of Independence, which refers to God and a creator. It was much later in 1802 when he wrote the letter that you had referenced earlier about the separation of church and state. Do you think that he really believed in the separation of church and state, or did he paint himself into a corner with the Baptists and what was then Republicanism?

SPEAKER_04 27:24

Uh I do believe him and some others, uh, yeah, I do believe they believed in the separation of church and state in a very harder, you know, line than others. The founders, generally speaking, I think kind of blurred the line of the separation of church and state a little bit. Whereas I think people who weren't of the Christian faith, like like Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin, I think they were more hard line, like, you know, just stay out. And there was a few others as well that really didn't want, but it, you know, a lot of things people forget or don't know the history. Part of the reason for the separation of church and state is because when you paid taxes in those days, a portion of that went to the state-run church. So if you were a Baptist living in Virginia, your money would go to the Anglican church. And but if you didn't agree with them, well, then that would make you upset. And that's kind of what he was addressing there, Thomas Jefferson. He didn't want that, that was a big part about the separation of church and state. It wasn't that you couldn't, you know, express your beliefs publicly in public office or pray. It was that you didn't want one denomination ruling a state or a country, colony, and you didn't want your taxes going to a church that you didn't necessarily affiliate with, you know, and they still have that in Germany. In Germany, you're a portion of your taxes, 10%, a tithe, goes to the Lutheran church. Uh, I think you can opt out of it, but um, yeah, they still have that though. That was that's old, old world stuff that was brought over here, and that's what largely people wanted to get get rid of.

SPEAKER_01 28:59

Well, that still exists today in the respect that uh unions charge union dues and then use that money for political donations, which may or may not align with the rank and file of the union.

SPEAKER_04 29:16

Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. Uh yeah, unions are yeah, so I guess we've just I mean, human nature, it's you know, throughout history, so I guess we thought we were getting an advantage of taking money away from the church, like I just mentioned. Now we're, like you said, putting it in unions and different things. I mean, taxes in general, you're paying for a lot of stuff you don't agree with in general. But yeah, so yeah.

SPEAKER_01 29:42

Yeah. Now, if if you could make and show this documentary at any time in the history of America, would there be a better time than now to release it? Is there an audience you wish would have seen this sometime in America's past?

SPEAKER_04 30:05

Uh, probably. I do think it's excellent for now, uh, particularly for the 250th anniversary coming up. And I and with the death of Charlie Kirk, I think, you know, while these people think they're, you know, would probably think they're on the side of freedom of religion, these people who endorsed or, you know, the people who participated in his murder, that's more acting like the Puritans than acting like Roger Williams, who established freedom of religion. You know, that's a that's an actual Salem witch hunt where you got to get rid of these people who are talking like saying things we can't handle, we don't like. But also I would say back it would it would be good to release back when back with the uh Supreme, one of the Supreme Court decisions that you know established a new precedent for the separation of church and state. I believe this was in the 50s. That's when they, you know, said, oh, the first it basically made it like seem that freedom from religion was what the First Amendment meant. And uh I don't remember the all the details of the court case, but that would be a good time as well.

SPEAKER_01 31:10

How do you want people to feel after seeing church and state, Roger Williams, and the founding of freedom of religion, directed by Andrew Lynn?

SPEAKER_04 31:23

I I would want people, I think it's an informative film. It is probably aimed more towards a Christian or conservative audience. I did make it in response partly to Christian a rise in Christian nationalism, which is this idea that we should return to a monarchy. It's a small but growing sect of uh, you know, the uh the American right. I'm a Christian and I love my country. I thought I was a Christian nationalist based on those things, but you know, there are portions that call for the return of a king. They want a Christian prince to rule the country. And we're living in a somewhat chaotic time, and I think this is a response to that, you know, chaos in the streets and people getting off with murder, you know, and they think, well, if we had a Christian prince, things would be cleaned up, things would be better. And they looked at theocracies like Saudi Arabia or, you know, these Middle Eastern countries, they said, oh, it's so clean there and the crime's so low because they're so harsh on, you know, crime. Uh, but yeah, we we we don't want that. So I made that in part uh response to that, and I would hope people would get out of it education about the reality of where this all came from. I wanted to honor Roger Williams. He's a bit of an unsung hero. He did, like you had mentioned, Thomas Jefferson uh was the first to bring up church and state. Well, actually was Roger Williams, slightly different language, but he he established it, he thought of it, and Thomas Jefferson, yeah, more or less, I don't think he took it from Roger Williams, but he mentioned it as well. So I just want people to look go away, leave the film saying, Well, I learned something, I'm armed to debate somebody about the subject, and you know, be proud to be an American, love their country, and uh realize why we have these freedoms, what led to these ideas, the persecution in Europe of you know, bapt uh Christians and Catholics or Protestants and Catholics against each other, and uh just be thankful and grateful and inspired to uh go out and you know be what you want to be and uh believe what you want to believe.

