Episode Transcript
[00:00:14] Speaker A: Hello, welcome to Call It Like I See it, presented by Disruption Now, I'm James Keys, and in this episode of Call It Like I See it, we're going to discuss the, quote, state of emergency that one prominent evangelical pastor is saying that the church faces. And consider how his concern in many ways mirrors the concern of the founding Fathers when they had worked so hard at the beginning of this country to separate church and state. And later on, we're going to take a look at the dire straits it seems like the western part of this country is in as far as access to fresh water and try to figure out if too much or if not enough is being made of this.
Joining me today in is a man whose thoughts are so complex, if he gave you a stream of consciousness, it would come out as a tongue twister. Tunde. Ogonlana Tunde. Are you ready to give the people an adrenaline rush?
[00:01:09] Speaker B: Of course, man. Complexities are key.
[00:01:12] Speaker A: So here we go.
[00:01:13] Speaker B: I'm looking forward to, you know, twisting my tongue, so to speak.
[00:01:18] Speaker A: Now we're recording this on June 6, 2022. And recently we saw an interview with Andy Stanley, who was a pastor at North Point Community Church, which is outside of Atlanta, Georgia, and also one of the more prominent evangelical leaders in America. Now, in this interview, he was promoting his new book, Not in it to Win, why Choosing Sides Sidelines the Church, in which he expresses, as you can gather from the title, a concern about how many church leaders have sought to politicize the church and particularly to make it an overly partisan institution. He points out how this causes the church to become, quote, merely political tools of manipulated voting demographic. And what he really seems to be saying is that the church should be focused on saving Americans, like, as in the people, and not be engaged so much in the win at all cost ethics that dominates our politics. So, Tunde, to get us started, what stood out to you in this interview with Stanley and what do you think of his push to depoliticize the evangelical church and leading with the claim that saving America, not Americans, but saving America is not the mission of the church.
[00:02:35] Speaker B: Just his genuineness that stood out to me.
I would say this in reading his interview. I kind of felt, I've said it on various shows. I'm not, I'm not religious. Personally, I respect religion. I respect religious people, that they're right to practice whatever their religion is. But I personally am not. And I'm reading this article, I thought, you know what, if I had been exposed to more people like him when I was younger, I might be Religious because to me, he carries the spirit of what I would want in a religious leader. Someone who is not partisan and someone who's saying, yeah, this is, you know, it's about the faith and about the mission of whatever faith we're in. Not in this case, of course, Christianity not getting into all this other stuff that has permeated, you know, the church. So I think that really stuck out to me.
The other thing, some little things were, you know, just through his explanation, like when he tried to discuss things like racism at his church after the George Floyd killing that some of his members were calling him, woke left wing pushing Marxist agenda. And he said that another pastor had tweeted to him on Twitter, quote, sir, with all due respect, you're a false prophet from Satan's hell. And that's my point. Just because the guy's trying to address racism as a pastor, right. You think that would be what a pastor is supposed to do is address things that are dividing people. And so. And so to me, those are the things that stuck out and they didn't stake out because I was surprised. What I was kind of was, was I was refreshed to see a man like him in his position acknowledge that when I try to bring things in the discussion format to certain people in my pews, this is how they respond. Because I always had a gut feeling a lot of those people in those few pews feel the way that he shared. But to hear it from him was impressive. So that's, to me, the genuine nature of the way he was talking.
[00:04:37] Speaker A: And I think the key piece being is that he recognized that it wasn't the church's position to reinforce that stuff, so to speak. And you know, like that to me. Cause he describes himself as right leaning politically, which in our country right now that we've talked about, that can mean a lot of things, you know, but he did seem to be talking about these things from a genuine standpoint. And to me, like the, the piece that stood out to me was also in the sense that him trying to grapple with all these issues but put people first, because I think that is a lot of us who have been turned off by organized religion at various points. And I say that as a person who I have a lot of faith and you know, I am a Christian, but it's something that I've always had a level of skepticism as far as the organized activities of church. And the reason is because the church always acts more like an institution and that it's pursuit institutions always seek to consolidate power and exert influence. And the church, to me, its mission at its core is not necessarily to behave like an institution. I mean, and so what he's talking about here is focusing on the mission of the church and trying to save people, trying to do things to help uplift and help people and not be a part of the political battles of the day, so to speak, at least from a partisan lens. And we'll talk about here in a bit how there's a conflict there, you know, because there are things that happen in society that if conceivably, like, if people are getting, I mean, I'll use an extreme example, if people are getting lynched, then you would think that the Christian church would come out against something like that, you know, extrajudicial killings. You think that the church will come out. And in our society right now, a lot of those times, those things, they aren't inherently left or right, but they're made left and right in order to kind of put people on both sides of the issue. It's kind of like the way it happens a lot of times. It's kind of like a bookmaker when you deal with like sports, odds and so forth. Like, why is there a line when, you know, so and so the favorite minus seven over the underdog? The reason is because the house, the who's setting the line, wants same number of bets on each side. And it seems like in our culture a lot of times the media or whoever kind of wants to make every issue have people on both sides. And we see partisanship used in that. And so he seems to identify this. So to me, having someone, a man of faith, a man who describes himself as right leaning politically, call this out and talk about how, hey, this isn't helpful from a church standpoint, this isn't helpful from the church. Filling out his mission is just very, it was very refreshing to see. I guess I would use that word as well.
