Pro-Life Voting Challenges and Strategies

Are pro-life Christians compromising by voting for Donald Trump in light of some of the troubling things that he has said about abortion and abortion policy? What is really at stake in this election? We've got Dr. Albert Moeller here. He is the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is the editor at World Opinions. I have been listening to his podcast, The Briefing, for years. He is so insightful. cuts through the noise so well. You are going to find so much clarity and so much wisdom from him today. This episode is brought to you by our friends at Good Ranchers. Go to goodranchers.com slash Allie. That's goodranchers.com slash Allie. Hey guys, welcome to Relatable. Happy Monday. I hope everyone had a wonderful weekend. We are going to get into this conversation with Dr. Moeller. I just want to say a couple things. I am going to respond on the show to Russell Moore, many of you know exactly who that is, calling me a Nazi in Christianity today. And I'll tell you why he said such an egregiously malicious thing. And I will give you my reply to those words in the pages of Christianity Today tomorrow. But today, we're going to talk about how Christians should be thinking about this imminent election. But before we get into it with Dr. Moeller, I just want to remind you, Toxic Empathy is on sale. So many of the topics that we are discussing today are covered in this book. Explain how women in particular are targeted by progressive bad actors with emotional manipulation tactics to make us believe that the progressive position on policies, on these issues, is the righteous and compassionate one. I want to take us to a place of true love, of true kindness, of true compassion, not a superficial toxic form of empathy. that blinds us to reality and morality. So you can click the link on the description of this episode to buy that. Please leave a five-star review on Amazon if you've already read it, or you can just go to toxicempathy.com and you can see where else it is sold as well as on Audible. All right, without further ado, here's Dr. Al Mohler. Dr. Moeller, thanks so much for joining us again. I wanted to have you on because you have helped me so much for several years in thinking through the issues that matter, but especially this election season, we've got a lot of demoralized Christian pro-lifers who feel that there's no one who truly represents them on this ballot. And because of that, there are a lot of people who are going to sit out or maybe they're going to write in. They don't know what to do. Can you just... help us think through that as someone who has championed the pro-life cause for such a long time? Well, Ali Beth, first of all, it's good to be with you again. And I appreciate the way you set up the situation because that is where we are. There is a sense in which there's no champion for the pro-life cause in either party at the top of the ticket. But, you know, that doesn't mean that, number one, we face a situation in which there's not a clear alternative between a more aggressively pro-abortion. stance and a less aggressively pro-abortion stance. And I think there's a very concrete difference in the two administrations that we put in place. And even as I lament some of the directions the former president has gone in this clearly and a retreat from what had been hard won pro-life gains in the Republican Party, there's still a light year of difference, light years indeed, between the Republican and the Democratic parties and between what would be a Harris administration or Harris-Walls administration and a Trump-Vance administration. And so, you know, we have to remember that the pro-life movement didn't get to, say, the reversal of Roe v. Wade, except working for a half a century. We're called to a very long fight here. We've got to stay in the fight. And that means that we've got to be honest about the political alternatives in an election like 2024. And frankly, if the pro-life priority is clear, there's really not a moment's hesitation to understand what a distinction we're really confronted with. Because when it comes to the Harris-Walls ticket, you're talking about... absolute unbridled support for abortion at any point up until birth, paid for by the American taxpayer, and quite frankly, aggressively supported with all the power of the administrative state. On the Republican side, it's a very different picture. And frankly, we need to be honest about those two stark alternatives. I heard Governor Walz say in the VP debate that abortion is a fundamental right. And I noticed just in their in their animation, Kamala and Walz in the debates that this is really what they're most excited about. This is when they kind of. become most articulate. It's when they sound the most knowledgeable when they're talking about abortion. Their fervor just comes out in full force. And he said this is a fundamental right. It shouldn't be left up to the states. Can you translate that for us? What are they talking about when it comes to legislation and enshrining into law abortion as a fundamental right for the entire country? You are so right to zero in on that term. And it really has two meanings in this context. And the meaning that Governor Walz, I think, certainly has in mind is the meaning that any limitation upon that right has to meet an extraordinary legal standard, a constitutional standard to stand. So a fundamental right, like, say, a freedom of expression, the freedom of the press, it requires an extremely close scrutiny standard by the courts to see if any restriction could stand. The second meaning of fundamental right is that that's something that government doesn't create, it recognizes. And, you know, this is right in our founding documents, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and they're unalienable rights. And that's to say that our founder said there's certain human rights that, and we understand this from the Christian worldview, there's certain human rights that the government doesn't create. It just recognizes and agrees to honor. And, you know, that's ridiculous when it comes to abortion on both counts, because there is no society throughout all of human history that has somehow come to the claim that abortion is a fundamental and alienable right. That's just insane. But, you know, the left, one of its strategies is saying things over and over again to where it eventually sounds like it could be true. And the next thing you know, you've got courts saying, well, that sounds like it's true. And you've got millions of American people who say that sounds like it's true. We need to strip back the reality here. And, you know, when Governor Walz says it's true, he operates as if it's true. I mean, you have Governor Walz. He signed one of the most aggressively pro-abortion bills in all of, I won't say American history, all of world history, in which there's absolutely no restriction on abortion, period, in the bill that he supported and signed into law in the state of Minnesota. So I'll tell you this. I think he means what he says. And that's what scares me the most. Is it too far to say that— the Harris-Walls administration would want to make it impossible for states to restrict abortion at all. That is exactly what they mean. When they use that expression of fundamental right, they want to make it, you know, Kamala Harris at one point said that she thought that abortion restrictions ought to be put in the same category as certain issues that came up in terms of equal rights on the basis of race, so that the states would have to have preclearance. This is back when she was in the Senate, that states would have to have preclearance for any law restricting abortion. Well, you know what would happen? The clearance would never come. So, look, we know exactly where they stand on this. And they're going to oppose any restriction on abortion all the way up until the moment of birth. And we know this because that's what Governor Walz has already done. And quite honestly, we know that even when they talk about codifying Roe, I'm not going to say it's an evasion. I'm just going to say it's an outright lie because the Democratic Party's base. That's not what they're calling for, much less the activists in the Democratic Party. So we need to let Christian voters know what is at stake. It would be turning America into an abortion state. First sponsor for the day, my friends at We Heart Nutrition. They have an awesome company with amazing products. All of their women's supplements come in the most bioavailable form so your body is actually absorbing the ingredients that you need. I can tell a huge difference in my health. I kick colds and sicknesses so much faster than I did last year and that's if I even get sick. My kids are bringing home all kinds of germs and coughs and colds and thankfully my immune system has been really strong despite it being a really... sleepless season of my life. And I credit WeHeart Nutrition for that. Their prenatal vitamins, their omega-3s, their magnesium, their iron supplements have really worked so well for me. They don't make you nauseous and your blood work is going to be improved. At least it was for me. And if it's not, if you're not happy, they actually have a 60-day happy heart guarantee. If for some reason you don't like your supplements, you can get your full money back, even if you've used... all of your vitamins. Go to weheartnutrition.com. Use code Allie at checkout for 20% off your order. Also, I've got this. little bamboo supplement travel case right here that if you spend $50 or more, you can get one of these. And I've got one at home and I love to use it when I travel. So go to weheartnutrition.com code Allie. I have a lot of sincerely pro-life Jesus loving friends who feel that voting for Donald Trump. would be a compromise on this issue. I heard Ryan Anderson, and he doesn't represent that view that I just articulated. This is kind of separate. But he articulated the dilemma that we're in, that if we continue to reward a compromising GOP with our votes, then we basically, as Christians, become the cheap date of the Republican Party, that they can basically do anything they want. as long as they aren't as far left as the other party and will still vote for them. And that's something that I've wrestled with, even though I'm voting for Donald Trump. Are we rewarding their compromise on this issue and the LGBTQ issue by continuing to vote for them, even when they kind of make it clear they don't care that much what we think? Well, I think the the principal argument. you make there. The argument on principle is one we just have to think through. And then there's the pragmatic and timing argument. So let me start with the pragmatic argument. We're having a conversation here just days before the election. The switcheroo when it came to Joe Biden stepping down, Kamala Harris coming on as the Democratic nominee, and frankly, even the limitable policy shifts of the Trump campaign. These have come too late for us to talk as if We're really trying to figure out what to do between now and Election Day. So let's just be honest. Yeah. We have just a few days before Election Day. And even going back to August, this cake is baked for the 2024 election. And we're going to have to take responsibility for our vote in this election. And that's where I come back to the principle issue. If in principle you can only vote for candidates who you know are in their hearts completely committed to the pro-life cause, you're either going to fool yourself or you're not going to vote. And so I go back to the fact that I was a teenage volunteer for Ronald Reagan. And no apology there. That was a great experience. And I celebrate the administration of Ronald Reagan as the 40th president of the United States. I can't tell you today what Ronald Reagan felt in his heart about abortion. I can tell you what he did in policy. I can tell you what platform he ran on. And when it comes to George H.W. Bush, he was a supporter of Roe publicly and ardently. until the moment he became vice presidential nominee to Ronald Reagan. I don't know if his heart changed. I do know his policy changed. And we have to vote on the policies that are going to come out of an administration. So again, I think there's going to be a long-term conversation, just like Ryan Anderson, who's a dear friend. I think that conversation is going to have to happen. But you know what? It's not going to happen before Election Day. And we really got to decide what we must do on Election Day. And then let's pledge now. We're going to be in that conversation right after Election Day as soon as it's logistically possible. Right. And again, just looking at the differences between the current administration and what Donald Trump would be. I mean, we have yet another pro-lifer who was just placed in prison for three and a half years for not anything violent, but unlawful assembly in the state of New York for protesting outside of an abortion clinic. And there's