SPEAKER_01 33:29

Is the United States of America still the best country in the world for freedom of religion?

SPEAKER_04 33:40

Yes, I do believe it still is. Even though there are scary things that can happen in this country where it seems like it might be getting tampered with or they're putting in laws that abridge people's speech or abridge people's faith. I think by and large, because we have the constitution, while that can happen temporarily or for a time, uh, we can push back also because of checks and balances. You know, the individual has uh a lot more power in this country than in any other country in the world. So I do believe that it's still efficient here, the freedom of religion.

SPEAKER_01 34:16

I I was just reminded uh in my head about the persecution of Catholics that happened under the Biden administration. It didn't get a lot of press, uh, because I think the press kind of subdued the story a little bit. Is that common or do we just not hear about it?

SPEAKER_04 34:41

Um it's it's probably more common than we realize, and we probably don't hear enough about it because uh media is very bifurcated right now and divided. People get their media from so many different sources, and the main big sources, the old uh media outlets like uh the television one, CBS, Fox, all that stuff. Uh they don't they tell you what they want you to hear. I'm not familiar with all the Catholic persecution. I do remember one story under Joseph Biden that there was an elderly woman who prayed, was just praying outside of an abortion clinic, and she was arrested and put in prison. I mean, this is crazy stuff to me. Now, I know there is a uh uh law about that that you can't protest at an abortion clinic or something like that, that they they use to do that, but still can. I mean, to pray is different than speaking, maybe she was praying out loud. I don't know all the details, but that's you know an offense to the First Amendment, in my opinion.

SPEAKER_01 35:38

Yeah, there was uh there seemed to be another incident as well uh concerning an FBI memo labeling fundamental uh Catholics as uh a terror group. And it's like, well, okay, wow, where did that come from? Right. And yeah, so what can what can religions do to make sure that the government does not impede on on their right to practice their religion?

SPEAKER_04 36:05

Well, they they need to know their rights and they need to uh be, I mean, it's hard when you're an individual, but if you can get a coalition together uh and get you know a legal team, I don't know if you've ever heard of the ACLJ, uh, the American Center for Law and Justice, they fight on behalf for religious liberty on behalf of people in these exact circumstances. So they're a nonprofit. And so they're a legal team that goes and takes these things to court when the government oversteps their constitutional authority.

SPEAKER_01 36:36

So tell me about some of the people who appear in your film. And did you have to cut anything out because you didn't agree with it?

SPEAKER_04 36:45

Yeah. Um, so yes, uh, I interviewed, I interviewed four people. I interviewed a Baptist pastor who's very knowledgeable, very intelligent. I interviewed a New York Times best-selling author who wrote the premier book on Roger Williams. Uh, it's called uh Roger Williams and the Creation of the American Soul. And he's a Democrat, and you know, he's friends with um what's his name? James Carville and others. Um, so he's more left on the subject, pastor's more right. Um, I interviewed the president emeritus of Mercy University. He's more right of center or center, and um he wrote a book as well called The Separation of Church and State, uh, Roger Williams, and I forget the subtitle, but either way, his is a legal, his is more coming at it from a legal standpoint. So he would bring up in his book several um examples in our nation's history of this coming before the courts, different sub um different cases about separation of church and state. Instances were, for instance, um a rabbi prayed at a middle school graduation, and that went to the Supreme Court. And then lastly, Bill Federer, who's pretty viral right now. He's kind of quasi-famous in the um social media world. He's a Christian author and speaker. You know, he's always defending the Christian roots of the uh of America and America's founding. And uh he's very well spoken, very compelling to listen to.

SPEAKER_01 38:18

And what did you learn? Did you learn anything through your conversations with these people?

