Hello and thank you so much for downloading this episode of the Speak Life Podcast. My name is Thomas Thurgood, media producer at Speak Life. And in this episode, Glenn is reacting to the argument that broke out between Trump and Zelensky, also with J.D. Vance in the Oval Office of the White House on Friday. This shocking moment which was televised. What does it show us about deals and Trump's approach? What does it show us about diplomacy? But also what does it show us about our current moments? Is it post-Christian? Is it post-Post Christian? Glenn will be getting into all that. Here is a preview for what's coming up, and then Glenn will be getting straight into the episode.
SPEAKER_05You don't have the cards right now. With us, you start having playing cards. Right now you don't play cards. You're gambling with World War III. You don't have the cards. You don't have the cards. Without us, you don't have any cards. But you're either gonna make a deal or we're out. But you don't have the cards.
SPEAKER_14Have you said thank you once? This entire meeting?
SPEAKER_06No, in this entire meeting, have you said thank you?
SPEAKER_12Have you said thank you? He said thank you quite a bit, actually.
SPEAKER_06Thanks so much, Mr. President. Thank you. So thank you very much.
SPEAKER_12Now, if you're American, I'm not telling you how to vote, but I am saying have your eyes wide open to who Trump is. He is a post-post-Christian who really is kind of pre-Christian in the way that he operates in this world. What is it that says that we ought to live in a world of covenant and treaty and promise and truth and justice and compassion for victims? Like, what is it that tells us that that is the way that the world ought to operate?
SPEAKER_05This is gonna be great television, I will say that.
SPEAKER_12Trump versus Zelensky, what can be said now that hasn't been said a thousand times already? Well, I am a Christian preacher, I'm not a political pundit, and whatever I say that speaks to geopolitics, you might want to take that with huge fistfuls of salt. But I hope to show you how Christianity is at the heart of how we are all viewing this incident. Our expectations for virtuous behavior, whether it's by Trump or by Zelensky or by Putin or by Europe, those expectations have been shaped by Christianity in some quite profound ways. I want to get into the Trump versus Zelensky meeting in which J.D. Vance inserted himself. I want to get into that. I want to talk about how psychologically dominance was at play and how geopolitically dominance was at play. And those who have problems with either president are having problems for some peculiarly Christian reasons. So geopolitically, Christianity is at play. But on the American national level, I think Christianity is at play in how we assess Donald Trump. And I want to show you how Donald Trump is not Christian, he's not even post-Christian, he is a reaction to certain strands of hypocritical post-Christianity. But in his post-post-Christianity, he resembles pre-Christianity pretty starkly. Let's take a whistle stop tour through this White House meeting that happened on Friday.
SPEAKER_05Well, thank you very much. It's an honor to have President Zelensky of Ukraine. And we've been working very hard, very close. So we've actually known each other for a long time. We've been uh dealing with each other for a long time and very well.
SPEAKER_12Trump had, of course, multiple times in the previous week called Zelensky a dictator and blamed him for the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The United States, one week before this meeting, had voted with the dictators and against the democracies and had refused to call the Russian invasion of Ukraine an illegal war. That is the backdrop to this meeting. And at this point, Trump supporters are gonna say, ah, but that's just the art of the deal, okay? Donald Trump is a negotiator. He makes deals. He makes deals all day. That's what he does. He'll say that a number of times within the White House meeting. He was just positioning himself with those statements and showing strength. And so the argument goes, you've just got to accept that from Donald Trump. You've just got to accept that he will call an ally a dictator who provoked the illegal war against him. You've just got to accept that. Because he is a CEO, he's a negotiator, he's the guy from The Apprentice. Okay? Cutthroat negotiations are what America voted for, apparently, and therefore all of this is justified. Well, let's see how it unfolds.
SPEAKER_05We had little negotiation, Spat, but that worked out great. I think for for both countries, I think for the world, actually, beyond both countries. And we have something that is a very fair deal. And we look forward to getting in and digging, digging, digging and working and getting some of the rare earth. But it means we're going to be inside, and it's uh it's a big commitment from the United States, and we appreciate working with you very much.
SPEAKER_12So the proposal is that the US invests in Ukraine in terms of its minerals, and that because the financial interests of the US would then align with Ukrainian interests, that will deter foreigners like Putin from invading them because then you're invading American interests, and they must know that America will get involved. And, you know, geopolitics is all about interests, and it's all about aligning interests. And so of course Trump is going to suggest the financial interests as being those that align with one another. Okay, fine. I don't hear Zelensky pushing back against the minerals deal. In fact, I don't hear him pushing in the next 50 minutes for any of the things you might expect the Ukrainian president to push for, um, going back to the borders pre-2014 or joining NATO or any of those things. He doesn't push back against the minerals deal. He doesn't insist that Ukraine join NATO. He doesn't insist that Russia withdraw from Crimea, etc. He's not insisting on anything except one thing. What's the one thing Zelensky wants? Well, let's hear it.