Joan Bell, the 74 year old, who is also. placed in prison for blocking an entrance to an abortion clinic. And so that's the Harris-Biden administration. That would be the Harris-Walls administration, I think, even more fervently than what we're seeing right now. And so that's a really big difference that's part of what's at stake. And you're right. Can I offer one thing there to support your argument? And I just want to talk here. My dad used to say, eventually get down to the hammer and the nails. Okay, I want to get there for a moment. I truly believe that if the Harris-Walls ticket is elected, and if they are able to push through, and the most important issue here is going to be the Senate, given the filibuster possibility. But remember, the vice president has said she will oppose eliminating the filibuster for a vote on abortion rights. If she's elected. and they can push this legislation through. Pro-lifers just need to understand that would instantly mean a radical abortion state in the United States of America. I mean, the entire country as an abortion state. And, you know, how we would recover from that on the other side. I mean, we'd have to figure out a strategy, and some of us are trying to think through what that would look like. But I just want pro-lifers to know it would be a catastrophe beyond anything we have ever experienced in this country. It would be a catastrophe far larger in scale than Roe v. Wade, which at least acknowledged the right of states to restrict abortion in the third trimester. We'd be talking about an absolute pro-abortion America. And, you know, I think... Allie Beth, I'll just go to say this. I think our experience with the Obergefell decision and same-sex marriage, it indicates that America does a moral reset. And overcoming that moral reset is something that I think pro-lifers need to take into account. It's a daunting obstacle. And right now we have a chance on Election Day to prevent that from happening. I don't claim that on Election Day we have an opportunity this time to make a radical advance for the pro-life cause. We need to avoid... an absolute disaster. Yep. Yep. I absolutely agree with you. I love our friends at Range Leather. The owners of Range Leather, Kyle and Bailey, started their leather company from their kitchen table in Wyoming. All of their products last forever. I actually have this bag right here that I've been using every day when I travel and when I come to record is from Range Leather. I love it. It has withstood so much. I've spilled things on it, spilled things in it. I take it everywhere and it still looks amazing. Their products are so high quality that the more you use them, the better they look. And that's because all of their stuff is handmade in the United States. They put so much effort and care into every product they make. And so we're looking at the holidays. If you're looking for a really high quality gift to give. you're a related bro or related gal in your life, then check out Range Leather. Go to rangeleather.com slash Allie and get 15% off any product. That's rangeleather.com slash Allie. What do you say to the tens of millions, according to George Barna, of Christians who attend church regularly? This was the study that was just released by his institution, who say that they are simply uninterested in politics right now and do not plan to vote. They're hearing what you're saying, but they're thinking, okay, you know, I'm probably not going to make that much of an impact with my single vote anyway. I just don't really want to be a part of this. What's your message to them? Well, my first message has nothing to do with 2024 and everything to do with Romans 13. in the sense that we bear a stewardship. And if we fail at that stewardship, then shame upon us. I think sin upon us. And when I use sin here, I mean a failure to exercise a stewardship. And I think it's disastrous. And by the way, if you don't vote, that's a political act. If you are qualified to vote, you're registered to vote, and you have the right, the franchise to vote, and you don't vote, you just overvalued every other vote. which means you overvalue votes against your convictions. And so look, there's no safe place to hide. I want to tell American Christians, not voting is not a non-political act. It's a political act. Now, I'm not saying that it would never be called for. I'm just saying in a situation like this where you've got these kinds of issues at stake, not voting, I think, is a form of failure of stewardship. And I don't know how to put it in any other terms. do believe it's a failure of stewardship. Now, I can't bind everyone's conscience, but what George Barna is talking about is not a number of evangelicals who are truly torn in conscience. It's a number of evangelicals who say, I'm just washing my hands of the matter. Well, you know what? That didn't turn out well for Pilate. It's not a good policy. Moral abdication is not a Christian alternative. What role do you think pastors play in this? I know they've got a... they've got a hard job, but certainly if tens of millions of Christians who go to church are disinterested, there seems to be like there would be a role to play for the shepherds of these flocks. Yes, and I don't believe that's turning the pulpit into a political action committee. But you know what? We have not invaded politics. Politics has invaded us. Which is to say, our convictions about, for instance, the image of God and the sanctity of life, and the definition of marriage. And let's be honest, what it means to be male and female, what it means to look at children and say, that's a boy, that's a girl. The government has invaded our turf. And so I don't understand the pastors who aren't directly addressing these issues with their people. These are issues of public policy and biblical truth in collision. And I don't believe. And abdicating that responsibility can be defined as faithfulness for pastors. And I will be clear again, I am not saying I want pastors to show up with a donkey or an elephant on their lapel pin. I want them to show up preaching the Word where their own church members are facing the intersection of biblical truth and a deeply secularizing antagonistic culture. Yeah, and you really don't have to get very far into the Bible to answer what are considered those culture work questions. Just... Go in 27 verses, and we've got the answer right there to a lot of our questions. You know, Allie Beth, one of the things I try to do when I talk to Christians about the Christian worldview and ethical priority is, as I say, how close is this to creation order? Because creation order is God's intention and purpose for His glory demonstrated, and you point out it's so early in creation order. We're talking about Genesis 1 with the Imago Dei. And by the way, male and female created He them. I... hear a lot of Christians who, you know, I characterize them as kind of being in the mushy middle, who will say, you know, I understand what you're saying about Republicans maybe getting it kind of right on abortion, but, you know, I'm holistically pro-life. And I don't really think the law has anything to say or anything important to say about abortion. We can handle that in the private sector. I'm going to vote for the Democrats because they help the poor. They help the marginalized. They help those on the outskirts of society that we're supposed to reach out to, and we'll deal with the abortion issue more on a personal level. They might call themselves holistically pro-life or pro-all life, and they kind of use that justification to vote for big government Democrat policies. What's your response to something like that? I've seen this for decades now, and you're exactly right. The language they use is, I'm holistically pro-life. And somehow that ends up meaning that, you know, you're as concerned about greenhouse gases as as aborted babies. And, you know, I just think we need to call that out for what it is. And it's evasion. It's an effort of those kind of you're a little kinder than I am. That kind of a squishy left. Yeah. To try to say all these issues are basically just part of a muddled policy proposal. And, you know, I just think you can just look at one, you look at the other. You say, I think I think this will make. differences in the lives of real people. I'd love to have time to just dissect, by the way, the left's claim about the welfare state. I want to point out that the welfare state, as it was originally intended, by the way, which was to support the natural family, we'll never know if that would have worked out or not, simply because the left just messed that up from the beginning, separated the idea of public welfare from supporting the family in marriage to just, you know, what now becomes this. radical dissolution of the family and rewarding persons on that basis. So I just want to say, you know, I can't take that kind of argument anymore, Ali Beth, with a straight face. I can't take it anymore and just say, well, that's naivete. It's not naivete anymore. It's deliberativation. And, you know, here's where I just mentioned about male and female. And I know you teach this very well. You know, the closer you get to creation order, the higher the ethical priority. And so I just want to say. the defense of life in any sane Christian analysis has to be a far higher, even prior category to deciding, you know, what AFC checks should be based upon. And if we start on the other end, it's just evasion. Yeah, you're absolutely right. That's a good point about the flipping of the priorities, basically putting greenhouse gases or whatever example it is, or immigration in the same bucket as abortion. And I see that a lot. from a lot of, I don't know if they're well-meaning or not, but it's a lot of Christians who believe that their Christian responsibility, and a lot of pastors, I see this from them too, to simply say both sides are bad and leave it at that. To simply say, sure, some of the policies on the left are bad, but look at Donald Trump and look at who he is personally, or look at some of the things that he's said. And they see that as kind of... boldness, or they see that as courage and clarity for their congregations, I really see that as a lot of moral confusion. And their congregations are probably ending the service thinking, okay, but what am I supposed to think about those things? And then they're finding the answers on Instagram, which I don't think is a great system. Well, you have a great way of describing that. I want to turn to some of those pastors and say, okay, I want you to tell me your base minimum for the candidate you would support. I want to know what moral requirements you put in place and then I want to know how you consistently hold to those and I'm Not saying that it's irrelevant. Of course. It's very relevant character has to be a part of our consideration, but You know, quite honestly, when you look at American history and you ask honest questions, we are looking at the fact that we're voting over one center in regard to another one. And again, I don't want to act as if I'm suggesting as moral equivalence. No, that that that's not a faithful argument either. But we do need a sane analysis of how we're applying a moral judgment here. And this is where we can't act like our electoral. our electoral vote, our vote on election day, all of a sudden ends our moral responsibility. We're responsible for what happens when that person for whom we voted operates in office. And that's what I just don't see. I think there are a lot of people who say, you know, I'm just, I'm going to put the election as the giant moral category and answer that one way or another, and I'm not going to take responsibility for what comes after. The fact is, We've never been able to vote for a perfect candidate. And holding that up is just an irrational, unbiblical standard. We do have to understand we have to take responsibility. And by the way, not just for the candidate that's put in office, but the government that that implies. And so in our system, as you well know, 4,000 direct appointments by the president. You're really talking about who's going to set the direction for the entire federal government. And so I'm not saying the character issue is irrelevant. But honestly, you look at this election. I've got character concerns everywhere I look. Okay, guys, have you gotten my box from Good Ranchers? If you haven't, it is time to give this gift to yourself for Christmas, or maybe this is a part of your New Year resolution. Make your life easier. Stop going to the grocery store, picking out the different cuts of meat, wondering. If this meat is really from the U.S. or do they just have a sticker on the package because it was packaged in the U.S.? You know they can get away with that, right? And you don't actually know where your meat is from unless you are getting your meat from Good Ranchers. It is all from American Farms and Ranchers. Plus, this is a company owned by a Christian conservative couple that shares