sense of exactly what anyone in the republican matter who might be inclined to come to the scientific consensus on this issue, what they re up against. take a listen. moo my hin my humble opinion if you believe in god, intellectually you cannot believe in manmade global warming. you must be either agnostic or atheistic to believe that man controls something he can t create. thoughts on that, bob? well, you know, there s the example of nuclear weapons and how actually right. if mankind hadn t have excised its responsibility, we couldn t really leave it all to god s sovereignty. you have to balance those two. man s responsibility and god s sovereignty. we could have, in fact, during the cold war and could still
you must be either agnostic or atheistic to believe that man controls something he can t create. thoughts on that, bob? well, you know, there s the example of nuclear weapons and how actually right. if mankind hadn t have excised its responsibility, we couldn t really leave it all to god s sovereignty. you have to balance those two. man s responsibility and god s sovereignty. we could have, in fact, during the cold war and could still today destroy the earth by nuclear weapons, so it sort solve undercuts rush s argument there.
you must be either agnostic or atheistic to believe that man controls something he can t create. thoughts on that, bob? well, you know, there s the example of nuclear weapons and how actually right. if mankind hadn t have excised its responsibility, we couldn t really leave it all to god s sovereignty. you have to balance those two. man s responsibility and god s sovereignty. we could have, in fact, during the cold war and could still today destroy the earth by nuclear weapons, so it sort solve undercuts rush s argument there. clearly human kind is responsible, and as creation stewards, we need to exercise that responsible when it comes to climate change. okay. here s my big question. you re doing this thing, trying to talk to conservatives about the issue. i feel like i m not seeing the needle move. i don t mean that to be an
speech of an official event. they wouldn t allow the cheerleaders to say something racist. what if they were atheistic. would they allow them to put up a banner that says stop praying, there is no god, you have to win this event on yourself. the school itself as a form of be neutral and beamy trillion include all view points. ile ask you both to be quick because we are running out of time. the school superintendent here said he made the decision to take down the banners or ban them because of legal counsel he got. it was right or wrong? it was wrong. the school board s attorneys are as wrong as dan is. the students have free speech rights. one are the prices of free speech is that sometimes you have to hear messages that you don t necessarily agree with. we will win this case. we win 99% of the cases that we litigate a liberty institute
reason is the only guide to values. religion should have no role in forming values in ayn rand s world. paul ryan now claims he had no idea he was following the teachings of an atheist, and that her philosophy was purely atheistic. he is, of course, lying about that. but since you can t be a good republican and an atheist, ryan is now locked into that lie. johnny carson certainly understood what ayn rand was saying. it s a belief, which you do not believe in, i assume, the existence of a supreme being or god or creator? no, i do not. the discussion with johnny went on for half an hour, and johnny s sidekick, ed mcmahon, a distinguished graduate of catholic university, chimed in with this. in our culture, it seems that everything springs from family relationship, the little tiny individual groups of husband, wife, child, or whatever.