SPEAKER_06Thank you so much, Mr. President. Thank you for the invitation. And um really I hope that this um document, first document, will be a first step to real security guarantees for Ukraine, our people, our children. I really count on it.
SPEAKER_12Security guarantees. That's the that's the one thing that Zelensky keeps on coming back to security guarantees, security guarantees. And you can understand that because in 1994, Ukraine signed away its nuclear weapons in exchange for assurances of security. That is, that the UK and the US in particular will defend their security interests. To use the language that Trump will use later, Ukraine had some pretty serious cards up their sleeve. They gave up their cards in exchange for security assurances from the UK and the US and others. It's called the Budapest Memorandum, and they traded the cards that they had for security assurances. Now the Budapest Memorandum was just that. It was not a treaty, it was a memorandum, and you can understand why Zelensky wants more than a memo if he's going to sign a peace deal. Especially because in 2019, when there was a ceasefire, it was signed in Paris in December of 2019, and clearly three years later, Putin breaks all of that and invades anyway. As Zelensky will say 25 times since 2014, Putin has made assurances that he is reneged on. So okay, Zelensky goes into this meeting and he he only really asks for one thing, security assurances. He doesn't reject the minerals deal, he doesn't insist on NATO involvement, he doesn't insist on 2014 borders, he just wants these security assurances. And I think what he would really like as the president of Ukraine and somebody who is representing their national interests is for the United States to say that this is not simply a negotiation between two equal parties, but that Putin has waged an illegal war against them, and that the United States can be counted on as a geopolitical ally. So Zelensky wants all these things, and he is a leader of a sovereign nation and he has, you know, desires for things, just as Trump has desires for things. They are bringing their interests to the table, and for Zelensky, above all else, it is the security guarantees that he wants from the United States. He keeps on talking about security guarantees.
SPEAKER_06Security guarantees for Ukraine, security guarantees, security. About security guarantees. It will not work without security guarantees. Security guarantees, security, when we speak about security guarantees.
SPEAKER_12But when Trump is asked about such assurances, he's incredibly cagey.
SPEAKER_05I think they're gonna have great luck. I think once we make the agreement, that's gonna be 95% of it. It's they're not gonna go back to fighting. Uh I've spoken with President Putin, and uh I think I mean I feel very strong, I've known him for a long time, and I feel very strongly that uh they're very serious about it. And we'll make a deal. And when the deal is made, I don't think we talk about security. Everyone's talking about the other day, all they talked about was security. I said, let me make the deal first. I have to make the deal first. I don't worry about security right now. I gotta have to we have to have a deal.
SPEAKER_12So Zelensky is being asked to sign this deal without any assurances. So it seems to me, and again, take this with punches of salt, but it seems to me that Zelensky is not wanting World War III, but he is wanting a peace deal that has some teeth to it, so that Putin won't renege on it in a matter of months or won't decide, oh well, that was easy with Ukraine, I'll take on Poland, I'll take on Belarus. And these are the kind of dominoes that Zelensky is saying might fall if there's a toothless peace deal that is signed here. I think that's the backdrop to the last ten minutes. And let's have a look at this last 10 minutes, which Trump declared to be great television. This is what you get when you get two TV stars in the Oval Office, you're gonna get great television, you're gonna get great ratings. Um you might not get great diplomacy, though. It all kicks off, if you ask me, when this question about Poland is asked of Donald Trump, and Donald Trump refuses to distance himself from Vladimir Putin and instead does a both sides kind of a thing.
SPEAKER_04And now I'm talking with my friends in Poland, and they are worried that you align yourself too much with Putin. What's your message for them?
SPEAKER_05Well, if I didn't align myself with both of them, you'd never have a deal. You want me to say uh really terrible things about Putin and then say, hi Vladimir, how are we doing on the deal? That doesn't work that way.
SPEAKER_12You said pretty terrible things about Zelensky um within a week of this meeting.
SPEAKER_05I'm not aligned with Putin. I'm not aligned with anybody. I'm aligned with the United States of America and for the good of the world. I'm aligned with the world.
SPEAKER_12Well, that's consistent with the US not voting at the UN to uh condemn the invasion of Ukraine. But if there's neutrality in the playground and you don't align yourself with anybody, uh what then happens on the playground is that the bully runs the show, right? Always. Always. Complete neutrality in the playground when the bully runs the show is de facto to side with the bully. Now, maybe this is just great negotiating from Donald Trump. Maybe behind closed doors he talks really tough to Putin, maybe. But diplomacy and cutthroat negotiations and renegotiations are are not the same thing. Diplomacy involves a heck of a lot of negotiations, but it also involves uh being true to commitments and assurances and guarantees and treaties and those sorts of things. And everyone insisted that Ukraine give up its nukes in 1994 and therefore give up its cards, give up its bargaining chips, um on the back of some assurances. And those assurances are worthless if they are not honored. And therefore alliances are important, and therefore the United States is not unaligned and totally neutral and can simply pick a side depending on who's got all the cards at the moment. That's the difference between cutthroat negotiations and actual diplomacy, and I think this is what is triggering Zelensky. Let's see.