our values. It's a win all around. I love that it makes our life so much easier and healthier. My box, the Alley box, has 16 4.5 ounce... plain chicken breast, one pound Angus ground, two one pound Angus ground beef packs, eight six ounce American Wagyu plus Angus beef patties, and two 18 ounce bone-in ribeyes and a limited edition collectible recipe card featuring one of my favorites. If you go to goodranchers.com slash Allie, use code Allie, you get $25 off any box. That's goodranchers.com slash Allie, code Allie. On the LGBTQ issue, last week we had a young woman, she's barely 18 years old, and she was injured by a male volleyball player who was playing on the opposing team, who of course, being bigger and stronger than his female teammates and opponents, he spiked the ball, hit her in the face, she had a brain bleed, she was knocked unconscious, she has permanent neck injuries, and now she's brave enough to be speaking out. And of course, she's talking about these Title IX changes that the... Harris-Biden administration have tried to push forward and that, of course, Harris, if she wins, is going to be championing. Tell us how to think about this issue and what you think is at stake if Harris wins. You know, it's hard to talk about this without getting emotional, honestly. It's hard to believe that we're facing this kind of reality now in which you have biological males. who are playing, by the way, not only in a way that's unfair, but in a way that makes it unsafe for girls and women to compete in sports. You know, women fought very hard for the right to be supported in athletic endeavors and teams and athletic sports and programs and colleges, universities, and high schools. And Title IX was a part of that. And it was also tied to the effects of racial discrimination and all the rest. And when you all of a sudden put the T in that LGBTQ series, you throw the entire world upside down. And, you know, I, Allie Beth, I just have to be honest. I don't think those who are the proponents in the main, I think most of them are lying when they say they believe this because, you know, all I have to do is hold up the picture of the University of Pennsylvania women's swim team. And one thing is not like the other. I mean, just look at it. There's a male body there. I don't care what you say ideologically, that is a male body. And Americans recognize it, which is one of the reasons why I think long term this is an issue in which we can bring some definition. But, you know, when it comes to that particular issue, we need to understand two things. When it comes to Title IX, President Joe Biden has said that his administration will interpret that to mean that the T is covered along with every other category covered and non-binary and gender fluid, whatever category we use, is covered by Title IX protections. That means the end of women's sports. It eventually means the end of women's and girls'everything because you're going to have biological males that are going to be able to call themselves girls or women and be on them. That is beyond insane. And you have the Harris plan, which, by the way, is buttress to something. You know, in her interview on Fox News with Brett Baier, she was asked about some of these things. And she said, I will uphold the law. I will uphold the law. Yeah. OK, that is such an evasion because that's not what we're asking. We're asking, what do you want the law to be? And she will not say that out loud because it will cost her millions of votes. So we're going to have to say it out loud. It will mean more boys on girls'teams. It will mean more men on women's teams. It will mean more spiked balls and more brain bleeds. And that's the simple bottom line truth. Yep. She was responding to a question about something so absurd. It was an interview that she gave a few years ago. She proudly said that when she was attorney general of California, she championed the policy that allowed inmates, male inmates, to have the quote-unquote sex change surgery. funded by the taxpayers, and then switched into female prisons. Now, we know in the state of Washington, in the state of New York, in the state of Illinois, in the state of California, in Oregon, where these policies are in place, women, incarcerated women, have been raped, have been assaulted by these men. Some of them have had surgery. Some of them haven't, who have entered female prisons. And, of course, Kamala Harris hasn't been talking about that, this campaign. They haven't been talking about transgenderism at all. because it is so unpopular. Yet that is who she is. That is what she has advocated for, and she will continue to do so if she's president. Absolutely. And she's told us that at every opportunity. She's saying it now by evading the question and just by saying, I will uphold the law. Well, she knows what she's doing. We need to call her out for what she's doing there. And you know, Allie Beth, you look at this confusion. And again, I don't think many of the people who are political proponents of this movement actually believe it. And so just this morning, I saw where a father of an eight-year-old girl had gone to a school board meeting because his eight-year-old daughter had been confronted in the bathroom with an eight-year-old boy, you know, same stuff, declaring himself. And the thing this father said to the school board is, if I did that in the adult bathroom, you put me in jail. And so it's the irrational, inconsistent, hypocritical, ideologically, frankly, intoxicated left that is pushing this. And I thank God that you're pushing back on it. I think we just need to let Christians know we have to press back on it. And honestly, I think, and it's hard to put this in a scale, I think the Title IX problem with the Harris-Walls ticket, once it becomes, if it's elected, a Harris-Walls administration, I think... the more immediate action is not going to be on the life question, because that's going to take some legislation. I think you're going to see it on Title IX. I think it's going to be a revolution, and I think when a lot of Christians wake up, it's just going to be too late. I do wonder if this, the trans issue, is the bridge too far. That's why they haven't been campaigning on this, because a lot of Americans, left, right, center, see the ridiculousness of this. Do you think, if we're to be a little optimistic, that adding the T to LGBT has really hindered the sexual revolution and is causing people to kind of look backwards and say, huh, maybe this started when we said that husbands and wives are social constructs. Do you see that? Right. Oh, absolutely. And this is where their own category of intersectionality comes back to explain how they got here. Because they really thought the commonality of LGBTQ and that ominous plus sign is this intersectional argument that you add all these categories together and you gain more moral credibility for your revolution. And yeah, I think you're exactly right. You know, the T in LGBTQ is making a claim that requires people to say something categorically different than L and G and B, in which case, of course, we have a very clear moral understanding of what's. at stake there, but they're not asking people not to believe their eyes. And on the T, they've actually gone to the point where they're saying, Okay, this is a woman. And you go, no, it's not. And by the way, you don't think it is either. But you have bought into an ideology and an intersectional political support and identity politics that means you're in this conspiracy to just keep saying that's not a man, that's a woman. But honestly, this is where I think you're right. The problem for the left is that once they are exposed for the falsity of their argument in tea, well. Most people are logical enough to figure out they really have a problem with L and G and B too. Look, we don't know what's going to happen with this election. We don't know what's going to happen tomorrow. You never know when disaster is going to strike, when the supply chain is going to be affected, when you're unable to get the medications that you need or that you and your family rely on. So it's better to be safe than sorry when it comes to medications, when it comes to our family's health. go ahead and get a Jace case from Jace Medical. This includes life-saving antibiotics. You can even add things like an EpiPen or ivermectin or Tamiflu that can be a game changer if for whatever reason you can't get to the pharmacy, but you or one of your family members has this kind of medical need. You can also get a Jace daily case. That's a year-long supply of the prescriptions that you and your family rely on, which again can be... a lifesaver if you're in some kind of disaster situation like Hurricane Helene or something happens and you're just unable to access this medicine. So take care of your family in this way. Go to Jace.com and enter code Allie at checkout for a discount. That's J-A-S-E.com, code Allie. Can you remind us what the Equality Act is? is Kamala Harris has been a big supporter of that, of course, and Democrats have tried to pass it many times. Of course, if Democrats control Congress, she's in the White House, it's going to pass very easily. I think that's probably one of their top priorities, to your point. Can you remind us of what that would mean for Christians or really anyone who believes in the reality of male and female? Yeah, no, I appreciate you asking that question. And I think the greatest comparison I know, and this dates me a little, is that I think it would have a similar effect to what would have happened if the Equal Rights Amendment had been ratified in the 1970s. Now, that would have been a constitutional amendment, but the result of the ERA would have been that it basically would destroy all sex-specific distinctions in society in any meaningful way. And that was before the LGBTQ revolution had worked its way out. But some of those issues were already, you know, at least visible. But back then it was the old days when you worried about whether women would be included in the draft. The Equality Act is threatening because the very things we talked about with these Title IX restrictions. Well, you know, the immediate impact of those Title IX policies would be horrifying where Title IX policies apply. And so, I mean, that's a lot. You're talking about schools and you're talking about colleges and universities, Title IX recipients. The Equality Act would take that and apply it to the entire society at once. And that's why I made the comparison with the ERA. If it had been ratified, then instantly you would have had a situation in which every law has to conform to this new reality. Every policy, every citizen is accountable to this. And that's what would happen with the Equality Act as a piece of legislation. That's why the Democrats know. That's why the left wants to pass it as quickly as possible. They can use it. And by the way, this is going to be a direct confrontation with religious liberty. It's going to make operating a school like mine. All the more difficult. By the way, we take no tax money. So there's no Title IX issue here. But the Equality Act, they could show up at this door just on the basis of that federal legislation. They can and will basically try to shut down Christian witness on these issues. So that's something else that's at stake that I think a lot of people don't fully understand, that they feel that somehow they'll be shielded by that. But actually, we've actually seen it. in several states, including in California, including in Washington, that Christians have been punished for their speech. And of course, many of these cases have been won by the pro-First Amendment side in the Supreme Court. But even just looking at Kamala Harris, of course, who doesn't care about the First Amendment at all, when she was Attorney General, forcing the FACT Act on pro-life pregnancy centers that forced them to advertise. for abortion going after David Daleiden, the pro-life reporter who reported on Planned Parenthood. So I hear a lot that, OK, we've got to vote for Kamala Harris just to save democracy. We've got this autocrat over here in Donald Trump who doesn't care about the Constitution. But when I'm looking at Kamala Harris's record, just when it comes to our First Amendment rights and walls as well, I'm not seeing a team that really cares about my true freedom. Oh, it's so helpful you detail the issues just that way, Allie Beth. And, you know, I don't mean this against all lawyers, but I'll say it's not one of the faults of Donald Trump that he is an attorney. It is one of the faults of Kamala Harris that she's the former attorney general of California. And you look at what she did as attorney general, and you're exactly right. And I add to that what she suggested in terms of preclearance for states restricting abortion. She is no friend to our constitutional rights. And that begins at the very beginning, even with religious liberty. And I'm not saying that she will come out and campaign against it. I'm saying