[00:07:24] Speaker B: Yeah. No, and that's the thing. Like, like, because to, to stay on that point, you know, in the, in the interview he does say, and I'll quote that about other pastors that have brought into politics and politicized their church. He says, well, they have limited their ability to reach people because they alienated half the people in America by politicizing their church.
[00:07:41] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:07:42] Speaker B: So it goes to the point where he's, he, he's recognizing that the church getting involved in politics is probably not good long term for the church. And you know, and another thing, particularly.
[00:07:53] Speaker A: Politics for politics sake, you know, and so that's a really big distinction that you have to keep in mind.
[00:08:00] Speaker B: Yeah. And you know, he goes on with some of this others from the cultural standpoint, because he stays a bit with the person interviewing on this George Floyd thing. And he gets back into the, you know, when he's being accused of woke. He said, and I want to say this about this guy. He's a white man, evangelical pastor from Georgia, Alpharetta, Georgia. And I'm saying that not in a negative way, just to describe the culture from which he's from and where he lives. Because if anyone listening has ever been to Georgia, they know that one thing that's very strong culturally is the church and the faith and, you know, something like that. So it makes me even prouder of this guy to hear him talk like this. And that's what I said. Like, if he was local, I'd show up at his church just out of respect and sit in the pews just to say, you know, this guy represents to me what I feel a pastor should really bout. So what he said was going back to this quote here, quote, two or three people said, andy, in that sermon, you called me a racist. No, I just said, there's probably a little racism in all of us, including myself. We should examine our hearts. And in the cultural moments, like what happened with George Floyd, I think you should pause and say, how does it make me feel? I was thinking, wow, what a just genuine way to just look at another human being and a situation.
[00:09:17] Speaker A: But hold up, but to see the thing about that, you know who that sounds like? That sounds like the stuff that is in the Bible that Jesus said sounds like Jesus.
[00:09:25] Speaker B: That sounds like a good person that's actually being religious. Right. And going to the better angels, so to speak, of the religious faith and doctrine. And so. But that's what I'm saying is I love his genuineness because, you know, just so many people aren't willing to be that open to say that, hey, people are accusing me of calling them racist just because I'm trying to bring something up, you know.
[00:09:48] Speaker A: Well, I'll tell you this. I think the best demonstration, or at least the most illustrative illustration. Well, that's kind of a. You're saying the same thing twice. But the strongest illustration, how genuine he was is the interviewer challenged him a few times. And you said he brought up. First he brought up George Floyd, then he actually brought up Martin Luther King Jr. And saying how Martin Luther King Jr. A lot of times got pushed back from pastors and religious leaders for being too political and Pushing for civil rights and so forth. And how a lot of times at that time the church was wanted to stay back and say, look, we're not gonna get involved in this. And that being a moral issue. And that Stanley, actually his genuineness, he acknowledges that's his tricky issue.
He said, I can't even say that I would've been on the right side of that at that time.
Cause that is tricky. Knowing when to take a stand on an issue, knowing when an issue is mere politics, so to speak, or when it's an issue of morality that needs a stand is a difficult line to walk. Because again, people on either side of an issue, particularly a lot of times people will try to make something about somebody's morals or about try to speak to it more than just an intellectual or pros and cons try to discussion and they want to attach it to something that's going to resonate with people emotionally. And so a lot of times you'll see that and you'll end up in a situation where, yes, you'll have religious leaders saying, hey, I don't want to take a stand on equal rights for all people. Even though you would think from a Christianity standpoint that that would be something that they would. So acknowledging that tension and that conflict and that, that's a difficult one, particularly in our society when, as he points out, if I say something to support or to condemn racism, then all of a sudden what he experiences is that people will look at him and say, well, you must agree with the left, the woke left on everything. And he's like, well, no, I just think that it's bad to be a racist, you know, so, yeah, how we. How in our minds everything all goes together now, like, that makes this even more difficult. But I say it's a difficult balance anyway.
[00:12:02] Speaker B: Yeah. And I think, you know, just that's why it's an interesting conversation that he gets into because there's, you know, he talks about those who try and reform the church and over time and that there's always, you know, if you go away from the faith and the teaching of the scripture, then eventually things go awry. And one of the things that he goes is he says we should just stick with those specific issues without wholesale buying into a political party. And I think he's right about that. More so. Not because I care in that way. I'm just thinking like, you wouldn't want to be only on one side of a fence because then if the other side's in power, you're going to either a Feeling like, you know, your interests aren't met or B, it might be feeling and really your interests aren't met. So you would want to have, you know, the ability to court both sides of the political power in this country at all times by having, you know, tentacles in each one and not just on one side. You know what I mean?
[00:13:07] Speaker A: Well, yeah, I think corporate America does.
[00:13:09] Speaker B: Yeah, exactly.