SPEAKER_05And I want to get this thing over with. You see the hatred he's got for Putin, it's very tough for me to make a deal with that kind of hate. He's got tremendous hatred, and I understand that, but I can tell you the other side isn't exactly in love with you know him either. Uh so it's not a question of alignment. I have to I'm aligned with the world. Look at the thing. I'm aligned with Europe. I want to see if we can get this thing done. You want me to be tough? I could be tougher than any human being you've ever seen. I'd be so tough. But you're never gonna get a deal that way. So that's the way it goes. All right, one more question.
SPEAKER_03Well, that I I will respond to this. So look.
SPEAKER_12That's the trigger, if you ask me. Vance comes in, and this is this is um pretty poor form from from J.D. Vance uh chipping in from the side. J.D. Vance is on record saying he doesn't care if Ukraine gets eaten up by Russia. There's no love loss between Zelensky and Vance. But even before Vance's interjection, I I think Zelensky was triggered. And and sure, as a diplomat, he should uh keep his temper um better than he did. Um but you can see what the provocation was. And let's see what J.D. Vance's interjection is.
SPEAKER_03I I would respond to this. So look, for four years in the United States of America, we had a president who stood up at press conferences and talked tough about Vladimir Putin, and then Putin invaded Ukraine and destroyed a significant chunk of the country. The path to peace and the path to prosperity is maybe engaging in diplomacy. We tried the pathway of Joe Biden of thumping our chest and pretending that the President of the United States' words mattered more than the President of the United States' actions. What makes America a good country is America engaging in diplomacy. That's what President Trump is doing.
SPEAKER_12Well, it's hard to do international diplomacy when actually, according to Vance and Trump, um, they don't really care about Putin versus Zelensky. What they care about is Trump versus Biden. This is an internal spat. This is about Trump wanting to beat his own chest and say, I ended the war in a day, something that Joe Biden never was able to do. Now, Zelensky is not aligned to the Trump administration. Zelensky is grateful to the United States and its historic help wherever it has helped in the previous eleven years. And at this point, I think even Ukraine's most ardent supporters uh just wishes Zelensky did not say anything at this moment, just allowed the cameras to capture what is going on in the room. Nevertheless, Zelensky says this.
SPEAKER_06Can I ask you? Sure. Yeah? Yeah. Okay. So he occupied it our parts of the United States. He's talking about parts of Ukraine, part of East and Crimea. Uh so he occupied it on 2014. So during a lot of years, so I'm not speaking about just Biden, but those times was Obama, then President Obama, then President Trump, then President Biden, now the President Trump, and God bless, now President Trump will stop him. But during 2014, nobody stopped him. He just occupied and took. He killed people. You know what the contact? 2015. 2014. 2014. So he was not here. Yeah, but yes, but uh during 2014.
SPEAKER_12It's a fascinating moment. Is is is this about a relationship between Ukraine and the United States of America, or is this MAGA justifying itself against everybody else domestically? Is Donald Trump able to take himself out of this and just think about Ukraine and United States and Russia, or is it all about him and his administration?
SPEAKER_06Till 2022, you're the same, was the situation the same. The people are been dying on the contact line. Nobody stopped him. You know that we had conversations with him, a lot of conversations, my bilateral conversation, and we signed with him, me, like a new president. In 2019, I signed with him the deal. I signed with him Macron and Merkel. We signed ceasefire. Ceasefire, all of them told me that he will never go. We signed him with gas contract. Yes, but after that, he broken this ceasefire.
SPEAKER_12Just as Trump is proposing a minerals deal, there was a gas contract back in 2019. They were trying to align financial interests as well, but nevertheless, Putin a couple of years later rolls the tanks into Ukraine.
SPEAKER_06He broken this ceasefire. He killed our people and he didn't exchange prisoners. We signed the exchange of prisoners, but he didn't do it. What kind of diplomacy, JD, you are speaking about?
SPEAKER_03What what do you what do you what do you mean? I'm talking about the kind of diplomacy that's going to end the destruction of your country. Yes, but he if you're not a good thing. Mr. President, Mr. President, with respect, I think it's disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office and try to litigate this in front of the American media.
SPEAKER_12J.D. Vance is very aware that he is in front of the world's media. This is an unprecedented interjection from a vice president in this situation. He's also aware that he sat next to Donald Trump on his right. He's also got Marco Rubio on his left, who might be the heir apparent to Donald Trump in 2028. But there they are, two front runners for the next president of the United States. And here comes J.D. Vance making his own play and turning up the temperature. And again, domestic politics is being foregrounded and perhaps to the detriment of international diplomacy. We'll see.