SPEAKER_04 38:25

Uh oh, yeah, I learned a whole lot. I mean, that that's the fun part about you know, making documentaries. You think you know something, and then you know, somebody will send you in a different direction. Um, you know, particularly the Baptist pastor I interviewed, he's very intelligent. He uh reads uh he said he's in 10 books at a time. He's always reading. And if you see in the film, the interview with him, he's his the background's just books. It's his whole office is loaded with books. But uh he he makes uh very interesting points. Uh the way I found him was I was I wanted a pastor's perspective on Roger Williams, and I typed into uh YouTube or Google uh sermon about Roger Williams, and and he uh I saw a Sunday school lesson from him, and he talked about Roger Williams' perspective on the two kingdoms, the two swords, and the two tables. And it's just so fascinating uh, you know, Roger Williams' intellect and uh thoughts on the subject. So that it's a little deep, but as I mentioned before, the two tables are the uh the Ten Commandments. The first table, Roger Williams did not believe the government could enforce the second table, he did. So he just you know brilliantly took the Bible and applied it to modern life and how we could live civilly with our neighbors. Um so anyway, yeah, I learned a lot from these people. And you had asked earlier, I forgot to answer uh anybody, anything I disagreed with. Mostly I agreed with everything, little things I disagreed with. I'm not offended by the Ten Commandments being in schools, but like I said, I could go either way. The author, the New York Times bestselling author, he he had a real problem with that because he lives in Louisiana, and he said uh, I guess recently they had passed laws to put the Ten Commandments in public schools, and to him that was a clear violation of the separation of church and state. For me, it's not as it didn't bother me that much.

SPEAKER_01 40:16

But so the the Baptist minister then confirmed my my assertion that six through ten was secular. Yeah.

SPEAKER_04 40:26

Well, I I yeah, I I wouldn't say I wouldn't say secular, but yeah, it it's you it's civil. It's civil laws. It's you know, you know, it rather than yeah, theocratic laws. So dealing with your neighbor rather than your dealings with God.

SPEAKER_01 40:42

Right. So, Andrew, uh you you've probably talked to other people about this film. Is there anything I didn't ask you about that you just want to tell us?

SPEAKER_04 40:53

No, I think you covered it pretty well. I would just say um it's a fascinating subject. And when you hear the arguments from Roger Williams, what he believed, what he thought, how he, as a Christian and Puritan, you know, came to these ideas, it's fascinating. He was a brilliant man. It's amazing the way he thought, and it's amazing our country, the foundation of it, and we can't lose it. We can't, you know, give it up on the left or the right for some foolish idea or notion that we need more government to control our lives. That's stupid. And then the Massachusetts Bay colony, you know, just because it was the Christian faith, a puritanical faith that was governing that, and they controlled how long your hair could be, they controlled if they wouldn't let you live alone, they would kick people out for being too proud, all these kinds of things, that's bad. And we don't want it in a different, whether it's Christian, you know, ruling our country or some other form, a secular form, because secularism can be wielded in a religious fashion, in a theocratic fashion over people like you'd mentioned earlier in the previous administration. If you, you know, you could say, well, I don't like Catholics, so I'm gonna say, you know, they're terrorists, and we need to keep an eye on them and we need to arrest them for praying outside of, you know, I mean, it's just crazy. We can't live like that.

SPEAKER_01 42:10

So where can people find the film?

SPEAKER_04 42:14

So you can watch the film for free at www.churchandstatedocdoc.com. Churchandstate doc.com. It's on YouTube. If you try type in church and state documentary, it should be the top, if not the top five, you know, things to pop up. And um, you know, it's it's on several different platforms. Obviously, YouTube's probably the easiest one. But uh, yeah, again, the full title is Church and State, Roger Williams and the Founding of Freedom of Religion.

SPEAKER_01 42:45

And what kind of feedback have you been getting so far?

SPEAKER_04 42:48

Yeah, people people like it. Uh, you know, I worked really hard on it. It's uh a lot of reform reformists like it, reformed people. So people in the Christian denomination who are reformed or Calvinists, they really love it. Um and uh by and large, generally people like it. So I haven't heard anything negative, so that's good.

SPEAKER_01 43:08

Right, because you know, a lot of times if you talk about the separation of church and state, there's a there's a likelihood that you'll make people mad as well. Yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_04 43:16

I so I have an advertisement uh on the back of my car for the film. Um, so like, you know, when I'm I drive a lot so people can see it and go to the website, and I had somebody come up to me at the gas station and he was very aggressive. And he goes, you know, the separation of church and state, that doesn't exist, right? And he's I'm like, hey, I think we're more on the same page than you realize. And he thought like I was some, I guess, a secular atheist type guy who wanted no religion in public life at all. And I was like, no, no, no. So I explained it to him, and he ended up you know being friendly afterwards, but he was yeah, up front, he was aggressive and a little like, but he ended up watching it. Um, he lived in New York, so I don't I didn't get any feedback, but yeah, I'm sure he would like it. I'm sure he liked it.

SPEAKER_01 44:02

The name of the film again is Church and State, Roger Williams and the founding of Freedom of Religion. Thank you to Andrew Lynn for spending some time with you and me in the listening tube. The listening tube is written and produced by yours truly, copyright 2026. Shout out to some new places checking in San Juan del Rio, Haifa, and Middletown, Pennsylvania. Thank you for putting your ear to the listening tube. I'm your host, Bob Woodley, for Val Ad Infinitum.