[00:13:10] Speaker A: Well, but see, the thing with that is that, interestingly enough, if you play out church doctrine, you know, from. And I'm no religious scholar, but there are issues where they would appear to, if you go to the teachings of Jesus, where there were issues where they would appear to align more with the center right. And there are issues where it would appear that they would align more with the center left. So it would seem like they are well suited to kind of talk to one side about one thing, whether it's talking about the environment or talking about treating people a certain way or. Or lean more into another side if it's talking about an issue like abortion. And so you could see how they could walk that line. And ultimately, though, I will say that the other piece I wanted to mention before we move on is what he specifically called out is the win at all cost mentality that's dominating our politics right now. And that's something that. That's not inherent in our system. And in fact, it's probably corrosive to our political system.
[00:14:11] Speaker B: But.
[00:14:11] Speaker A: But he talks about how that's especially corrosive to the church. And he goes to say that instead of winning at all costs, he's saying that we need to lose, that the church, excuse me, needs to look at losing on purpose and with purpose. And that's a part of the church is taking. Being unpopular, taking unpopular positions, taking stands on behalf of people. So that was a pretty interesting way to look at it because that is the opposite of our politics right now and our political discussion. And in a sense, it's a kind of an ethos that, you know, you can look at it from a religious lens, but really what it is is a higher purpose lens. Like, okay, I'm looking at whatever we're doing right now not just in the purpose of whatever skirmish is happening right now, but over the big picture of what I'm trying to accomplish. So if that's being a person of faith, then you're trying to live your life a certain way and have a certain type of imprint on the world or if it's in government. It's not just, I need to win my next election, but I Need to. To. To create a system and be a part of a system of governance that delivers on the needs of people.
[00:15:19] Speaker B: Yeah, it's very interesting you say that because, you know, to lose on purpose is. That was actually very profound to see. I'm glad you brought it up because I may have forgotten to bring that as one of my. My key takeaways here, because what it showed me, even though it was almost like a throwaway line from him, one line, what it showed me is, in his mind, is an important word. It's the word humility.
[00:15:42] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:15:42] Speaker B: Again, something that I used to naively assume all religious leaders had, you know, just that. That they were genuinely humble about, you know, their faith and about the. The scriptures that they believe and that they. And that they preach.
[00:15:56] Speaker A: And so because it's such a lot, such of the teaching, that such of the teaching is about having humility and so forth.
[00:16:03] Speaker B: Yeah. And it's. And it's just, you know, it's. Again, I guess it's easier to behave. It's harder to actually follow the true scripture and doctrine than just to pretend like you do. So that's why I respect this guy for the way he's approaching this. And so it just, like, it makes me feel like, you know, so many people today are insecure, including the religious community and religious leaders. And that's why, like, when I read you that quote about how he said that, you know, he does a speech about addressing George Floyd or something like that, and then people come up to him and they say, andy, you called me a racist. And I'm thinking like, well, I know a lot of people that can listen to a discussion about George Floyd and not feel like they're racist. Like, you know, white people that. That can listen to that and say, yeah, I genuinely understand, you know, what you're telling me and all this. So that tells me that there someone that says that must be somebody that's insecure with how they look at things like that.
And so. And I feel like when he's talking about losing on purpose and all that, that's someone that's very secure and understanding, in my opinion, truly the mission of his faith, because it's not about winning at politics. And that's why, again, going back to, like you said, he said, the church's mission is not to save America, to save Americans maybe as individuals and human beings, but the church isn't here to be talking about, you know, like, getting involved with politics in that way and worrying about nation states and all that. The church is here for us as individuals, for our own morality and our clarity about life. And, yeah, I'm sure part of that will involve a greater discussion about society. But he does just a very good job, I think.
[00:17:40] Speaker A: That can't be. And he talks about that can't overtake the mission of being there for people. And when it does, that's when there's that conflict. And honestly, there's a way to look at this as almost a mirror image of what we learn about the Founding Fathers and so forth. You know, his perspective in terms of how politics can be corrosive to the Church, in a sense.
You see, from the way our Founding Fathers set up our country, that they understood that the church and that religion can be corrosive to our form of government. Do you see that or do you see this understanding as something that's built in.
It's something that we may have forgotten that our Founding Fathers knew?
[00:18:26] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:18:27] Speaker A: Simply put. Explain why.
[00:18:29] Speaker B: Can I answer it that. That succinctly and just be done.
But let me take it back to historical landmines here.
So I'll take you back. So we. We've talked about on this show where Europe was, you know, over the last millennium, you know, prior to the.
Not just the year 2000, but I would say the 20th century, you know, with wars literally between Catholics and Protestants and, you know, kind of the waning influence of the Catholic Church after its dominance post Roman Empire. So what I'm getting really far back like that to show how long and how deep this has permeated our own human society. Right. This idea of just these big religions and countries and nation states and all that. So if you think about it, but.
[00:19:20] Speaker A: And you gotta mention, by the way, just that Europe, post Reformation had been decimated by wars amongst these different sects.