SPEAKER_03Right now, you guys are going around and forcing conscripts to the front lines because you have manpower problems. You should be thanking the president for trying to bring an end to this conflict. I've actually watched and seen the stories, and I know what happens is you bring people, you bring them on a propaganda tour, Mr. President. Are do you disagree that you've had problems bringing people into your military? And do you think that it's respectful to come to the Oval Office of the United States of America and attack the administration that is trying to prevent the destruction of your country?
SPEAKER_12Attack the administration.
SPEAKER_06A lot of questions. Let's start from the beginning. Sure. First of all, during the war, everybody has problems. Even you, but you have nice ocean and don't feel now. But you will feel it in the future. God bless. You don't know that. God bless.
SPEAKER_05You'll not have it war. Don't tell us what we're going to feel.
SPEAKER_12Trump speaks, and now we've got three big personalities in front of the world's media in the Oval Office. Why did Trump join in at this point? Well, Zelensky is kind of saying, well, if there's a toothless deal that just stops the fighting for a matter of months now, this will embolden Putin to invade other countries like Poland, where you have even more interests, and other countries like Belarus. Dominoes will fall, you will feel the influence of this, and Trump is like, don't tell us what we're going to feel.
SPEAKER_05We're trying to solve a problem. Don't tell us what we're going to feel. I'm not telling you. Because you're in no position to dictate that. Remember this. You're in no position to dictate what we're going to feel. We're going to feel very good. We're going to feel very good and very strong.
SPEAKER_12Very good, very strong.
SPEAKER_05You're right now not in a very good position. You've allowed yourself to be in a very bad position.
SPEAKER_12You've allowed yourself to be in a very bad position. Well, in 1994, they took the nukes away from Ukraine on the basis that there would be security guarantees. In 2022, a dictator called Vladimir Putin rolls the tanks into Ukraine, and a million combatants have died since that point. They've allowed themselves to get into a very weak position. What kind of diplomacy is this? I suggest to you that this is not international diplomacy. This is out of the deal cutthroat negotiations, where all that matters is the cards that you have in your hand, and it doesn't matter if Vladimir Putin has stolen the aces that are up his sleeve. That doesn't matter. He has those aces up his sleeve, and Donald Trump will honor the fact that Putin has aces up his sleeve. And he will not acknowledge that the aces that were up Ukraine's sleeve have been taken from them. Deals were not honored, an illegal war of invasion has happened to his country. He has allowed himself to get into this position, apparently.
SPEAKER_05And he happens to be right about it.
SPEAKER_06From the very beginning of the war. You're not in a good position.
SPEAKER_05You don't have the cards right now. With us, you start having cards.
SPEAKER_12I'm not playing cards, and that's it. And that that is exactly the issue that I want to highlight in this video. Donald Trump is playing cutthroat negotiations. He's doing out of the deal as a CEO. Zelensky's trying to do international diplomacy, in which it matters where you got those cards from. It matters whether those cards were legitimately acquired or not. I'm not playing cards. Donald Trump absolutely is playing cards. In a minute, I want to think about the implications for that, but let's keep rolling.
SPEAKER_05Now you're not gambling with the lives of millions of people. You're gambling with World War III. You're gambling with World War III.
SPEAKER_12Look, I want the war to stop and I don't want World War III. Zelensky says he wants the war to stop and he doesn't want World War III. Does President Trump use that tone? Is he that tough with Putin? Because Putin could end the war tomorrow, right? Putin could stop the war in a day. He absolutely could. What's what's Trump like with him? And look, maybe this tough talk is needed from Trump, and and maybe this peace deal just needs to be signed, and maybe it'll be a toothless peace deal, and maybe it will only last for a matter of months, but maybe that's exactly what needs to happen right now. I don't know. I don't know. Maybe this is perfect negotiation and the world has just been waiting for somebody to just tell it like it is and to shut down the whole Zelensky operation, to shut down Ukraine and let Putin have what he wants and at least we'll have peace then. Okay, but even if you take that view, is there any part of you that thinks that Trump is wronging Zelensky, that Trump is misusing the power that he has, uh that he is not being virtuous with the hand that he has been dealt, that even though he has four aces, um the way in which he plays those four aces still matter? And the way in which he serves those who have not been dealt such a kind hand that that matters. Is there any part of you that thinks that this is at least distasteful? Is there any part of you that thinks um assurances and guarantees and promises and justice and truth and standing up for the victim? Is there any part of you that acknowledges that those virtues are better than pure deal making? Maybe you think Trump is a necessary wrecking ball that gets the job done, and once he has cleared the field of everything that needs clearing the field, of other virtuous people will come along and and and rebuild. But do you think that international law and treaties and agreements and protecting victims and calling out the evil of illegal wars of invasion, do you do you think those things are principles worth hanging on to in 2025? Or do you think it's all about bargaining chips, it's all about cards, it's all about gambling. It's all about ratings in front of these TV cameras. Even if you think Trump will get done a useful thing in the world here, you don't think that ultimately it's about cards and bargaining chips and power, do you? I'm not talking about whether you voted for Donald Trump or whether you would do it again. I'm talking about whether life is ultimately cutthroat negotiation. Or if there's something deeper and more profound. I'm not saying Vladimir Zelensky is a saint. I'm not saying he is the virtuous one. Let's see how this finishes up.