she has taken actions that have presented huge subversions of basic liberties. And that preclearance issue, I know I come back to it again, but what it tells me is she's a threat to our constitutional order. And so I'm not saying that we don't have big problems in the 2024 election. I'm just saying. If you're going to talk about saving democracy, you better take some account for at least acknowledging the very things you have helpfully outlined there. We are talking about the Democratic left that will use the power of the state to accomplish its ideological and moral ends and will trample our liberties in the process. And frankly, I think redefine the power of the federal government. I like to remind people that when Democrats say freedom, they're only talking about two things. They're talking about sexual immorality and abortion. They're not talking about your First and Second Amendment rights. They're not talking about your constitutional liberties. They're talking about sexual libertinism and killing your children. So every bit of freedom that they say they advocate for tends to fall under those two categories. When it comes to immigration, this is another one that I think a lot of Christians are confused about. It's good to feel compassion for those who are fleeing violence. It's good to feel compassion for the downtrodden. But some people allow that. I use the term toxic empathy to describe how people become blinded to reality and morality because they only feel strongly exclusively for a particular victim on a side of an issue, especially when it comes to immigration. And so they may feel that really. any border enforcement or any immigration enforcement is cruel. And yet we're seeing the human cost to opening up the border and the federal government undermining Texas's efforts to secure its own border. So how should Christians think about this issue? Is this a biblical issue in a similar way that these created order issues are? Well, that last twist is really important, and I thank you for it. No, this is not a creation order issue, except, and we need to acknowledge this, to the extent that we recognize every single human being as made in God's image, and thus worthy of being considered, in some sense, our brother and our sister, our neighbor, in that sense, in what it means to share the imago Dei, the image of God. But, you know, Allie Beth, you mentioned the issue of immigration, and you defined it rightly. And so let's understand. When the left is talking about this, they're talking about reshaping the nation and reshaping the moral order. And there are real humanitarian crises all over the world, and some of them fairly close to us across the border. But you see this in Europe right now, where you have liberal regimes, liberal governments that are being toppled and shaken by immigration crises in their own countries, and the realization that decisions were made that have been disastrous for these countries. So let's just put it this way. Love of neighbor means we... concede some truths. One of the truths is that a nation, that includes the United States of America, can handle only so many immigrants of a certain kind coming for, you know, qualified reasons at a time. That can only be done a certain amount at a time. When you have a humanitarian catastrophe, such as what's happened in some situations, there's some legal allowance for a special case after this kind of disaster. But the disaster in this case is the failure. to apply the laws of the United States of America and maintain recognized borders. And that is disastrous. And, you know, Ali Beth, you point out the argument coming from the left. Well, you know, this is where it'd be helpful if we just take their argument to the logical conclusion. Let's just say, OK, let's just take your argument. You say borders don't matter. OK, borders don't matter. Well, you know what? When they take these liberal positions on abortion, they got no skin in the game. You all of a sudden say, well, OK, let's just say borders don't matter. Turn in your passport. You're a citizen of the world now. You know and I know that the Democratic left is not going to go along with that because they don't mean what they say. And love of neighbor is not helped by just eliminating all borders. I believe nations are logical units. And if they survive at any length of time, they're logical units based upon historical reasons. You know, it just doesn't help the world to say all of you are welcome to come. That is that would lead to a humanitarian disaster larger than anything we could imagine. I hope I'm being clear here. It's just I just get so frustrated by the left on this. I just want to say, OK, let's just take your argument to the logical conclusion. You be the first to turn in your passport, your driver's license. Let's see how that works out. Yes. And sometimes it's good to ask those clarifying questions for those who really can't get on board with any immigration enforcement. Well, how many is too much? Should we allow every single person from every single country that is poorer than America to come here? Do they all have a right to come here? Do we have a right at any point to say no to anyone for any reason? And usually there is. And then you can kind of work from there because I don't know very many people who, when it gets down to it, truly believe in allowing an unmitigated flow. of unvetted strangers into our country. And yet they also won't say, okay, well, how do we get to enforce that then? Which means that they're not really living in reality. They're not being intellectually honest. And here's where I think there's a conspiracy of sorts. And so I don't mean that as a conspiracy theory because I'm going to give you the facts. It's an open secret. You have the mainstream media in this country that simply won't tell the truth about immigration. They simply won't. They won't go to border towns and tell you what's actually happening. And you know better than I know the fact that there are those who try to make this just a leftist argument based upon ethnicity. But an awful lot of the people who are most concerned about the effects of illegal immigration are those who are from the same communities and have immigrated here legally and now understand the threat of illegal immigration and what that means. And there are too many people in endowed professorial chairs. at Ivy League universities, and frankly, 18 to 20-year-olds on campuses and too many suburban liberals who have no skin in the game. I'm from Florida originally. I think I got a pretty clear understanding of this through three waves of immigration when I was a teenager. And my church was on the front lines of ministering to every single person who showed up on the shore, on the beach. We and my dad was, I want to honor him. was just very involved as a Baptist layman in helping those people. But you know what? We understood the distinction between legal and illegal immigration and the government's responsibility to deal with that. And so I think love of neighbor means, yes, we're going to take care of them. We're going to give them clothes. We're going to give them food. But that does not mean we give them citizenship based upon the moral context. And I think a government has a moral responsibility to protect its own citizens. And people seem to understand this when it comes to other countries. If you asked, hey, should a million of us Americans get to go to Zimbabwe, set up camp there illegally, and conform the culture in that city to our image, of course, they would call us colonizers and oppressors and all kinds of things. And they would absolutely defend Zimbabwe's right to protect their borders, to protect their people. But for some reason, when it comes to Britain, when it comes to America. That's seen as racist, bigoted, wrong, invalid, illegitimate. But the truth is, and you've talked about this before, is that your country is like a family. And the same way that you don't live in a house because you hate your neighbors, you don't lock your door because you mistrust the person who lives across the street. It's because you love your family. And if you allowed strangers to come into your home to take your children's bed, to take your children's food while they starved and slept on the floor. That wouldn't make you a kind person. That would make you a bad parent. And our government has a responsibility to us. Our government doesn't have a primary responsibility to every single person in the world. That's why God gave us governments, Romans 13. That's why we have countries. That's why we have borders. These are all gifts of common grace that lend themselves to human flourishing. That's how I like to think about it, that God is a God of order, and borders allow order that leads to human good. And those borders, and this is what you underlined very helpfully, those borders help to make clear to whom we owe first priority of care and loyalty. And I think that's deeply rooted in creation order. I mean, you know, and this is, you know, what in the Christian world we call the principle of subsidiarity. You know, you cannot have a healthy neighborhood or you don't have healthy families. You can't have a healthy city without a healthy neighborhood. And so it's the most basic relationships you've got to get right first. And, Ali Beth, one other illustration I love to use, just to talk about immigration, is, you know, we have very good relations with Canada. But if a million Americans illegally invaded Canada, and I don't mean with guns, I just mean if they walked across the border. Canada would consider that an act of war. In other words, the liberal politicians playing around with this and the ideological left, they're not honest about how this actually works. And so I think we need to call them out on it and just say, you know, again, if you mean what you say, turn your passport in. Otherwise, let's be honest. Right. And the DOJ, this is just insane to me. Right before the election, the DOJ is suing states like Virginia because Virginia threw off non-citizens from their voting rolls. And the DOJ is actively saying, no, you can't do that. It seems that they're saying, no, we want these non-citizens to vote. If non-citizens can vote, then what special rights and privileges do we have as citizens? And then, again, that's just another way to undermine our sovereignty. I was kind of surprised by the audacity of this administration. Maybe I shouldn't be. Yeah, you know, you hear the argument, and I've seen this in several soundbites with people who are asked pointed questions just as you raise the issue, and they say, it doesn't happen, it can't happen, and we want to make sure it continues. In other words, it doesn't happen, but we want to make sure people have the right to do that. Yep. It's just absolute dishonesty. And by the way, I think this is one of those issues, if you look at the Virginia polling, when the Virginia governor says this and the federal government says, no, you can't do that. You know, an astounding number of Virginians have their eye opened on that question. The public understanding of immigration in Texas has reversed itself in 20 years. And frankly, you've got even Republican politicians who've had to reverse their argument in 20 years because they've had to come to a new reality of what illegal immigration means. And so I think we need to call out the hypocrisy and the dishonesty when we see it. Yep, absolutely. Dr. Moeller, I think we're having you on next month to talk about your book that's coming out before Christmas. But could you give people maybe a little sneak peek of that book? Yeah, thank you, Allie Beth. That's very kind. The book is now out. It's Recapturing the Glory of Christmas, and it's a 25-day, in this case, day devotional. It should help Christian families and parents to understand. It's deeply biblical. I really dive into the scriptural. glory of Christmas and help folks to see it. And I really hope it encourages Christian families and Christians to recapture the glory of Christmas. You know, it's one thing for us to look at all the confusions of Christmas and bemoan them. That's all true. But in our own homes and our own hearts, we need to recapture the glory of Christmas. And that's the title of the book. So thank you for asking. Yes. And I love that so much. And I love that we're talking about a book that's going to come out after the election. It reminds us. that the world is going to go on, that the Lord is always going to be worthy of celebration, that we continue to do what Christians have always done, that against the powers that be, against the powerful ideologies of our day, we continue to give glory to God. And so thank you so much for writing that. I'm excited. Our family is definitely going to be using that this Christmas. So thank you, Dr. Moeller. I really appreciate you, and we'll see you back here soon. I'm so thankful for you and your voice. Just keep at it. We need you desperately. So God bless you. Thank you very much. Likewise.