[00:19:30] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:19:30] Speaker A: Like, at that time in the world, there was no quote, unquote, oh, we're just all Christians. And so we're just all gonna roll out together. Like, that wasn't how it was working in the 1700s. Like, if you were a Catholic, then people were trying to kill you. If they were a certain type of Protestant, if you were a different type of Protestant, then they would be looking at you crazy. If you were a Methodist or something like that. And so there was no. Like, oh, okay, yeah. There was no just Christian umbrella. And so under that context is when the Founding Fathers put things together.
[00:20:00] Speaker B: So I'll let you continue. Yeah, yeah, no, that was great. Because that's what gets us to the need to have. So remember, America is a beautiful Experiment. So what was the experiment of a Democratic Republic, not of Congo, but really on a serious note, the idea that, okay, we don't want to have a king, we want to have a system that can be governed from the bottom up, the people. And so one thing they did was to be very sure that we see already from the history of Europe in these recent centuries how religion can inflame such passions that get in the way of actual governing, of making the trains run on time and all that stuff. And so what they did was put a series of things in place in our Constitution that basically excluded, really, if we can say it that way, religion from government at the time. I mean, I know that that's been clawed back a bit over the last 200 years or so, but I'll read it back.
[00:20:57] Speaker A: Well, they got the government out of the business of religion.
[00:21:00] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:21:01] Speaker A: And the government is not gonna be involved in the administration of or the promotion of religion. That's in the First Amendment of the U.S. constitution.
[00:21:08] Speaker B: Yeah. And so that's what I was going to read a couple of quotes here. One was that one from the First Amendment, congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Well, that's pretty clear that they didn't want any type of religious religion put into law in this country. Then Article 6, Section 3 of the U.S. constitution says, no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. So that's why it's interesting. Remember when Keith Ellison was the first Muslim congressman back in the early 2000s, and there's a picture of Dick Cheney swearing him into Congress on. He's holding. He's got his hand on the Quran. And I remember so many people were upset at that.
I remember some people saying, well, he should have had a Bible. And I'm thinking, well, why would you want him to put his hand on a book that's not of his faith? You know what I mean? And his whole thing of like, you can't. He can't serve in the Congress because he's Muslim. No. Well, they took care of that in the Constitution.
[00:22:03] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:22:03] Speaker B: So. And we joke sometimes that so many people are originalists with constitutional stuff they like, but then they seem to omit these kind of things.
And so it's just interesting. Then you've got.
There was a treaty between the United States and Tripoli while George Washington was president. And he's quote, he wrote in the treaty, the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.
[00:22:26] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:22:26] Speaker B: Again, that's another one. So, yeah, I'll throw it back. But yeah, there's, there's more.
[00:22:32] Speaker A: It wasn't a secret at the time, you know, like, it wasn't something that. It's something like you said, people like to omit from the discussion now. But. And I think for them to address this so clearly and so often, you have to surmise that they understood the reasoning for this. Like all the war, the war is being fought over religion. That was in their lifetime that they saw that stuff. And so for them, keeping religion out of government is something that they felt to be very important because they thought that it wasn't going to allow there to be an effective government or there'll be too many petty squabbles about this or, you know, wars about that and so forth if they didn't keep religion out of government. And so it's like, I call it a mirror image because it really does appear like if you look at it from a open and free and open society, if you look at it from that standpoint, it looks like that religion is bad for government and government is bad for religion, you know, and so both of these things and you know, like, it's one of those things, religion is set up in a way, at least the religions that we kind of deal with, the larger religions in the world these days, it's not inherent to religion, but religion is set up in many ways. I guess with you're looking at Christianity, looking at Islam is. It is set up in a way of kind of, okay, we need to prevail. Like, I can't say, okay, well, today I'll worship Jesus and tomorrow I'll worship Allah. You know, like, it doesn't work like that. It's a, it's a straight line. I can't compromise on issues around that. You see what I'm saying? And so if that's gonna be the case, then you can't have a government where people are coming from different perspectives, have different minds, because it eliminates the possibility of compromise. It's either my way or no way, so to speak. So I think that they recognize that. I think it's clear that they recognize that. And so it's interesting to see someone from the religious side now talking about how the way politics is happening right now, he's seeing it prevent or stand in the way of him and his church and other churches being able to effectively do the things that churches need to do. So like I said, it goes both ways. Now, apparently we knew, or at least Americans are supposed to know and buy into that religion makes government worse or makes governing and functioning government. And in our type of government, in a democratic republic and makes it not work well, but also to see from the other side, the inside. Hey, doing too much government doesn't seem to make the religion work well as well.
[00:25:06] Speaker B: Yeah, it's a great point you make because, you know, it's funny. I'm gonna have some fun here.
You know how many countries there are in the world right now?
[00:25:16] Speaker A: How many countries are in the world right now? No, I have no idea.
[00:25:19] Speaker B: Okay, 195.
[00:25:21] Speaker A: A couple hundred. There's. I'm close.
[00:25:22] Speaker B: So you're close. You're off by five, but I'll give you a win. You know how many of those are actual theology?
[00:25:30] Speaker A: Well, you already told me this part, so I can't. I can't answer this part, so go ahead.
[00:25:34] Speaker B: Well, you can answer now.
[00:25:35] Speaker A: Oh, what was it?