SPEAKER_05And what you're doing is very disr disrespectful to the country, this country. I'm not sure. That's back to you. Far more than a lot of people said they should have.
SPEAKER_14Have you said thank you once this entire meeting?
SPEAKER_12Is it disrespectful because he's not wearing a suit? He hasn't worn a suit since 2022. He's been in military fatigue since 2022 because he is at war. This is the same Zelensky that said to the US in 2022, I don't need a ride out of the Ukraine, I just need more ammo in the Ukraine. This is him in war mode, and this is this is what he wears everywhere. You don't have to take this as disrespectful.
SPEAKER_14Have you said thank you once this entire meeting? No, in this entire meeting, have you said thank you?
SPEAKER_12Have you said thank you? He said thank you quite a bit, actually.
SPEAKER_06Thank you so much, Mr. President. Thank you for the invitation. So thank you very much.
SPEAKER_12And then it goes back to domestic politics. Whose side was Zelensky on in the last election?
SPEAKER_03You went to Pennsylvania and campaigned for the opposition in October. Offer some words of appreciation for the United States of America and the president who's trying to save your country.
SPEAKER_06Please, you think that if you will speak very loudly about the war, you can.
SPEAKER_05He's not speaking loudly. He's not speaking loudly. Your country is in big trouble.
SPEAKER_12Who's speaking louder?
SPEAKER_05You've done a lot of talking. Your country is in big trouble. I know. You're not winning. You're not winning this. I you have a damn good chance of coming out okay because of us. Mr.
SPEAKER_06President, we are staying in our country, staying strong from the very beginning of the war. We've been alone, and we are thankful. I said that.
SPEAKER_12He shouldn't have said that.
SPEAKER_06What's gonna happen now?
SPEAKER_12We've been alone.
SPEAKER_05In this cabinet, in this cabinet. We gave you a stupid president $350 billion. We gave you military equipment. You men are brave, but they had to use our military equipment. If you didn't have our military equipment, if you didn't have our military equipment, this war would have been over in two weeks. In three days, I heard it from Putin.
SPEAKER_12Interestingly, Zelensky said you invited me in to speak. So he he clearly thought that this was a chance for both of them to say their peace. Um instead, you've got two people coming and ganging up on him.
SPEAKER_06Maybe less in two weeks. Of course, yes.
SPEAKER_05It's going to be a very hard thing to do business like this.
SPEAKER_06Just say thank you.
SPEAKER_03I accept that. Except that there are disagreements, and let's go litigate those disagreements rather than trying to fight it out in the American media when you're wrong.
SPEAKER_12When you're wrong. Okay, well, why why don't you save when you're wrong for when you're behind closed doors as well. I mean, at at this point, um, yeah, Zelensky speaks out of turn here and and loses his temper. Um I think the magnanimous thing for Trump to do is to put a hand on Zelensky's shoulder and just says, We'll talk about this after. We'll talk about this behind closed doors. Okay? That's what the magnanimous thing. So I I think psychologically speaking, interpersonally speaking, we recognize, don't we, that power is to be used to serve, not to dominate. Okay? And interpersonally, the bigger man, the magnanimous man, would be the one who says, Okay, I I I see you've gotten riled up. Um you said things I disagree with, but we'll talk about this later, right? That that would be interpersonally and psychologically the magnanimous thing to do. What do you do with power? Serve. And then geopolitically, what do you do with power? Do you use that power to serve, or do you see where the power is and align yourself evermore only with power, no matter how legitimate that power might be. But this whole conversation ends in a mess.
SPEAKER_03We know that you're wrong.
SPEAKER_05But you see, I think it's good for the American people to see what's going on. I think it's very important. That's why it kept this going so long. You have to be thankful. You don't have the cards. You're buried there, you people that died, you're running low on soldiers. Listen, please. You're running low on soldiers. It would be a damn good thing. And then you can then you tell us, I don't want to cease fire. I don't want to cease fire.
SPEAKER_12He's now doing a voice. The president of the United States is doing a voice, and and Zelensky has not said, I don't want to cease fire. What he has said is, can we please have some security guarantees? Can we please have some security guarantees? He does a voice, he does a voice in the Oval Office to a wartime president of a country that's meant to be your ally? He does a voice?
SPEAKER_05Then you tell us, I don't want to cease fire, I don't want to cease fire, I want to go, and I want to this. Look, if you could get a ceasefire right now, I tell you you take it so the bullets stop flying and you meant stop getting killed.
SPEAKER_06Of course, we want to stop the war, but you're saying you don't want to ceasefire to you.
SPEAKER_05I want to ceasefire with guarantees because you get a ceasefire with guarantees fire faster than a degree.
SPEAKER_06Ask how people about ceasefire. What do they think?
SPEAKER_12He's representing people, don't forget he's representing the interests of a nation.