He is the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is the editor at World Opinions. I have been listening to his podcast, The Briefing, for years.

He is so insightful. cuts through the noise so well. You are going to find so much clarity and so much wisdom from him today.

This episode is brought to you by our friends at Good Ranchers. Go to goodranchers.com slash Allie. That's goodranchers.com slash Allie. Hey guys, welcome to Relatable. Happy Monday.

I hope everyone had a wonderful weekend. We are going to get into this conversation with Dr. Moeller. I just want to say a couple things.

I am going to respond on the show to Russell Moore, many of you know exactly who that is, calling me a Nazi in Christianity today. And I'll tell you why he said such an egregiously malicious thing. And I will give you my reply to those words in the pages of Christianity Today tomorrow.

But today, we're going to talk about how Christians should be thinking about this imminent election. But before we get into it with Dr. Moeller, I just want to remind you, Toxic Empathy is on sale. So many of the topics that we are discussing today are covered in this book.

Explain how women in particular are targeted by progressive bad actors with emotional manipulation tactics to make us believe that the progressive position on policies, on these issues, is the righteous and compassionate one. I want to take us to a place of true love, of true kindness, of true compassion, not a superficial toxic form of empathy. that blinds us to reality and morality.

So you can click the link on the description of this episode to buy that. Please leave a five-star review on Amazon if you've already read it, or you can just go to toxicempathy.com and you can see where else it is sold as well as on Audible. All right, without further ado, here's Dr. Al Mohler.

Dr. Moeller, thanks so much for joining us again. I wanted to have you on because you have helped me so much for several years in thinking through the issues that matter, but especially this election season, we've got a lot of demoralized Christian pro-lifers who feel that there's no one who truly represents them on this ballot. And because of that, there are a lot of people who are going to sit out or maybe they're going to write in. They don't know what to do.

Can you just... help us think through that as someone who has championed the pro-life cause for such a long time? Well, Ali Beth, first of all, it's good to be with you again.

And I appreciate the way you set up the situation because that is where we are. There is a sense in which there's no champion for the pro-life cause in either party at the top of the ticket. But, you know, that doesn't mean that, number one, we face a situation in which there's not a clear alternative between a more aggressively pro-abortion. stance and a less aggressively pro-abortion stance.

And I think there's a very concrete difference in the two administrations that we put in place. And even as I lament some of the directions the former president has gone in this clearly and a retreat from what had been hard won pro-life gains in the Republican Party, there's still a light year of difference, light years indeed, between the Republican and the Democratic parties and between what would be a Harris administration or Harris-Walls administration and a Trump-Vance administration. And so, you know, we have to remember that the pro-life movement didn't get to, say, the reversal of Roe v. Wade, except working for a half a century. We're called to a very long fight here. We've got to stay in the fight.

And that means that we've got to be honest about the political alternatives in an election like 2024. And frankly, if the pro-life priority is clear, there's really not a moment's hesitation to understand what a distinction we're really confronted with. Because when it comes to the Harris-Walls ticket, you're talking about... absolute unbridled support for abortion at any point up until birth, paid for by the American taxpayer, and quite frankly, aggressively supported with all the power of the administrative state. On the Republican side, it's a very different picture.

And frankly, we need to be honest about those two stark alternatives. I heard Governor Walz say in the VP debate that abortion is a fundamental right. And I noticed just in their in their animation, Kamala and Walz in the debates that this is really what they're most excited about.

This is when they kind of. become most articulate. It's when they sound the most knowledgeable when they're talking about abortion. Their fervor just comes out in full force. And he said this is a fundamental right.

It shouldn't be left up to the states. Can you translate that for us? What are they talking about when it comes to legislation and enshrining into law abortion as a fundamental right for the entire country?

You are so right to zero in on that term. And it really has two meanings in this context. And the meaning that Governor Walz, I think, certainly has in mind is the meaning that any limitation upon that right has to meet an extraordinary legal standard, a constitutional standard to stand.

So a fundamental right, like, say, a freedom of expression, the freedom of the press, it requires an extremely close scrutiny standard by the courts to see if any restriction could stand. The second meaning of fundamental right is that that's something that government doesn't create, it recognizes. And, you know, this is right in our founding documents, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and they're unalienable rights.

And that's to say that our founder said there's certain human rights that, and we understand this from the Christian worldview, there's certain human rights that the government doesn't create. It just recognizes and agrees to honor. And, you know, that's ridiculous when it comes to abortion on both counts, because there is no society throughout all of human history that has somehow come to the claim that abortion is a fundamental and alienable right. That's just insane. But, you know, the left, one of its strategies is saying things over and over again to where it eventually sounds like it could be true.

And the next thing you know, you've got courts saying, well, that sounds like it's true. And you've got millions of American people who say that sounds like it's true. We need to strip back the reality here.

And, you know, when Governor Walz says it's true, he operates as if it's true. I mean, you have Governor Walz. He signed one of the most aggressively pro-abortion bills in all of, I won't say American history, all of world history, in which there's absolutely no restriction on abortion, period, in the bill that he supported and signed into law in the state of Minnesota.

So I'll tell you this. I think he means what he says. And that's what scares me the most.

Is it too far to say that— the Harris-Walls administration would want to make it impossible for states to restrict abortion at all. That is exactly what they mean. When they use that expression of fundamental right, they want to make it, you know, Kamala Harris at one point said that she thought that abortion restrictions ought to be put in the same category as certain issues that came up in terms of equal rights on the basis of race, so that the states would have to have preclearance.

This is back when she was in the Senate, that states would have to have preclearance for any law restricting abortion. Well, you know what would happen? The clearance would never come.

So, look, we know exactly where they stand on this. And they're going to oppose any restriction on abortion all the way up until the moment of birth. And we know this because that's what Governor Walz has already done.

And quite honestly, we know that even when they talk about codifying Roe, I'm not going to say it's an evasion. I'm just going to say it's an outright lie because the Democratic Party's base. That's not what they're calling for, much less the activists in the Democratic Party. So we need to let Christian voters know what is at stake.

It would be turning America into an abortion state. First sponsor for the day, my friends at We Heart Nutrition. They have an awesome company with amazing products. All of their women's supplements come in the most bioavailable form so your body is actually absorbing the ingredients that you need. I can tell a huge difference in my health.

I kick colds and sicknesses so much faster than I did last year and that's if I even get sick. My kids are bringing home all kinds of germs and coughs and colds and thankfully my immune system has been really strong despite it being a really... sleepless season of my life.

And I credit WeHeart Nutrition for that. Their prenatal vitamins, their omega-3s, their magnesium, their iron supplements have really worked so well for me. They don't make you nauseous and your blood work is going to be improved.

At least it was for me. And if it's not, if you're not happy, they actually have a 60-day happy heart guarantee. If for some reason you don't like your supplements, you can get your full money back, even if you've used... all of your vitamins. Go to weheartnutrition.com.

Use code Allie at checkout for 20% off your order. Also, I've got this. little bamboo supplement travel case right here that if you spend $50 or more, you can get one of these. And I've got one at home and I love to use it when I travel. So go to weheartnutrition.com code Allie.

I have a lot of sincerely pro-life Jesus loving friends who feel that voting for Donald Trump. would be a compromise on this issue. I heard Ryan Anderson, and he doesn't represent that view that I just articulated. This is kind of separate.

But he articulated the dilemma that we're in, that if we continue to reward a compromising GOP with our votes, then we basically, as Christians, become the cheap date of the Republican Party, that they can basically do anything they want. as long as they aren't as far left as the other party and will still vote for them. And that's something that I've wrestled with, even though I'm voting for Donald Trump. Are we rewarding their compromise on this issue and the LGBTQ issue by continuing to vote for them, even when they kind of make it clear they don't care that much what we think?

Well, I think the the principal argument. you make there. The argument on principle is one we just have to think through.

And then there's the pragmatic and timing argument. So let me start with the pragmatic argument. We're having a conversation here just days before the election. The switcheroo when it came to Joe Biden stepping down, Kamala Harris coming on as the Democratic nominee, and frankly, even the limitable policy shifts of the Trump campaign.

These have come too late for us to talk as if We're really trying to figure out what to do between now and Election Day. So let's just be honest. Yeah.

We have just a few days before Election Day. And even going back to August, this cake is baked for the 2024 election. And we're going to have to take responsibility for our vote in this election.

And that's where I come back to the principle issue. If in principle you can only vote for candidates who you know are in their hearts completely committed to the pro-life cause, you're either going to fool yourself or you're not going to vote. And so I go back to the fact that I was a teenage volunteer for Ronald Reagan.

And no apology there. That was a great experience. And I celebrate the administration of Ronald Reagan as the 40th president of the United States. I can't tell you today what Ronald Reagan felt in his heart about abortion.

I can tell you what he did in policy. I can tell you what platform he ran on. And when it comes to George H.W. Bush, he was a supporter of Roe publicly and ardently.

until the moment he became vice presidential nominee to Ronald Reagan. I don't know if his heart changed. I do know his policy changed. And we have to vote on the policies that are going to come out of an administration.

So again, I think there's going to be a long-term conversation, just like Ryan Anderson, who's a dear friend. I think that conversation is going to have to happen. But you know what? It's not going to happen before Election Day.

And we really got to decide what we must do on Election Day. And then let's pledge now. We're going to be in that conversation right after Election Day as soon as it's logistically possible. Right. And again, just looking at the differences between the current administration and what Donald Trump would be.

I mean, we have yet another pro-lifer who was just placed in prison for three and a half years for not anything violent, but unlawful assembly in the state of New York for protesting outside of an abortion clinic. And there's Joan Bell, the 74 year old, who is also. placed in prison for blocking an entrance to an abortion clinic. And so that's the Harris-Biden administration. That would be the Harris-Walls administration, I think, even more fervently than what we're seeing right now.

And so that's a really big difference that's part of what's at stake. And you're right. Can I offer one thing there to support your argument?