[00:25:36] Speaker B: Six, Seven? You didn't even get it right.
[00:25:38] Speaker A: Come on.
[00:25:39] Speaker B: Okay, so. But you're close again. I'll leave you alone. So let me name them for you.
[00:25:44] Speaker A: Because I was only half listening.
[00:25:46] Speaker B: Okay, See audience when we talk. Anyway, I'll save you guys from me and his BS internally, but. No, but.
So I'll name them for you because it's only seven. Iran, Vatican City, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Sudan, and Mauritania.
Guess what I realized when I read that list. I don't know anyone who's dying to go visit or even to go live in them countries.
[00:26:14] Speaker A: To be fair, people go visit the Vatican all the time.
[00:26:17] Speaker B: No, I know. I'm not trying to go live there. I know, but it's just. The point I'm making is that we tend to a lot of those countries, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Sudan specifically, seem to be countries that Americans have had some sort of anxiety about at some point in the last 20, 30 years. And seems like Americans have not wanted to mirror that type of lifestyle that those people in those countries live like the religious police telling women they got to dress a certain way or whatever. My point is, is that as much as so many Americans believe that they want to have this be a nation that's controlled by some kind of religious doctrine. It seems that we don't actually appreciate other nations that do this. We don't seem to look at them and say, we like the way that looks over there. And it's just interesting to me, every time when I look at Americans, I say, oh, well, this is a Christian nation. And all this. I think, and I want to be very clear, I recognize we are from culturally, definitely on. Founded on the whole Judeo Christian culture, because, yeah, the majority of Americans are Christian and there's nothing wrong with that. But I think to say it with a little bit of confidence, let's say the founding Fathers understood and believed that Christianity could thrive in a system of politics that did separate the religion from the state. And they believed because they were Christians and they believe in Christianity. So in their mind, they were. That's what I mean by their.
[00:27:45] Speaker A: I mean, you could go to the extent of. They thought that in order for Christianity to thrive, they had to keep it out of their.
[00:27:50] Speaker B: Well, maybe like this pastor saying. Mr. Andy Stanley. And my point is that. But that goes back to that point about security.
They felt secure in their own religious belief, that they didn't have to say, well, we got to stamp this all over the thing. They were not insecure, like, if we don't make this the law, somehow somebody's going to usurp it or something like that. They believe they actually had something good to give, you know, offer everyone else that maybe wasn't Christian and just, hey, if we believe in this is such a good thing that, you know what, on its own merit, it'll stand. We don't need to make this part of the law. And so it's funny because by purposefully, you know, isolating both from like, each other, their goal was that one would not dilute the other. And I think if we fast forward this, going back from the Founding Fathers to this conversation today, it seems like that's what Pastor Stanley, you know, Mr. Andy Stanley is recognizing here.
[00:28:40] Speaker A: Yes. He's saying, particularly from the religion standpoint, he's saying religion is getting. Getting diluted by the politics.
[00:28:46] Speaker B: Yeah. And so, and so it's just, it's fascinating. And that's why, I mean, I was going to go.
[00:28:52] Speaker A: It is. No, I mean, I pulled those quotes, man. He was merely. This is a pastor saying this about the church, that he's. That they're merely political tools, a manipulated voting demographic. Like, he's saying this not to attack them, but to say, hey, we're getting screwed over here. You know, like, it's fascinating to see. Like I said, it's not something, I think that no one has been able to have this insight before, but to see a pastor, a prominent pastor, have this insight, it's a lot of times easier to see kind of the faults or the things that are going wrong from the outside. But what's happening here which makes this kind of notable is that this is somebody Noticing this kind of fault from the inside, which is much harder to do. And also, he's more in a position to be able to affect it than all the people who may have noticed this from the outside.
[00:29:43] Speaker B: Yeah, no, and it's interesting. That's why. I mean, I'll save the audience from hearing my quotes. But James Madison, for example, objected to chaplains opening the proceedings of Congress with a prayer. I mean, that's how back then. And James Madison was Christian. He just said, look, this isn't the place for this. We're coming here to govern and do that business.
We'll go to church to pray, or I'll do it on my personal time. And then for the audience. I won't read it here, but you can Google Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Church. It's beautiful. And it's actually where he puts in writing that there is a separation between church and state. Because I used to hear people saying, well, that's nowhere in writing in the Constitution. It's not in the Constitution, but Thomas Jefferson did put it in writing that.
[00:30:28] Speaker A: There is a separation is in the Constitution. But that sentiment, it's the first time.
[00:30:33] Speaker B: I've seen it that he actually did write that down. That is his quote. So you can't deny that the Founding Fathers felt this way. That's really my point of saying it.