SPEAKER_05That wasn't with me. That wasn't with me. That was with a guy named Biden who was not a smart person. That was with Obama.
SPEAKER_06It was your president.
SPEAKER_05Excuse me. That was with Obama who gave you sheets, and I gave you javelins. Yes. I gave you the javelins to take out all those tanks. Obama gave you sheets. In fact, the statement is Obama gave sheets and Trump gave javelins. You gotta be more thankful.
SPEAKER_12Seoul has killed his thousands, but David his tens of thousands.
SPEAKER_05Man. You gotta be more thankful. Because let me tell you, you don't have the cards. With us, you have the cards. But without us, you don't have any cards.
SPEAKER_12And here's how the whole thing ends.
SPEAKER_05The problem is, I've empowered you to be a tough guy. And I don't think you'd be a tough guy without the United States. And your people are very brave. But you're either gonna make a deal or we're out. And if we're out, you'll fight it out. I don't think it's gonna be pretty, but you'll fight it out. But you don't have the cards. But once we sign that deal, you're in a much better position. But you're not acting at all thankful. And that's not a nice thing. I'll be honest. That's not a nice thing. All right. Uh I think we've seen enough. What do you think? Huh? This is this is gonna be great television, I will say.
SPEAKER_00We'll see what we can do about this.
SPEAKER_12This is gonna be great television. Um car crash television. Well, they're both reality TV stars, and uh goodness me, they have delivered on ratings. Let's finish with a couple of points. Point number one um Trump is not Christian. Trump is not even post-Christian. Trump is a reaction to post-Christian hypocrisy. Post-Christianity takes some of the values and virtues of Christianity and detaches them from their origins and detaches them from one another so that you get compassion and you get equality and you get freedom, kind of as these free-floating ideals, not grounded in the gospel story. But now, in the words of GK Chesterton, the virtues are running amok in the world, and there has been a lot of virtue signaling that is post-Christian in style, and a lot of America have voted against that, and some have called that kind of progressive liberationism wokeism. And then what is Trump? Trump is a reaction to the wokeism. He is anti-woke, right? But to be anti-woke does not restore you to the original Christian vision. Trump is not Christian, he's not post-Christian, he's kind of post-post-Christian. But in order to get rid of all virtue signaling, he's kind of getting rid of all virtue as well. And what we are returning to in his post-post-Christianity is kind of a pre-Christianity, in which all you've got is nature read in tooth and claw, all you've got are deals. Deals moment by moment, cutthroat negotiations and renegotiations, and it doesn't matter how you got your cards. Whether you acquire them legitimately or not, if Putin's got some cards, we need to respect him. And what matters is not virtue but power. Now, if you're American, I'm not telling you how to vote, but I am saying have your eyes wide open to who Trump is. Now you might think that he is better than the alternatives, or you might think that he will get done more good than bad. But please have your eyes open to who he is. He is a post post-Christian who really is kind of pre-Christian in the way that he operates in this world, and that brings me to the second point that I want to make. If you're not a Christian, what's wrong with Trump's mode of operation? If there is nothing above the natural, if there is nothing above the survival of the fittest, then what Trump is doing is the only kind of ethical game in town. He is honoring our creator. If our creator is just natural selection, then honoring the strong and eliminating the weak must be the moral position, mustn't it? Unless what what is it above nature that tells you that what Trump is doing is grubby or suboptimal or you know, immoral or amoral? Like what what is it that says that we ought to live in a world of covenant and treaty and promise and truth and justice and compassion for victims? Like, what is it that tells us that that is the way that the world ought to operate? This week, two atheists who I've interacted with in the past have expressed their great horror at what Trump has done. Matt Delahunty got onto a live stream and said this.
SPEAKER_07The rest of the world points at and says, that was vile and disgusting and vicious. And this puts the United States in with BRIC and fascists and authoritarian regimes and puts the United States in direct opposition to NATO and Europe and all of our traditional alliances. When the rest of the world is pointing and saying that, then the people who who you know just went along with Trump because they hate the woke, they have to then say, ooh, was this a bad idea?
SPEAKER_12But when I debated and we tried to talk about what are these atheist foundations for a morality that would yield anything like the sort of humanism that we expect. And Matt Delhante says this.
SPEAKER_08I think human lives have incredible value. I don't think they have any intrinsic value. I don't think the universe cares at all about human life. They have value because they have value to us.
SPEAKER_11And who's us? Humans. All humans?
SPEAKER_08Well, cognitive able humans who are able to consider the proposition of whether or not they have value. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_12Which is the strong. And and and that's that's my problem, is that it it becomes an ever-shrinking circle of humanity that we have, and it's the strong who rule over the weak. And then we pressed him on if you take away God, what's going to assure people that a society will be built with the interests of the weak in mind? And what he had to say was was pretty alarming. And if well-being is is the metric that we're using. And if Hitler could say, Oh, we are so much better off without the disabled, you have no idea. You know, we're we're soaring our industry, our numbers are through the roof, our well-being is is yeah, is doing incredibly well once we eliminate the sick, the weak, the handicapped. Um is he right at that point?
