Morals Should Trump Political Party

You Are Not Conservative Or Liberal, You Are Either Religious Or Irreligious

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – “Let me propose something to you.  I have reached the end of my collected rope with the ubiquitous assignment of political distinctions that are meaningless, that are properly viewed commercial assignments.  They have nothing to do with philosophical points of view, with the stockpile of virtues or lack of a stockpile of virtues.  In other words, they’re useless.”  Check out today’s transcript for the rest….

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  Let me propose something to you.  I have reached the end of my collected rope with the ubiquitous assignment of political distinctions that are meaningless, that are properly viewed commercial assignments.  They have nothing to do with philosophical points of view, with the stockpile of virtues or lack of a stockpile of virtues.  In other words, they’re useless.  They are no more useful than the term sugar-free and fat-free, although I argue that sugar-free and fat-free at least are truth in advertising.  If I buy a drink that is free of sugar and has aspartame in it or whatever the case may be, it probably says on the label what is in place of the sugar.  It should be sugar-free.  At least I’m getting something that’s sugar-free.  If I buy something that’s fat-free, it is probably devoid of most fat.  I can make a choice on that.  I can rely on that.

Ladies and gentlemen, you cannot and must not rely on the label conservative or liberal.  It’s a sham.  It’s an absolute bona fide scandal is what it is.  It’s deceitful.  I used to ask the question on this show: So you call yourself a conservative.  Can you tell me what it is that you’re trying to conserve?  To which you have a commentator or loudmouth politician, they hear this question and blah, blah, blah, uh, well, ah, oh . . . I don’t like liberals.  Great.  Shall I buy you a popsicle now?  That’s a great answer.

What do these labels mean?  What does the label conservative mean?  You know what it means, it means you’ve either published a book, host a radio show, or host a television show, or are a guest on either of the three.  That’s what it means.  It doesn’t denote anything that is overtly conservative, yet people use it all the time.  [mocking] “He’s a conservative.”  Okay, what’s he trying to conserve?  She’s a liberal.  Why is she liberal?  What do you mean when you say liberal?  [mocking] “Well, liberal.  You know it when you see it.  We hate liberals.”  Okay, why?  What does that mean?  What are they liberal on?

I’m not even going to try to define the term conservative because I’m fed up with using it.  Please, don’t ever call me conservative.  Call me a lot of things.  If you must, call me a [r]epublican.  I choose to be known by another distinction, which I will now propose to you.  All politicians and all of us fall into two categories of people.  We are either religious or we are irreligious.  It’s pretty simple.  We can define most if not all people by those two distinctions: religious, irreligious.  [mocking] “Mike, is there devoutly religious?”  No.  If you are religious, then you are devout, end of story.  There’s nothing in the middle.  Like I say, either you’re pro-life or you’re not.  Don’t tell me you’re pro-life and you’re for rape and incest and bombing people in the third world back into the stone ages and indiscriminately killing civilians.  You’re not pro-life.  Don’t ever tell anyone that.  Guess what?  When you get to the narrow gate, they’re going to inform you that you weren’t pro-life and go to hell.  It’s as simple as that.

You are either religious or irreligious.  This was pretty commonplace back in the day.  People that were irreligious were probably called heretics, regardless.  There’s no political party in the 16^th century.  In the Enlightenment, of course, we had to have Whigs.  Let’s create the Whig Party.  You were either religious or you were irreligious, very simple.  Just like all governments are one of two, you’re either a religious government based in the subsidiarity of God or a god, or you’re irreligious and you recognize no authority higher than yourself.  Communism is irreligious.  The U.S. Constitution is irreligious.  Whether you like it or not, it is.  Deal with it.  People then, by and large, nay, totally are either religious or irreligious.

Now, you may say: I don’t like that distinction.  I’m going to stick with conservative and liberal and you can go you-know-what yourself.  Fine.  You’ve denied the challenge and you’ve denied the use of the brain matter that God blessed you with at birth, and that nagging thing in the back of your mind all the time that it always telling you to do or not do things, your heart and your soul.

Let’s just talk for a moment.  Why would a distinction that is simple, religious and irreligious, be useful?  It would be very useful because if you were religious, you would acknowledge that there is one creator of all life.  You would acknowledge that He brings life into this world and that He takes life out of this world; therefore, we wouldn’t have any arguments over whether or not we were going to murder babies, no arguments, none.  We wouldn’t have any arguments over most of the things that we agonize over.  This is not a Catholic sermon.  You can apply this to Judaism, to Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Western Orthodoxy.