[00:30:42] Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. So I do want to move on. And there's no kind of easy transition here. I mean, other than it where it's. Andy Stanley, on one hand, is warning the church about getting too involved in religion, in government, and how that can be corrosive. But in this one is we're getting warnings from people who monitor these things, whether it be NASA or, you know, water conservationists or the people. You know, again, people monitor these things about the looming deadpool that may be coming to Lake Mead, which is. I mean, that seems pretty crazy. And I'll explain what the deadpool is, is where Lake Mead, which has been receding, and we've heard about the dead bodies and stuff that have been turning up. And when a deadpool hits is when the water level drops so low that the Hoover Dam no longer can produce hydropower or deliver water downstream. So it's like it's. It's useless. This. This huge Hoover Dam that we did that's been doing, you know, produce or providing water and hydropower for so long, it just becomes useless to the extent. So how concerned are you? And now we don't live out west, but, I mean, we care how concerned Are you about this lack of water out west and the warnings as far as telling people to not use or to take less or shorter showers? And it seems like they're ringing some pretty serious bells here. No, Yeah.
[00:32:05] Speaker B: I mean, look, am I concerned, of course, when you hear this potential, that 25 million people that rely on that lake for drinking water may not get it.
[00:32:14] Speaker A: And farm water.
[00:32:15] Speaker B: Yeah, and farm water. And that. That, you know, like, you're saying that the. The lake would be so low that it could no longer, like, cause to go through the Hoover Dam, like, you know what I mean? Like, meaning it wouldn't allow the turbines to create electricity in the dam, which.
[00:32:31] Speaker A: For dam provides a lot of electricity.
[00:32:33] Speaker B: For a lot of people, for like 40 million people. That's what I mean. So, yeah, this is a bit. That's what I mean. Like, it seems that there's very serious things that are right around the corner. Right. And we talked about this, like, when we talked about the invasion of Ukraine. I mean, it's being talked about now that it's a few months into it, but no one at the beginning was talking about the food, you know, the fact that they're the breadbasket of the world and that this is just gonna cause, like, you know, not to be on that topic, but that was my point of saying, man, we should just invade Russia. Like, they're about to do something that's gonna disrupt 8 billion people. They're gonna disrupt the world on purpose. And this is just antisocial, is disruptive. Now, clearly the environment is a lot more complex of how to deal with it than just looking at someone invading another country and saying, we should stop that. So clearly it's a long time coming, I guess, this drought.
I know that there's people that still want to question things like climate change and all that. I'm not here to have that discussion. What I do think, though, is that this is. This is a reality. This lake is clearly in a drought. Who cares about the cause at this point? Right? Like, that's all I'm saying. I'm not here to argue with anyone that doesn't want to believe in climate change and all that. I'm just saying.
[00:33:43] Speaker A: That's what I was saying last week. It's time for those people who are just out of the conversation. We need to talk seriously.
[00:33:47] Speaker B: But if you just look at the lake, the pictures of it, I mean, there's. There's. You see docks where they have boats at one of the blades, and, like, the boats are so, like, 10ft below the dock, you know, it's like, ridiculous. It's just stuff that, you know is not normal. And what you said again about the.
What do you call it, the farming, you know, 75% of the water from Lake Mead goes to agriculture. Over one third of America's vegetables and two thirds of its fruits and nuts are grown in California. Those, like. What I'm saying is this, to me, is the danger. It's kind of like what this gentleman, the pastor. In the first part, we pointed out that when the religion gets too focused on the political bs, it hurts the religion. And this is a different way. Like, we as a society got so. Are so caught up on cultural wars and this kind of political BS that we are not seeing this massive cannonball that's headed right in our face, which is this.
[00:34:47] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:34:47] Speaker B: You know, and right now, because instead of arguing about CRT and about, you know, wokeism and all this crap that everyone's arguing about, this is a problem of us having a dysfunctional government in Washington right now. They need to be coming together to figure out how to solve this. That's my point. Not to figure out.
[00:35:04] Speaker A: Advance. That's the thing.
[00:35:05] Speaker B: That's what I'm saying.
[00:35:06] Speaker A: Like we should be. They're just gonna. They're content to wait, sit on their hands and talk about other stuff until it happens. And then the big problem is when it happens, they're just gonna. It's all gonna be about who.
[00:35:16] Speaker B: How we can be on blaming somebody else. Yeah. No, but I was. Cause I was reading something like some engineering article about this stuff, and they were saying what we could do is actually build pipelines. Just like we have the Keystone pipeline. We have pipelines that go for thousands of miles for oil.
You could build a pipeline from the Pacific Ocean, literally just pumping water out of the ocean back to these lakes. And you know what? Who freaking cares if it's salt or fresh water at this point? We just need water flowing through the dam so the turbines can have the electricity part. Yeah. And you know what? There's desalination plants, all that. They can get the salt out of there for the agriculture. Agriculture stuff. But you know what if we need to build that kind of pipeline that could not only go that far from the Pacific Ocean or the Gulf of Mexico to Arizona and certain parts inland, but to also be able to have, you know, traffic millions of gallons of water every day, we probably need to start building that now, wouldn't you think?
And I would think that as much as we have discussed things like illegal immigration, as Much as I am a fan of not having just wide open borders, and I recognize the need of a sovereign nation to have boundaries and not let just people in wantonly.
I think this is a much bigger issue than trying to build a wall on the southern border to stop some migrants from coming in. I mean, of course it is. This is like they might not want to come in if we don't have water, electricity, but I don't want to have them stop coming in for that reason.
[00:36:41] Speaker A: No, of course, like, you're talking about 25 million people's water.