SPEAKER_08Well, that's when you go through and you talk about what data are you looking at to define well-being?
SPEAKER_12Because what data?
SPEAKER_08Yeah.
SPEAKER_12You gotta look at the data in terms of building your society. And the data is very much like a Trumpian world in which you gotta play the right cards, right? And Justin Briley makes this interjection um as we're having this conversation, which I thought was like incredibly clarifying. Is this financial?
SPEAKER_13Even if they just you know sat around and consumed all the resources that all the able-bodied people were doing.
SPEAKER_08If somebody sat around and did nothing but consume, I I don't know how you could consider that in as adding value to you. You have to point to something where they're adding value to society.
SPEAKER_12Is that the achieve, they have to add value. So But they don't have value.
SPEAKER_08Yeah. So w this is what I'm saying when I say that there's no intrinsic value to it.
SPEAKER_12Aaron Powell, according to Matt Dillahunty, people are not valuable in themselves except what they bring to the table. What they bring to the table, what do they bring to the table? Cards, right? And if you've got a hand that is valuable, then you are valuable. But if you haven't been dealt the right cards, then you yourself are not valuable. Trump seems to be behaving perfectly legitimately in Matt Dillahunty's world. Perfectly legitimately. Similarly, with James Croft, um he's a humanist, a humanist chaplain at University of Sussex, we're going to debate actually in May. And I'm very much looking forward to that. Um we're Facebook friends. I've always enjoyed uh interacting with James online, and I agree with his take on this Oval Office meeting. He said on the first of March, it's extremely scary that we live in a world where national leaders must pay fealty to a pathological narcissist in order to secure the welfare of their people. Starmer, by bowing and scraping, seems to have won him over. Zelensky, by speaking the truth, sent him into meltdown. I would not like to have to make the choice between principled truth-telling and pragmatic obeisance that our leaders must is a sign of the disease of our time. I agree, but on atheism, I don't think Trump's done anything wrong at all. And uh here on Elliot Buick's podcast, uh, he's just released uh a video with James Croft in which Elliot asks him about the atheist foundations for humanism. Are there any? And I really think that James struggles to make the humanist case because of his atheism. I think he'd actually be able to be a humanist if he was a Christian. He'd be able to be mad at Trump if he was a Christian. But notice, I don't think that these atheist foundations give him the right to have the moral intuitions that he's exercising.
SPEAKER_09What I want to circle back to that's kind of been left unanswered is how you are getting your moral aught from Izzy. It doesn't feel like you've bridged that gap with your humanism, and that is the thing that these Christian values bridge. You can get an ought, you can get objective morality. So where are you getting your idea of inherent human rights from if we're just descended from apes?
SPEAKER_10I really hate you for asking this question, Eliot, because it is the most difficult philosophical question for humanists to answer. The first thing I would say is that it's actually difficult for everyone. There isn't actually an agreed-upon way for Christians, for instance, within their theology to get an ought from an is. And all the Christian attempts to answer this question are very, very controversial.
SPEAKER_12For the Christian, there is a realm of ought, God is love, from which all is have proceeded. The God who is love created the world. We have gone from ought to is, and there has always been ought. It's not a problem for the Christian. The the created order is thrumming with ought. It really is. Let's jump to something that James says about a minute later.
SPEAKER_10We have to, in order to live our lives, navigate with each other about how we're going to get through. Like we have to engage in conversation, we have to consider how our actions affect other people, if only for self-interested reasons, right? Because other people are going to affect us. So ethics is sort of intrinsic to the human project. It's already there as part of what being human is. And the sorts of reasoning that you would do is you would say, well, some of our experiences we prefer, some of them we don't prefer. But that's certainly an intrinsic part of my experience. Like I don't have any control over the things that I prefer and that I don't prefer, but I do know that sometimes I go, oh yeah, I want more of that. And sometimes I go, Oh, I don't want any more of that. Our experience is intrinsically valenced. And it would be completely impossible for me to live. I mean, I think it's just inconceivable to say that I wouldn't prefer to have more of the things that I want and less of the things I don't want. I mean, that's just definitional, isn't it?
SPEAKER_12Aaron Ross Powell Yes, but James is very clear that ethics is very different from aesthetics, and saying that murder is wrong is different from saying I prefer jazz music to rock music. He even says that right at the beginning of this interview.
SPEAKER_10Aaron Ross Powell I do think that things like morality have a certain type of objectivity in the sense that they're not just pure matters of opinion. Saying that it's wrong to harm someone is not the same as saying I dislike peanut butter, right? There's something different about that.
SPEAKER_12Aaron Powell Ethical pronouncements are not like aesthetic judgments. It's not like saying I don't like peanut butter. And James is not just saying in his Facebook post I prefer more statesman-like behavior to Trumpian behavior. He's saying that the Trumpian behavior was wrong, right? And he seems to have a category for wrong with a capital W. Where does that come from? What is right with a capital R, and how do we ground that? So at the very least, it's rational to pursue my own welfare.