And I just want to talk here. My dad used to say, eventually get down to the hammer and the nails. Okay, I want to get there for a moment.

I truly believe that if the Harris-Walls ticket is elected, and if they are able to push through, and the most important issue here is going to be the Senate, given the filibuster possibility. But remember, the vice president has said she will oppose eliminating the filibuster for a vote on abortion rights. If she's elected.

and they can push this legislation through. Pro-lifers just need to understand that would instantly mean a radical abortion state in the United States of America. I mean, the entire country as an abortion state. And, you know, how we would recover from that on the other side.

I mean, we'd have to figure out a strategy, and some of us are trying to think through what that would look like. But I just want pro-lifers to know it would be a catastrophe beyond anything we have ever experienced in this country. It would be a catastrophe far larger in scale than Roe v. Wade, which at least acknowledged the right of states to restrict abortion in the third trimester. We'd be talking about an absolute pro-abortion America.

And, you know, I think... Allie Beth, I'll just go to say this. I think our experience with the Obergefell decision and same-sex marriage, it indicates that America does a moral reset. And overcoming that moral reset is something that I think pro-lifers need to take into account.

It's a daunting obstacle. And right now we have a chance on Election Day to prevent that from happening. I don't claim that on Election Day we have an opportunity this time to make a radical advance for the pro-life cause.

We need to avoid... an absolute disaster. Yep.

Yep. I absolutely agree with you. I love our friends at Range Leather.

The owners of Range Leather, Kyle and Bailey, started their leather company from their kitchen table in Wyoming. All of their products last forever. I actually have this bag right here that I've been using every day when I travel and when I come to record is from Range Leather. I love it.

It has withstood so much. I've spilled things on it, spilled things in it. I take it everywhere and it still looks amazing. Their products are so high quality that the more you use them, the better they look.

And that's because all of their stuff is handmade in the United States. They put so much effort and care into every product they make. And so we're looking at the holidays.

If you're looking for a really high quality gift to give. you're a related bro or related gal in your life, then check out Range Leather. Go to rangeleather.com slash Allie and get 15% off any product. That's rangeleather.com slash Allie.

What do you say to the tens of millions, according to George Barna, of Christians who attend church regularly? This was the study that was just released by his institution, who say that they are simply uninterested in politics right now and do not plan to vote. They're hearing what you're saying, but they're thinking, okay, you know, I'm probably not going to make that much of an impact with my single vote anyway. I just don't really want to be a part of this. What's your message to them?

Well, my first message has nothing to do with 2024 and everything to do with Romans 13. in the sense that we bear a stewardship. And if we fail at that stewardship, then shame upon us. I think sin upon us.

And when I use sin here, I mean a failure to exercise a stewardship. And I think it's disastrous. And by the way, if you don't vote, that's a political act.

If you are qualified to vote, you're registered to vote, and you have the right, the franchise to vote, and you don't vote, you just overvalued every other vote. which means you overvalue votes against your convictions. And so look, there's no safe place to hide. I want to tell American Christians, not voting is not a non-political act.

It's a political act. Now, I'm not saying that it would never be called for. I'm just saying in a situation like this where you've got these kinds of issues at stake, not voting, I think, is a form of failure of stewardship. And I don't know how to put it in any other terms.

do believe it's a failure of stewardship. Now, I can't bind everyone's conscience, but what George Barna is talking about is not a number of evangelicals who are truly torn in conscience. It's a number of evangelicals who say, I'm just washing my hands of the matter. Well, you know what?

That didn't turn out well for Pilate. It's not a good policy. Moral abdication is not a Christian alternative. What role do you think pastors play in this?

I know they've got a... they've got a hard job, but certainly if tens of millions of Christians who go to church are disinterested, there seems to be like there would be a role to play for the shepherds of these flocks. Yes, and I don't believe that's turning the pulpit into a political action committee.

But you know what? We have not invaded politics. Politics has invaded us.

Which is to say, our convictions about, for instance, the image of God and the sanctity of life, and the definition of marriage. And let's be honest, what it means to be male and female, what it means to look at children and say, that's a boy, that's a girl. The government has invaded our turf.

And so I don't understand the pastors who aren't directly addressing these issues with their people. These are issues of public policy and biblical truth in collision. And I don't believe. And abdicating that responsibility can be defined as faithfulness for pastors. And I will be clear again, I am not saying I want pastors to show up with a donkey or an elephant on their lapel pin.

I want them to show up preaching the Word where their own church members are facing the intersection of biblical truth and a deeply secularizing antagonistic culture. Yeah, and you really don't have to get very far into the Bible to answer what are considered those culture work questions. Just...

Go in 27 verses, and we've got the answer right there to a lot of our questions. You know, Allie Beth, one of the things I try to do when I talk to Christians about the Christian worldview and ethical priority is, as I say, how close is this to creation order? Because creation order is God's intention and purpose for His glory demonstrated, and you point out it's so early in creation order.

We're talking about Genesis 1 with the Imago Dei. And by the way, male and female created He them. I...

hear a lot of Christians who, you know, I characterize them as kind of being in the mushy middle, who will say, you know, I understand what you're saying about Republicans maybe getting it kind of right on abortion, but, you know, I'm holistically pro-life. And I don't really think the law has anything to say or anything important to say about abortion. We can handle that in the private sector. I'm going to vote for the Democrats because they help the poor.

They help the marginalized. They help those on the outskirts of society that we're supposed to reach out to, and we'll deal with the abortion issue more on a personal level. They might call themselves holistically pro-life or pro-all life, and they kind of use that justification to vote for big government Democrat policies. What's your response to something like that? I've seen this for decades now, and you're exactly right.

The language they use is, I'm holistically pro-life. And somehow that ends up meaning that, you know, you're as concerned about greenhouse gases as as aborted babies. And, you know, I just think we need to call that out for what it is.

And it's evasion. It's an effort of those kind of you're a little kinder than I am. That kind of a squishy left.

Yeah. To try to say all these issues are basically just part of a muddled policy proposal. And, you know, I just think you can just look at one, you look at the other. You say, I think I think this will make.

differences in the lives of real people. I'd love to have time to just dissect, by the way, the left's claim about the welfare state. I want to point out that the welfare state, as it was originally intended, by the way, which was to support the natural family, we'll never know if that would have worked out or not, simply because the left just messed that up from the beginning, separated the idea of public welfare from supporting the family in marriage to just, you know, what now becomes this. radical dissolution of the family and rewarding persons on that basis. So I just want to say, you know, I can't take that kind of argument anymore, Ali Beth, with a straight face.

I can't take it anymore and just say, well, that's naivete. It's not naivete anymore. It's deliberativation.

And, you know, here's where I just mentioned about male and female. And I know you teach this very well. You know, the closer you get to creation order, the higher the ethical priority.

And so I just want to say. the defense of life in any sane Christian analysis has to be a far higher, even prior category to deciding, you know, what AFC checks should be based upon. And if we start on the other end, it's just evasion.

Yeah, you're absolutely right. That's a good point about the flipping of the priorities, basically putting greenhouse gases or whatever example it is, or immigration in the same bucket as abortion. And I see that a lot.

from a lot of, I don't know if they're well-meaning or not, but it's a lot of Christians who believe that their Christian responsibility, and a lot of pastors, I see this from them too, to simply say both sides are bad and leave it at that. To simply say, sure, some of the policies on the left are bad, but look at Donald Trump and look at who he is personally, or look at some of the things that he's said. And they see that as kind of...

boldness, or they see that as courage and clarity for their congregations, I really see that as a lot of moral confusion. And their congregations are probably ending the service thinking, okay, but what am I supposed to think about those things? And then they're finding the answers on Instagram, which I don't think is a great system.

Well, you have a great way of describing that. I want to turn to some of those pastors and say, okay, I want you to tell me your base minimum for the candidate you would support. I want to know what moral requirements you put in place and then I want to know how you consistently hold to those and I'm Not saying that it's irrelevant. Of course. It's very relevant character has to be a part of our consideration, but You know, quite honestly, when you look at American history and you ask honest questions, we are looking at the fact that we're voting over one center in regard to another one.

And again, I don't want to act as if I'm suggesting as moral equivalence. No, that that that's not a faithful argument either. But we do need a sane analysis of how we're applying a moral judgment here.

And this is where we can't act like our electoral. our electoral vote, our vote on election day, all of a sudden ends our moral responsibility. We're responsible for what happens when that person for whom we voted operates in office. And that's what I just don't see.

I think there are a lot of people who say, you know, I'm just, I'm going to put the election as the giant moral category and answer that one way or another, and I'm not going to take responsibility for what comes after. The fact is, We've never been able to vote for a perfect candidate. And holding that up is just an irrational, unbiblical standard. We do have to understand we have to take responsibility.

And by the way, not just for the candidate that's put in office, but the government that that implies. And so in our system, as you well know, 4,000 direct appointments by the president. You're really talking about who's going to set the direction for the entire federal government.

And so I'm not saying the character issue is irrelevant. But honestly, you look at this election. I've got character concerns everywhere I look.

Okay, guys, have you gotten my box from Good Ranchers? If you haven't, it is time to give this gift to yourself for Christmas, or maybe this is a part of your New Year resolution. Make your life easier. Stop going to the grocery store, picking out the different cuts of meat, wondering. If this meat is really from the U.S. or do they just have a sticker on the package because it was packaged in the U.S.?

You know they can get away with that, right? And you don't actually know where your meat is from unless you are getting your meat from Good Ranchers. It is all from American Farms and Ranchers.

Plus, this is a company owned by a Christian conservative couple that shares our values. It's a win all around. I love that it makes our life so much easier and healthier.

My box, the Alley box, has 16 4.5 ounce... plain chicken breast, one pound Angus ground, two one pound Angus ground beef packs, eight six ounce American Wagyu plus Angus beef patties, and two 18 ounce bone-in ribeyes and a limited edition collectible recipe card featuring one of my favorites. If you go to goodranchers.com slash Allie, use code Allie, you get $25 off any box.