[00:36:45] Speaker B: We might be going to South America if this happens.
[00:36:48] Speaker A: 40 million people's electricity, like, this is actually my biggest concern. I think that not enough is made of this.
But the reason I think not a lot is made of this is because there's no will to solve the problem right now. And I don't know what it'll take for there to be will to solve the problem. But the bigger concern I have actually isn't the action, isn't the event, the event where, you know, this, what's actually happening. Okay, we're gonna, we're gonna run out of water in certain parts of the country. We're gonna not be able to produce enough electricity, certain part of the country, and then we're gonna run out of food because the, the agriculture is not gonna be able to keep up. It's two things. One, the reaction to that when that happens because it's gonna be such a race to blame other people. And this is the type of thing that can start wars. You know, like when you see water out of water, no electricity, you know, this is like dystopian, you know, like no food.
So there's that. And then also the way our. We're selecting our leadership right now is, has. Is completely divorced from their ability to identify and solve problems, at least in many cases. I won't say in all cases because there seem to be plenty of competent people there, but they don't seem to be the norm, nor the most prominent ones. The people who are the most prominent, the people who get the most attention, are not skilled in problem solving and not skilled in analysis. They're skilled at drawing eyeballs, excuse me, eyeballs to their self. And they're skilled at making people feel a certain way culturally and angry about the other side or whatever, shifting blame and so forth. And if you don't have any water, the ability to shift blame is not going to get you any water, but it will get you to pick up a gun and go after Somebody else. And so to me, we're like walking into an abyss right now because there are. So if we sat down and tried to figure out solutions right now, we probably could figure out solutions and it wouldn't be that difficult. But each step along the road, as we get closer to the end of the rope, so to speak, or the end of the line, the end of the plank, there's going to be less solutions available to us. And like I said, the people who we charge in coming up with these and implementing these solutions are, appear to be less capable, are incapable, at least in large part or, and I won't even say in large part, in significant part, that we're going to be, so to speak, up the creek without a paddle.
[00:39:11] Speaker B: Yeah. And I think what we learned from this last couple years of the, you know, the pandemic, the supply chain issues, all that, is that, you know, any of these ideas, if they're going to be implemented, need some sort of Runway of time and infrastructure and all that stuff. Like, think about it, we're talking about solutions, right? Like I'm thinking, okay, there's a lot that has to be discussed in here, right? Because part of some of the biggest drivers of pollution. And that's why I'm not going to say climate change, because climate change, you know, again, some, it's, it's, it's vague and murky and some people, I don't get it, and all that, everyone can understand when they see a plastic bottle floating in a canal, right? This pollution is pollution and, and smog in the air and all that stuff.
[00:39:56] Speaker A: Pesticides in your wells.
[00:39:58] Speaker B: Yeah, exactly. And like we did the show on microplastics. I mean, clearly pollution is an issue that is serious. And what I'm getting at is, so if you wanted to attack some of that stuff, you could say, okay, well, we're wasting a lot of fresh drinking water actually on feeding livestock. So there's 2 billion chickens at any given time in the United States and maybe a billion cattle. It takes a lot to clean them, feed them, all that. And it takes 100 pounds of soy and corn to produce 31 pounds of beef. So think about all the soy and corn farmland that we have right now and all the water that's going to plant all this soy and corn just to feed the cows that also need space. Right. They need to have trees cut down, which kills the, you know, hurts the ability to absorb more carbon because you need clear land for the cattle and then the cattle needs water.
So instead of just maybe, let's reduce our meat intake and feed more people the soy and corn that you're already making. So, and then we had the show where we talked about the potential, and this might be gross for some people, right, of using insect protein to supplement from, from meat protein in the future where you could have maybe a granola bar that, you know, has a chocolate coating of with insect protein in it or something like that, and all these ideas. But what they require is time because the infrastructure would have to then adjust to these new solutions. And that's not going to happen. Like you're saying, when no one's trying to actually look at solving these problems, they're just looking at pointing your fingers.
[00:41:33] Speaker A: Well, what's ended up happening, and I guess to not leave with a complete dire picture is the institutions that do work, at least in terms of addressing issues now, whether they address it in the most efficient way or from a holistic way that makes sense from a societal standpoint, is corporations, you know, like, so when there is demand, corporations respond and they figure out ways to meet that demand because that's the financial reward. They get the financial reward for that. I mean, that's the point of a market system. And so something will be done, so to speak, when there's money to be made on it being done. Or I mean, even the government plays a role in this a lot of times by by creating that monetary reward, you know, and saying, hey, you know, government will, will buy this or the government will pay for this or whatever. You know, one of the things that's not talked about that you mentioned all the time as far as Tesla, you know, is how them getting started being a big part of being government money, you know, they, they, but until they could start making money hand over fist or, you know, whatever it was and become super valuable, they were relying on government money, foresight from the government and the Obama administration to really get that going. But right now the problem is coming. Ideally we don't wait until the problem is at a, at a fever pitch, so to speak, because then it's harder, more expensive and everything to solve it. But it will be something that gets addressed eventually. Like we, we did a show while ago, but talking about the, the, the technology that's coming out now, the way they can pull water out of the air. And that was mentioned actually in this piece that we did, we read.