If you are religious, you acknowledge there is a higher authority.  We have a very good idea, as a matter of fact, not a very good idea, a concrete idea, an absolutely presented idea of what He thinks is religious.  It doesn’t matter what you think or I think.  We’re in sales, ladies and gentlemen.  We’re not in management; He is in management.  We can drop all this silliness and stop wasting our time, stop squandering our children’s future, and choose.  We’re either going to be a religious people with religious leaders or we’re going to be an irreligious people with irreligious leaders.  It’s simple.  [mocking] “No, there’s a lot in between.”  No, no, no, there isn’t.  That’s you talking.  He gives us one choice.  The choice is very clear.  You’re either with me or you’re against me.  Look it up.  It’s in the Gospel.  You’re either with me or you’re against me.  It’s pretty simple stuff.

So stop insulting my intelligence and your intelligence by assigning these ridiculous labels to people.  [mocking] “Such and such is a conservative commentator and he said…” I don’t care whether he’s a conservative or liberal.  Why are you telling me?  You’re supposed to be the news person.  All you’re supposed to do is tell me that John Smith said “Blah, blah, blah.”  Why do you think, in the last two years I am so explicit about “Blah, blah, blah”?  Because I want you to know what the person actually said.  I don’t want you to think that I said it.  I want you to know that someone else said it.  That way, you will know from whence is the source and then you can make a determination on whether or not you approve or disapprove, like or don’t like, animated about, excited about, depressed about, or whatever the case may be.

Let’s stop this charade, shall we?  Especially when we’re talking about issues of life and death, which we are all seriously embroiled in these days.  You may not realize it but you are.  I am under no delusion that what I just presented to you is going to be rejected by most of you.  I anxiously await you cursing me, sending me baskets full of hate mail, righteous indignation to get back to bashing Obama, how dare me exist on a channel called Patriot Channel and say such a thing.  I welcome all of it.  Send it all.  As I’ve said before, and I’ll say it again, I am more than happy to take as many blows as is needed for Him in order to try and right the horrific wrongs that surround me and you.

Folks, we make life far too complicated.  You know what’s complicated about life?  It’s not politics.  It’s not all these issues that we agonize over.  You know what’s complicated about life?  What’s complicated about life is doing the right and virtuous thing when you are presented with the opportunity to do the opposite.  It’s about performing acts of virtue when you are presented with the opportunity to perform acts of anathema.  Or, to be a little more succinct, it’s about choosing to sin and choosing to not sin.  Since we refuse to acknowledge that there even is such a thing as sin, Heaven forefend we should acknowledge mortal sin.  We’re going nowhere quick.  You will be agonizing and dissatisfied and miserable with the current state of political affairs 40 years from today as you are today.  You will wonder — that will be a figurative statement — My Lord, what did I do with the years?

People are either religious or irreligious.  For those of you that are sending me the hate mail and the hate tweets and everything else you’re getting ready to send me, let me just say something to the irreligious.  If we were — and I believe the religious are always working towards — we’re all irreligious.  Our nature is to be religious if we surrender ourselves to our lord but we don’t.  So we’re all irreligious.  We work at being religious.  To my brothers and sisters out there that don’t think — [mocking] “Well, does that mean you don’t — does that mean you’re not gonna — so I’m not included?”  No, no, no, I am of you.  I am with you.  I am irreligious working toward religious, working towards acknowledging a higher authority in all that I do, everything.  It doesn’t matter what it is, sharpening a pencil.  My duty then to all the irreligious is to love you, not condemn you.  Brother, I am with you.  I am as irreligious as you are.  We may disagree on how to get to religious, but I am of you.  I am irreligious.  I am a sinner.  I am a lowly, glutinous worm.  Only by an act of grace or an attempted act of grace can I pursue and become religious.

Lose the labels.  They’re meaningless.  All they’ve done is cause the citizens of these United States to spend trillions of dollars on elections that have produced heartache and misery, 53 million dead children murdered in their mothers’ wombs, Supreme Courts out there that figure they can act as though they are a religious authority and order us about, never-ending wars, never-ending debt, never-ending usury, corruption in every institution known to man, the evisceration if not outright elimination of every institution that stood the test of time specifically because it was not corrupt.  We’ve made a horrible mess of things.  We’re not going to fix it with the stupid labels.  An 80 IQ needs a label; you don’t.  You’re smarter than that.  You’re way, far more intelligent and smarter than that.

End Mike Church Show Transcript