That's goodranchers.com slash Allie, code Allie. On the LGBTQ issue, last week we had a young woman, she's barely 18 years old, and she was injured by a male volleyball player who was playing on the opposing team, who of course, being bigger and stronger than his female teammates and opponents, he spiked the ball, hit her in the face, she had a brain bleed, she was knocked unconscious, she has permanent neck injuries, and now she's brave enough to be speaking out. And of course, she's talking about these Title IX changes that the...

Harris-Biden administration have tried to push forward and that, of course, Harris, if she wins, is going to be championing. Tell us how to think about this issue and what you think is at stake if Harris wins. You know, it's hard to talk about this without getting emotional, honestly.

It's hard to believe that we're facing this kind of reality now in which you have biological males. who are playing, by the way, not only in a way that's unfair, but in a way that makes it unsafe for girls and women to compete in sports. You know, women fought very hard for the right to be supported in athletic endeavors and teams and athletic sports and programs and colleges, universities, and high schools. And Title IX was a part of that. And it was also tied to the effects of racial discrimination and all the rest.

And when you all of a sudden put the T in that LGBTQ series, you throw the entire world upside down. And, you know, I, Allie Beth, I just have to be honest. I don't think those who are the proponents in the main, I think most of them are lying when they say they believe this because, you know, all I have to do is hold up the picture of the University of Pennsylvania women's swim team. And one thing is not like the other. I mean, just look at it.

There's a male body there. I don't care what you say ideologically, that is a male body. And Americans recognize it, which is one of the reasons why I think long term this is an issue in which we can bring some definition. But, you know, when it comes to that particular issue, we need to understand two things.

When it comes to Title IX, President Joe Biden has said that his administration will interpret that to mean that the T is covered along with every other category covered and non-binary and gender fluid, whatever category we use, is covered by Title IX protections. That means the end of women's sports. It eventually means the end of women's and girls'everything because you're going to have biological males that are going to be able to call themselves girls or women and be on them.

That is beyond insane. And you have the Harris plan, which, by the way, is buttress to something. You know, in her interview on Fox News with Brett Baier, she was asked about some of these things. And she said, I will uphold the law.

I will uphold the law. Yeah. OK, that is such an evasion because that's not what we're asking.

We're asking, what do you want the law to be? And she will not say that out loud because it will cost her millions of votes. So we're going to have to say it out loud.

It will mean more boys on girls'teams. It will mean more men on women's teams. It will mean more spiked balls and more brain bleeds.

And that's the simple bottom line truth. Yep. She was responding to a question about something so absurd.

It was an interview that she gave a few years ago. She proudly said that when she was attorney general of California, she championed the policy that allowed inmates, male inmates, to have the quote-unquote sex change surgery. funded by the taxpayers, and then switched into female prisons.

Now, we know in the state of Washington, in the state of New York, in the state of Illinois, in the state of California, in Oregon, where these policies are in place, women, incarcerated women, have been raped, have been assaulted by these men. Some of them have had surgery. Some of them haven't, who have entered female prisons.

And, of course, Kamala Harris hasn't been talking about that, this campaign. They haven't been talking about transgenderism at all. because it is so unpopular.

Yet that is who she is. That is what she has advocated for, and she will continue to do so if she's president. Absolutely. And she's told us that at every opportunity.

She's saying it now by evading the question and just by saying, I will uphold the law. Well, she knows what she's doing. We need to call her out for what she's doing there.

And you know, Allie Beth, you look at this confusion. And again, I don't think many of the people who are political proponents of this movement actually believe it. And so just this morning, I saw where a father of an eight-year-old girl had gone to a school board meeting because his eight-year-old daughter had been confronted in the bathroom with an eight-year-old boy, you know, same stuff, declaring himself.

And the thing this father said to the school board is, if I did that in the adult bathroom, you put me in jail. And so it's the irrational, inconsistent, hypocritical, ideologically, frankly, intoxicated left that is pushing this. And I thank God that you're pushing back on it.

I think we just need to let Christians know we have to press back on it. And honestly, I think, and it's hard to put this in a scale, I think the Title IX problem with the Harris-Walls ticket, once it becomes, if it's elected, a Harris-Walls administration, I think... the more immediate action is not going to be on the life question, because that's going to take some legislation.

I think you're going to see it on Title IX. I think it's going to be a revolution, and I think when a lot of Christians wake up, it's just going to be too late. I do wonder if this, the trans issue, is the bridge too far.

That's why they haven't been campaigning on this, because a lot of Americans, left, right, center, see the ridiculousness of this. Do you think, if we're to be a little optimistic, that adding the T to LGBT has really hindered the sexual revolution and is causing people to kind of look backwards and say, huh, maybe this started when we said that husbands and wives are social constructs. Do you see that?

Right. Oh, absolutely. And this is where their own category of intersectionality comes back to explain how they got here.

Because they really thought the commonality of LGBTQ and that ominous plus sign is this intersectional argument that you add all these categories together and you gain more moral credibility for your revolution. And yeah, I think you're exactly right. You know, the T in LGBTQ is making a claim that requires people to say something categorically different than L and G and B, in which case, of course, we have a very clear moral understanding of what's. at stake there, but they're not asking people not to believe their eyes. And on the T, they've actually gone to the point where they're saying, Okay, this is a woman.

And you go, no, it's not. And by the way, you don't think it is either. But you have bought into an ideology and an intersectional political support and identity politics that means you're in this conspiracy to just keep saying that's not a man, that's a woman. But honestly, this is where I think you're right.

The problem for the left is that once they are exposed for the falsity of their argument in tea, well. Most people are logical enough to figure out they really have a problem with L and G and B too. Look, we don't know what's going to happen with this election.

We don't know what's going to happen tomorrow. You never know when disaster is going to strike, when the supply chain is going to be affected, when you're unable to get the medications that you need or that you and your family rely on. So it's better to be safe than sorry when it comes to medications, when it comes to our family's health. go ahead and get a Jace case from Jace Medical.

This includes life-saving antibiotics. You can even add things like an EpiPen or ivermectin or Tamiflu that can be a game changer if for whatever reason you can't get to the pharmacy, but you or one of your family members has this kind of medical need. You can also get a Jace daily case. That's a year-long supply of the prescriptions that you and your family rely on, which again can be... a lifesaver if you're in some kind of disaster situation like Hurricane Helene or something happens and you're just unable to access this medicine.

So take care of your family in this way. Go to Jace.com and enter code Allie at checkout for a discount. That's J-A-S-E.com, code Allie. Can you remind us what the Equality Act is?

is Kamala Harris has been a big supporter of that, of course, and Democrats have tried to pass it many times. Of course, if Democrats control Congress, she's in the White House, it's going to pass very easily. I think that's probably one of their top priorities, to your point.

Can you remind us of what that would mean for Christians or really anyone who believes in the reality of male and female? Yeah, no, I appreciate you asking that question. And I think the greatest comparison I know, and this dates me a little, is that I think it would have a similar effect to what would have happened if the Equal Rights Amendment had been ratified in the 1970s. Now, that would have been a constitutional amendment, but the result of the ERA would have been that it basically would destroy all sex-specific distinctions in society in any meaningful way.

And that was before the LGBTQ revolution had worked its way out. But some of those issues were already, you know, at least visible. But back then it was the old days when you worried about whether women would be included in the draft. The Equality Act is threatening because the very things we talked about with these Title IX restrictions.

Well, you know, the immediate impact of those Title IX policies would be horrifying where Title IX policies apply. And so, I mean, that's a lot. You're talking about schools and you're talking about colleges and universities, Title IX recipients.

The Equality Act would take that and apply it to the entire society at once. And that's why I made the comparison with the ERA. If it had been ratified, then instantly you would have had a situation in which every law has to conform to this new reality. Every policy, every citizen is accountable to this. And that's what would happen with the Equality Act as a piece of legislation.

That's why the Democrats know. That's why the left wants to pass it as quickly as possible. They can use it.

And by the way, this is going to be a direct confrontation with religious liberty. It's going to make operating a school like mine. All the more difficult. By the way, we take no tax money. So there's no Title IX issue here.

But the Equality Act, they could show up at this door just on the basis of that federal legislation. They can and will basically try to shut down Christian witness on these issues. So that's something else that's at stake that I think a lot of people don't fully understand, that they feel that somehow they'll be shielded by that.

But actually, we've actually seen it. in several states, including in California, including in Washington, that Christians have been punished for their speech. And of course, many of these cases have been won by the pro-First Amendment side in the Supreme Court.

But even just looking at Kamala Harris, of course, who doesn't care about the First Amendment at all, when she was Attorney General, forcing the FACT Act on pro-life pregnancy centers that forced them to advertise. for abortion going after David Daleiden, the pro-life reporter who reported on Planned Parenthood. So I hear a lot that, OK, we've got to vote for Kamala Harris just to save democracy.

We've got this autocrat over here in Donald Trump who doesn't care about the Constitution. But when I'm looking at Kamala Harris's record, just when it comes to our First Amendment rights and walls as well, I'm not seeing a team that really cares about my true freedom. Oh, it's so helpful you detail the issues just that way, Allie Beth. And, you know, I don't mean this against all lawyers, but I'll say it's not one of the faults of Donald Trump that he is an attorney.

It is one of the faults of Kamala Harris that she's the former attorney general of California. And you look at what she did as attorney general, and you're exactly right. And I add to that what she suggested in terms of preclearance for states restricting abortion.

She is no friend to our constitutional rights. And that begins at the very beginning, even with religious liberty. And I'm not saying that she will come out and campaign against it. I'm saying she has taken actions that have presented huge subversions of basic liberties.