[00:43:09] Speaker B: Yes.
[00:43:10] Speaker A: Where, you know, they're, they're, they're put these hydro panels or whatever where you set it up. It can be in a desert and you set it up and it pulls water out of the air, water vapor out of the air, condenses it and it's enough for like drinking water, but not enough for, for crops and so forth. So. And then the earth is big, you know, so you'd be able to go other places if you need to. As far as farming now, your constraints may be, you know, different is from a climate standpoint. So it's not like this is going to be the end of human beings, so to speak, but what it will do is put more pressure on every aspect of society. And again, the concern being that if our government is not able to respond to that at all, if our government is a fine tuned machine to just. Or government officials are fine tuned machines to just keep our attention, keep us distracted or keep us doing things that'll give them micro donations. Hey, I'll keep giving them $10 because he made me. They told me that the other side is going to do something that makes me mad, you know. And so if that's all we're doing with politics right now, or at least a good chunk of what we're doing with politics right now, it's difficult to see how the government comes up with any solutions or the government can even help facilitate any solutions. And we'll just be reliant on corporations to do all of it. Which again, there's a social cost to that. And there is, there's a situation you get into where the corporations become stronger than, more powerful than the government and something that we all then are beholden to and not a government that can keep them in line.
[00:44:33] Speaker B: Yeah. It's interesting because you remember when we did the show on the book Confessions of an Economic Hitman and he, he came up with the term the corporatocracy.
[00:44:42] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:44:42] Speaker B: For almost like the corporations are so big now, they're almost like their own country.
[00:44:46] Speaker A: Well, he said that that was what they did in the third world countries because they're.
[00:44:49] Speaker B: No, but the point is, but let.
[00:44:51] Speaker A: Me, let me say this to you because, because that was a while ago we did that like the governments were so weak in these third world countries that when the corporation would show up and be able to deliver on certain basic things but extract a high profit by doing that, then the corporation just ran the show. It told the government what to do. So go ahead.
[00:45:08] Speaker B: Yeah, no, but I was gonna say that those things I used to read, they used to come from more of a, almost like a sinister kind of feeling, like, oh, these big bad companies going in here. And you know, I'm like Laughing because you're right. I'm thinking like, yeah. And at the end of the day, it might be the corporations that save us from ourselves, but they will.
[00:45:30] Speaker A: But you remember what happens after that, though.
[00:45:32] Speaker B: It's ironic, actually.
[00:45:33] Speaker A: Well, but that's. That they come up with the solution, but what ends up happening after that is because they're beholden to the shareholders and not to stakeholders, which we would be stakeholders.
[00:45:42] Speaker B: Yeah, voters.
[00:45:43] Speaker A: They're beholden to shareholders that they have. The corporation then has to continually extract more and more and more and more. And so corporations aren't entities of humility, so to speak. So they'll keep taking more and more and more. And then ultimately, I mean, this is why corporations always go too far, so to speak. You know, like, because the way they're structured, the way they have to deliver for their shareholders promotes that. But, yeah, ultimately they'll have.
[00:46:08] Speaker B: Only when they have shareholders like you that really pressure them. Of course, I'm pretty relaxed with my companies I own to chill out. You know, I'm okay with only 70% of last year's profit. You know, we don't need all.
[00:46:19] Speaker A: I'm sure, I'm sure that's, that's, that's.
[00:46:21] Speaker B: That'S why the stock market, bro.
[00:46:22] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, that's why that's got to.
[00:46:24] Speaker B: Let them, Let them breathe a bit. Let them. Let them keep a little bit for themselves. Come on.
[00:46:27] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, of course, of course. I'm sure we, we always want to do that. We want to pay people more than they're worth. Right. You know, just out of the goodness of our hearts as corporations.
So. But no, I think we can wrap from there. I mean, it's not to be doom and gloom because again, there are off ramps, so to speak, on the path that are accessible at any point, you know, and that can deliver. I'm sure when the Great Depression hits and that was a crisis, they didn't avert that before it happened. It went down and down and down. But ultimately you're able to pull yourself out of it. And ideally, you learn some lessons that.
[00:46:59] Speaker B: Some other people try to hire Smedley Butler in that same time. And that's a whole nother story. So you're always on the edge of who's going to get the upper hand here. How bad could it get?
[00:47:07] Speaker A: Well, yeah, it could go the other way, too. I mean, a lot of times when things like this happen, then it is, you know, the autocrat that takes off.
[00:47:14] Speaker B: That's a reference for the audience. Look up Smedley Butler. Yeah.
[00:47:18] Speaker A: So I'm sure our audience, many of them know sm, know the story of Smith.
[00:47:22] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:47:22] Speaker A: But if you don't. Yeah, check it out. So but I think we can wrap from there, man. We appreciate everybody for joining us on this episode of Call Like I see It. Subscribe to the podcast, rate it, review us, tell us what you think, share with your friends. And until next time, I'm James Keys.
[00:47:34] Speaker B: I'm tuned. Lineup.
[00:47:36] Speaker A: All right, we'll talk to you next time.
It.