SPEAKER_10Right? I think we can say that. But what if that comes at the cost of other human beings? Yeah, so that's where it gets more complicated, right? So now I start look at other people. I look at you. And all the evidence suggests, at least so far, we haven't known each other very long, but the evidence suggests that you also have an interior life like me. You act in many ways like I do. You have speech and you have similar body shape, okay, not that similar, all right. I need to get to gym, I know it. But we we have so many similarities that I am projecting onto you a similar ex interior experience to mine, right? So I'm assuming, and you seem to have confirmed it in our conversation, that you also have experiences that you prefer and that you don't prefer. Now the question is am I entitled to completely ignore that? If that's just a fact that I have valenced experiences and you have valenced experiences, could I just say, well, I don't care about yours and I'll do whatever I want to do, regardless of how it impacts you? Well, of course I could say that, but that would open the door for you to completely consistently say the same to me. So you could say, okay, well, if you're gonna try and make me feel bad, I'm gonna try and make you feel bad. So I have at least an interest in maintaining some sort of reciprocity. Because if I deny you moral concern, you can deny it to me. Now, some people worry that that's self-interested, right?
SPEAKER_12That then morality just becomes self-interest. That is a concern. The greater concern is that everything becomes transactional, everything becomes cutthroat negotiations, everything becomes out of the deal. That's the real problem, and that's why you can't have a problem with Trump. And that's why I'm afraid that James doesn't legitimately have a problem with Trump. Because Trump treats you like you have interests and he has interests, you have cards, he has cards, right? And he's gonna deal with you transactionally. And that's all that James's ethics gets you to. Transactional deals, okay? It only gets you to Trumpian ethics. Doesn't get you to the kind of humanism that James prizes. But it isn't really self-interest the way that we've laid it out.
SPEAKER_10It's integrally enmeshed with our relationship. It's actually relational. It's about saying if I'm going to be well, I have to care for your welfare.
SPEAKER_12You don't have to care for my welfare. You just have to factor it into your decisions as as you're a negotiator, right? That that's that's what it means. It just means you have to be a better negotiator, a tougher negotiator. It just means you have to be a more savvy negotiator. Doesn't mean you have to be relational.
SPEAKER_10So that is a sort of relational concept right from the beginning. And I think that once you've got that, you you're up and running with ethics.
SPEAKER_12You're up and running with a Trumpian project, if that's what you want, but that's not what you want. And James's ethics is better than his meta-ethics, okay? He finds it wrong when Donald Trump exercises the kind of ethics that he is advocating for here. Do Christians have anything better to say? Well, the claim is not that Christians are ethically better than anybody else, and Christian history will bear that out. Christians can be as awful as anyone else in the world. But what about meta-ethics? What about the metaphysics that grounds that ethics? Well, we've got a kingdom in which power is used to serve. Jesus Christ came down into this world as the Son of the Father, filled with the Holy Spirit. He had all the power in the world and he used it in order to serve. The Son of Man did not come to be ministered unto, but to minister and to give his life as a ransom for many, as Mark 10, verse 45 says in the Old King James Version. That's where we get the idea of ministers from. Our political leaders are meant to be ministers. They're meant to be Christ-like and to use power in the service of those without it. Jesus, of course, was put to death by realpolitik. He was put to death by state power on that cross. And it looked so foolish to meet the powers of this world with compassion and love for the victim. In fact, it looked dead and buried. And yet on the third day, that way, with a capital W, Jesus Christ rose up again. And he has been doing the real politics over the last two thousand years. Politics is taken from the Greek word polis, it just means city. He has been building that city of God. And yes, there's a city of man, and there's all sorts of provisionality about the city of man, and the sword has been given even to Christian rulers, and Christian rulers need to be realists as well. But he has been building the city of God. And that city of God uses power in the service of those without it. That is a city, that is a politics that is based on covenant and promise and justice and a truth that sits above tribe and a compassion for those who do not have such power. You won't find that in the city of man. And you won't even find that with the greatest Christian ruler who has to deal with the vicissitudes of this fallen age. But you will find it in Jesus. You will find a realm of covenant, you will find a realm of promise, you will find a realm of justice, of truth above tribe, and of compassion for the outsider. Jesus Christ grounds these things. Atheism definitely doesn't. And Matt Delahunty and James Croft, your instincts are much better than your metaphysics. So get a better metaphysics. You know, come to Jesus, come to Jesus. That's my answer to everything I know. Oh, what do you expect? I told you this would be a preacher's reaction. I'm not a political pundit. I might have gotten all sorts of things wrong there. You can tell me what I got wrong in the comments. But um this should surely be worth a like by now. Uh if you've if you've kept with this video by now, and a share around the place, and do subscribe to us so we can catch you on the next one. Thanks so much. Bye bye.