And that preclearance issue, I know I come back to it again, but what it tells me is she's a threat to our constitutional order. And so I'm not saying that we don't have big problems in the 2024 election. I'm just saying. If you're going to talk about saving democracy, you better take some account for at least acknowledging the very things you have helpfully outlined there.

We are talking about the Democratic left that will use the power of the state to accomplish its ideological and moral ends and will trample our liberties in the process. And frankly, I think redefine the power of the federal government. I like to remind people that when Democrats say freedom, they're only talking about two things. They're talking about sexual immorality and abortion.

They're not talking about your First and Second Amendment rights. They're not talking about your constitutional liberties. They're talking about sexual libertinism and killing your children. So every bit of freedom that they say they advocate for tends to fall under those two categories. When it comes to immigration, this is another one that I think a lot of Christians are confused about.

It's good to feel compassion for those who are fleeing violence. It's good to feel compassion for the downtrodden. But some people allow that. I use the term toxic empathy to describe how people become blinded to reality and morality because they only feel strongly exclusively for a particular victim on a side of an issue, especially when it comes to immigration. And so they may feel that really.

any border enforcement or any immigration enforcement is cruel. And yet we're seeing the human cost to opening up the border and the federal government undermining Texas's efforts to secure its own border. So how should Christians think about this issue? Is this a biblical issue in a similar way that these created order issues are? Well, that last twist is really important, and I thank you for it.

No, this is not a creation order issue, except, and we need to acknowledge this, to the extent that we recognize every single human being as made in God's image, and thus worthy of being considered, in some sense, our brother and our sister, our neighbor, in that sense, in what it means to share the imago Dei, the image of God. But, you know, Allie Beth, you mentioned the issue of immigration, and you defined it rightly. And so let's understand.

When the left is talking about this, they're talking about reshaping the nation and reshaping the moral order. And there are real humanitarian crises all over the world, and some of them fairly close to us across the border. But you see this in Europe right now, where you have liberal regimes, liberal governments that are being toppled and shaken by immigration crises in their own countries, and the realization that decisions were made that have been disastrous for these countries.

So let's just put it this way. Love of neighbor means we... concede some truths.

One of the truths is that a nation, that includes the United States of America, can handle only so many immigrants of a certain kind coming for, you know, qualified reasons at a time. That can only be done a certain amount at a time. When you have a humanitarian catastrophe, such as what's happened in some situations, there's some legal allowance for a special case after this kind of disaster.

But the disaster in this case is the failure. to apply the laws of the United States of America and maintain recognized borders. And that is disastrous. And, you know, Ali Beth, you point out the argument coming from the left. Well, you know, this is where it'd be helpful if we just take their argument to the logical conclusion.

Let's just say, OK, let's just take your argument. You say borders don't matter. OK, borders don't matter. Well, you know what? When they take these liberal positions on abortion, they got no skin in the game.

You all of a sudden say, well, OK, let's just say borders don't matter. Turn in your passport. You're a citizen of the world now. You know and I know that the Democratic left is not going to go along with that because they don't mean what they say. And love of neighbor is not helped by just eliminating all borders.

I believe nations are logical units. And if they survive at any length of time, they're logical units based upon historical reasons. You know, it just doesn't help the world to say all of you are welcome to come.

That is that would lead to a humanitarian disaster larger than anything we could imagine. I hope I'm being clear here. It's just I just get so frustrated by the left on this. I just want to say, OK, let's just take your argument to the logical conclusion. You be the first to turn in your passport, your driver's license.

Let's see how that works out. Yes. And sometimes it's good to ask those clarifying questions for those who really can't get on board with any immigration enforcement. Well, how many is too much?

Should we allow every single person from every single country that is poorer than America to come here? Do they all have a right to come here? Do we have a right at any point to say no to anyone for any reason?

And usually there is. And then you can kind of work from there because I don't know very many people who, when it gets down to it, truly believe in allowing an unmitigated flow. of unvetted strangers into our country.

And yet they also won't say, okay, well, how do we get to enforce that then? Which means that they're not really living in reality. They're not being intellectually honest.

And here's where I think there's a conspiracy of sorts. And so I don't mean that as a conspiracy theory because I'm going to give you the facts. It's an open secret.

You have the mainstream media in this country that simply won't tell the truth about immigration. They simply won't. They won't go to border towns and tell you what's actually happening.

And you know better than I know the fact that there are those who try to make this just a leftist argument based upon ethnicity. But an awful lot of the people who are most concerned about the effects of illegal immigration are those who are from the same communities and have immigrated here legally and now understand the threat of illegal immigration and what that means. And there are too many people in endowed professorial chairs. at Ivy League universities, and frankly, 18 to 20-year-olds on campuses and too many suburban liberals who have no skin in the game. I'm from Florida originally.

I think I got a pretty clear understanding of this through three waves of immigration when I was a teenager. And my church was on the front lines of ministering to every single person who showed up on the shore, on the beach. We and my dad was, I want to honor him. was just very involved as a Baptist layman in helping those people.

But you know what? We understood the distinction between legal and illegal immigration and the government's responsibility to deal with that. And so I think love of neighbor means, yes, we're going to take care of them. We're going to give them clothes. We're going to give them food.

But that does not mean we give them citizenship based upon the moral context. And I think a government has a moral responsibility to protect its own citizens. And people seem to understand this when it comes to other countries. If you asked, hey, should a million of us Americans get to go to Zimbabwe, set up camp there illegally, and conform the culture in that city to our image, of course, they would call us colonizers and oppressors and all kinds of things.

And they would absolutely defend Zimbabwe's right to protect their borders, to protect their people. But for some reason, when it comes to Britain, when it comes to America. That's seen as racist, bigoted, wrong, invalid, illegitimate. But the truth is, and you've talked about this before, is that your country is like a family.

And the same way that you don't live in a house because you hate your neighbors, you don't lock your door because you mistrust the person who lives across the street. It's because you love your family. And if you allowed strangers to come into your home to take your children's bed, to take your children's food while they starved and slept on the floor.

That wouldn't make you a kind person. That would make you a bad parent. And our government has a responsibility to us.

Our government doesn't have a primary responsibility to every single person in the world. That's why God gave us governments, Romans 13. That's why we have countries. That's why we have borders. These are all gifts of common grace that lend themselves to human flourishing.

That's how I like to think about it, that God is a God of order, and borders allow order that leads to human good. And those borders, and this is what you underlined very helpfully, those borders help to make clear to whom we owe first priority of care and loyalty. And I think that's deeply rooted in creation order.

I mean, you know, and this is, you know, what in the Christian world we call the principle of subsidiarity. You know, you cannot have a healthy neighborhood or you don't have healthy families. You can't have a healthy city without a healthy neighborhood.

And so it's the most basic relationships you've got to get right first. And, Ali Beth, one other illustration I love to use, just to talk about immigration, is, you know, we have very good relations with Canada. But if a million Americans illegally invaded Canada, and I don't mean with guns, I just mean if they walked across the border.

Canada would consider that an act of war. In other words, the liberal politicians playing around with this and the ideological left, they're not honest about how this actually works. And so I think we need to call them out on it and just say, you know, again, if you mean what you say, turn your passport in. Otherwise, let's be honest.

Right. And the DOJ, this is just insane to me. Right before the election, the DOJ is suing states like Virginia because Virginia threw off non-citizens from their voting rolls. And the DOJ is actively saying, no, you can't do that.

It seems that they're saying, no, we want these non-citizens to vote. If non-citizens can vote, then what special rights and privileges do we have as citizens? And then, again, that's just another way to undermine our sovereignty. I was kind of surprised by the audacity of this administration.

Maybe I shouldn't be. Yeah, you know, you hear the argument, and I've seen this in several soundbites with people who are asked pointed questions just as you raise the issue, and they say, it doesn't happen, it can't happen, and we want to make sure it continues. In other words, it doesn't happen, but we want to make sure people have the right to do that. Yep. It's just absolute dishonesty.

And by the way, I think this is one of those issues, if you look at the Virginia polling, when the Virginia governor says this and the federal government says, no, you can't do that. You know, an astounding number of Virginians have their eye opened on that question. The public understanding of immigration in Texas has reversed itself in 20 years. And frankly, you've got even Republican politicians who've had to reverse their argument in 20 years because they've had to come to a new reality of what illegal immigration means.

And so I think we need to call out the hypocrisy and the dishonesty when we see it. Yep, absolutely. Dr. Moeller, I think we're having you on next month to talk about your book that's coming out before Christmas.

But could you give people maybe a little sneak peek of that book? Yeah, thank you, Allie Beth. That's very kind.

The book is now out. It's Recapturing the Glory of Christmas, and it's a 25-day, in this case, day devotional. It should help Christian families and parents to understand.

It's deeply biblical. I really dive into the scriptural. glory of Christmas and help folks to see it.

And I really hope it encourages Christian families and Christians to recapture the glory of Christmas. You know, it's one thing for us to look at all the confusions of Christmas and bemoan them. That's all true. But in our own homes and our own hearts, we need to recapture the glory of Christmas. And that's the title of the book.

So thank you for asking. Yes. And I love that so much. And I love that we're talking about a book that's going to come out after the election.

It reminds us. that the world is going to go on, that the Lord is always going to be worthy of celebration, that we continue to do what Christians have always done, that against the powers that be, against the powerful ideologies of our day, we continue to give glory to God. And so thank you so much for writing that. I'm excited. Our family is definitely going to be using that this Christmas.

So thank you, Dr. Moeller. I really appreciate you, and we'll see you back here soon. I'm so thankful for you and your voice.

Just keep at it. We need you desperately. So God bless you.

Thank you very much. Likewise.

Transcript for:Pro-Life Voting Challenges and Strategies

Transcript for:
Pro-Life Voting Challenges and Strategies